Feb 10, 2023·edited Feb 10, 2023Liked by Richard Hanania
Richard - I think you would enjoy reading Lee Kuan Yew. Excerpt from "The Man and His Ideas":
---
I did the exact opposite
Having arrived reluctantly at the conclusion that the gap in performance between races would not be eliminated simply by providing the less well off with a head start through better educational and life opportunities, Lee did what would have been unthinkable to most politicians elsewhere - he went public, airing his observations and concerns before the whole country
Not for him the race-blind approach, which sought to gloss over ethnic differences, whether out of political expedience or ethnic guilt. For Lee, that was an exercise in self-deception, or worse, raising false expectations. Nor would he brook programmes such as affirmative action schemes which he saw as misguided attempts to hobble the more adept in society so that others might catch up. This,
he felt, would only hold the whole society back.
"I did the exact opposite. Once I discovered that special tuition, special food and all this did not produce the necessary result, I looked up the prewar records and I found the same weaknesses in mathematics and so on. So I decided: first, inform the leaders and the elders and inform the teachers, then publish it. So please, let there be no misunderstanding. This has nothing to do with discrimination or lack of support or whatever. It's a profound problem.
"The reasons why I did this are simple ones. This way, we are going to get results. The other way, we are going to confuse people and you're going to get wrong results. Now, I suppose maybe it's too touchy a problem to say this openly, but to pretend that we are all egual and therefore I am not in it because you have discriminated against my caste, so I need a quota - it's going to lead to very unhappy consequences ...
"I do not believe that the American system of solving the problem stands any chance. First, they deny that there is a difference between the blacks and the whites. Once you deny that, then you're caught in a bind. All right, if we are egual, then why am I now worse off? You have fixed me. The system has fixed me. So they say, right, let's go for affirmative action. Lower marks to go to university, and you must have a guota for number of salespersons or announcers on radio or TV. And so you get caught in a thousand and one different ways. And you say, since the army is now 30, 40 per cent blacks, you must have so many generals, so many colonels, and so on.
"I don't know how they have got into this bind, but I think that is not realistic. You don't have to offend people because they are not as good as you. I mean I'm not as smart as an Israeli or many Chinese for that matter. But that doesn't mean that I'm not to be treated as equal in my rights as a
human being.
"The only way we can all really be physiologically equal in brain power and everything else is to have a melange. All go into a melting pot and you stir it. In other words, force mixed marriages, which is what the people in Zanzibar tried. The blacks wanted to marry all the Arab girls so that the next generation, their children, will be half-Arab. But I don't think that's a practical way nor will it solve the problem. And you can't do that worldwide, you can - maybe you can do that in Zanzibar. In the process,
you diminish Zanzibar. Because whereas before you had some outstanding people who can do things for Zanzibar, now you have brought them down to a lower level.
"So my attitude now would be a very practical one of saying that we are equal human beings. Whether you can run 100 yards in 20 minutes, 20 seconds or 10 seconds, you've got a right to be here. But that doesn't mean that because you run at 20 seconds, I must run at 20 seconds. Then
The race based positions are just figureheads though.
And I have no problem with hate speech laws as long as they’re applied unilaterally. The issue in the west is that the elite despises the majority population. So it essentially means that whites and Christians are fair game while everyone else is off limits.
The article says the exact opposite of what you're trying to claim though - some insane leftists are trying to stir shit up but the govt is shutting them down!
"Vocal activist Sangeetha Thanapal has been given a stern warning by the police over a Facebook post that they say promotes feelings of ill will and hostility between the races.
Ms Thanapal, originally from Singapore, now lives in Melbourne where she works as a researcher. The police confirmed to the Straits Times (ST) that they investigated her earlier this month when she returned to Singapore on 2 Jan. She was investigated for her remarks made on a Facebook post in which she claimed Chinese Singaporean were racists towards other races.
In consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, police issued her a stern warning on Jan 16, “for an offence of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race” under Section 298A of the Penal Code."
Interestingly, ethnic Indians in Singapore have higher income now than ethnic Chinese. A big part of LKY’s immigration strategy was keeping demographic balance largely stable. But it was more so that they could continuously rely on high skill immigration. The fear was that if you rock the boat, then populists come into power and totally restrict immigration which would be a death knell to a country like Singapore which is small and has low TFR. The left-wing opposition is actually far more anti-immigration than PAP since they’re more populist.
Why more countries don’t just study high-TFR developed countries like Israel is an interesting question(I know I bring it up a lot but Israel has a high TFR, conservative youth etc. so I think it’s a good role model) In this case Israel’s high TFR is partly due to religiosity. How to make that happen in an East Asian country like Singapore I don’t know (though RoK has a high Christian population, maybe in their case that could be used to an advantage)
At some point you have to consider the possibility that the people who disagree with you are simply physically unable to perceive reality and or uninterested in it, as opposed to say being aspiring Bayesians aiming at the truth. Once you start modeling people as the former, many of their bizarre epistemic shortcomings seem to make a whole lot more sense.
I'm fine with people having "epistemic shortcomings". I'm tired of elites wrapping their preferences and biases in esoteric language and pretending it's everyone else fumbling around in the dark.
Indeed, yet there's value in argument that, although the possibility explains many things on population level, treating any _specific_ individual in front of you as not being interested in truth without very strong additional evidence _for that individual specifically_ is taboo because it precludes (or, at least, greatly complicates) your updating.
Humans are, in general, all too trigger-happy to press the "they're just not worth listening to further" button in their brain (guilty as charged).
However, with regards to many specific beliefs... when groups of explicitly aspiring Bayesians come to different conclusions, then, by Aumann's theorem, you should be worried even if you can't detect a flaw in your argument.
Lol. I saw your tweet earlier about Rufo (where he mentioned David French) and was temporarily thrown off by the the content of this essay.
What's funny is you could STILL blame minorities committing more crimes, being arrested more, etc. on the "legacy of slavery" but it doesn't change the fact that depolicing has a really negative effect on minority communities. But you can't "listen to the people" on this issue because they aren't rational. Some twitter guy said it best: "People in minority communities want more policing, just not for their nephew who is really a good kid."
If a lion is trying to eat me, I don’t really care whether the lion is exercising free will or if it is just playing out a deterministic process. Similarly, don’t care if a person murders because of structural racism or because he thinks Allah wants me dead of because he’s a sadist. Being shot sucks regardless of which world historical narrative it’s part of.
Well said. In fact, an environmentally and/or genetically deterministic worldview (which I think is correct and anything else is ineffable) should make the execution and general punishment of criminals easier since it means they can't change their behavior, just like a man-eater can't change once it has taken its first human life. Yet egalitarians also believe in social engineering, so they think they can rehabilitate everyone (while in actuality rehabilitation doesn't work) by creating the perfect policy or even prevent anyone from becoming a criminal in the first place, creating a perfect crimeless utopia. That's why hereditarians and egalitarians have such different political beliefs, I think.
Rehabilitation works dramatically on a few people. I don't think there's any way to deny that some young men really undergo a dramatic change and are "scared straight". E.g. Merle Haggard.
What can probably be said is that for the criminal majority, rehabilitation really only works by aging teens and young men into the maturity of middle age. Even in middle age, some of these will remain criminals, but they'll be engaged in less egregious and violent crime than before.
And then there's a minority that is psychopathic/sociopathic and completely incorrigible. E.g. John Wayne Gacy, who only seems to have gotten worse as his life progressed into middle age.
Williams misunderstands the crowd's reaction. I guarantee you, absolutely promise you, that a good 90% of those who "hissed" would do so if a White guy said the same thing. They're hissing because it's intensely anti-French (as a creed, not an ethnicity) to put one's race, sex, orientation, or whatever above the nation. If you are French, you are French. Hence the lack of race as an option on the census, etc.
You can say this is idealistic and isn't really true, but it's besides the point: the average French patriot wants it to be true, very much so.
"Not even anti-wokes seem comfortable acknowledging that yes, police might treat people of certain ethnic groups differently, but they are justified in doing so."
This. I am 100% comfortable believing and stating this fact. I grew up in an area that is roughly 50/50. You have a group of teens that have fuss fights in the hall that cause some hair pulling and fist fights if they feel whatever way that day. You have another group bringing razor blades to cut those they "feel" have caused them a problem that day. Everyone is getting suspended, but the group that's known to carry the razor blades is being searched in the mornings because the danger is on another level. It's justified until it changes. That's my belief.
There is a Schelling point where you disallow policing that differs based on race, but allow it to differ based on location, and if said location correlates with race then you throw your hands up and say what can I do it's a higher-crime neighborhood. My impression is that both the US and France are usually quite comfortable at that point and the US will return to it once the next really bad crime case hits the news cycle (which at this point is permeable enough for it to happen, but it has to happen to someone with social status and press-savvy friends; imagine the Paul Pelosi attack but the attacker being black).
The bigger problem IMHO is that decades of opposition to police *as a very concept* from the educated strata (just look at how the word "cop" is used) has turned policing into a low-status job for those lacking either the skills or the ambitions for other pursuits. The stereotypes only fully apply to a small fraction of the personnel, but the fraction suffices to keep a never-ending stream of Tyre-Nichols-like cases in the news, which in turn ensure that the social status of police remains low. It would take something truly heroic to break out of this cycle of mistrust and incompetence, and I'm not sure how much opportunity for heroism is still left in policing.
Absolutely! Until the police are better trained, the job pays much more, and only the best of the best are hired we will continue to have these episodes. It requires a high school degree and a few weeks of training. That's not nearly enough.
Even if this takes place because by definition the police demographics will no longer match that of their service area, and the allegations of discrimination will thus not decrease but rather increase:
If you require that only the elite become police, then you must define your criteria for being elite.
It is necessary that one of these criteria be low time preference. Another must be low impulsivity. Another, less important but still required, will be sufficient intelligence to carry out complex policing tasks.
None of these correlate positively with the demographics of high-crime neighborhoods.
The inevitable outcome of an elite police service is one dramatically unrepresentative of the people it's in contact with every day, which as well as breeding resentment has its own dangers.
The current alternative, as seen in Memphis, is that the police both demographically and cognitively resembles that of its home community. This is one reason why the world reacted with shock to the death of George Floyd - for all that we posture about it and pretend that police brutality and White racism are everyday facts of life, they're really not, and it's both horrific and disorienting to see them up close. However, when five Black cops beat another Black guy to death, even though the footage is monstrous, we're not really surprised when we see it, because that's just a fact of life in neighborhoods where these people live.
True. All of it. I live in suburbs 3 miles from Memphis. What I was thinking was requiring college degree with psychological training. Representation related to iq of community is not that important imo. But, that's another talk for another day. Altogether, I agree with you.
One more thought, maybe we should just make police wear full on storm trooper suits so no one can see their color? I was not nearly as shocked as some by the Tyre Nichols thing because you can see this happen any weekend you want in Memphis. And, no, I don't believe for one second the narrative of White people bad, Black people good. It's absolute nonsense.
The majority of American blacks have an identity centered around a quasi-religious narrative of being victims of omnipresent racial discrimination. Facts that contradict the narrative are rejected a priori. It's like trying to convince a young-earth creationist with evidence of evolution; their priors, all accepted "on faith" in advance or reason or evidence, won't allow them to consider the possibility that what you are saying could be true. Unfortunately, things have to get awful enough and people have to feel endangered enough for there to be any real change. But as quickly as things seem to be falling apart, we may get to that point in the next couple years.
Structural racism is a pretty benign explanation. The source of inequality is not that black people have inferior genes, it’s that all of their 4x great grandparents either (a) were illiterate and penniless or (b) impregnated women they owned. This disadvantage was compounded by 90 years of Jim Crow, which denied basic government services to black peoples’ more recent ancestors. A black middle class can develop over time, indeed the black middle class today is stronger than ever. The catch is, only unusually talented people can escape intergenerational poverty, so there will be a large black underclass for many generations
The article is from a black advocate, writing in the context of the 2020 election campaigns and BLM movement, which is giving an analysis of the black middle class so Democrats can tailor their campaign rhetoric. Nowhere does the article claim that the black middle class is stronger than ever, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Jews faced centuries of discrimination all around Europe and still thrived. Check the ethnic composition of oligarchs in Russia, a country famous for having pogroms.
every asian american has ancestors who had the means to arrange passage and the balls to leave everything they knew in search of a better life. middling peasants never got here.
Why does lower cognitive ability need make one trash? If our society is ordered in such a way that people of lower intelligence can't get ahead, that's one thing - but it doesn't negate their worth as humans, or at least shouldn't.
There is no predestined reason why this needs to be the case at all, anyway, economically speaking. The hollowing-out of manual labor in this country and the slow dispossession of its working class (now joined by its middle class) was a choice we made, not a cosmic destiny.
Completely unrelated: it's high time people on the right grew up and stopped laying all of the blame for Black dysfunction at the feet of white liberals. It's childish stuff. The Black community has plenty of its own homegrown problems that have nothing to do with White people whatsoever.
2) I'm not so sure about this. We already run adult daycare in all kinds of sectors. People are generally unhappy but I'm not sure how much this contributes.
3) We're already in a negative eugenic cycle if we presuppose that intelligence is eugenic. In fact there's a negative correlation between educational attainment and fecundity (among both sexes) and between income and fecundity (among women all the time, and among men until, predictably, the upper reaches of income.)
Much like with the "two parent households produce better life outcomes" thing, there's a real cause-effect quagmire here. It's not necessarily the case that conservatives have more children - it could be, and anecdotally I've witnessed this happening in real time - that parenthood makes people more conservative. Either way, it's far too pat, and leaves aside the vast majority of the population - the dysgenic part, if we're speaking of intelligence - who simply aren't political and can barely conceive of an ideology at all.
It is a fair point that we subsidize the low IQ, but 'subsidy' is a word too narrow. We also subsidize the low IQ through the advancement you proclaim to want. Few people have lived the high IQ dream as much as Bill Gates. There are also few people, if any, who have done as much to explode the population of Sub-Saharan Africa as Bill Gates. He is, meanwhile, very conservative with his own family and his own money. You can't have advancement without having people who are going to make their mission elevating the great unwashed.
I had to have a talk about the reality of race with my daughter recently. It’s not like kids don’t already notice racial group differences anyways. How could they not help but notice? These differences are even more pronounced at the meritocratic and highly selective high school she attends. At this school, there are a LOT of Asian students, quite a few whites students, and very few black students. Kids are going to construct a narrative to explain the differences that are plainly obvious, and I refuse to allow her understanding of these issues to only be shaped by the mainstream narrative of systemic racism and white supremacy. I simply told her the truth; there are innate differences among racial groups in intelligence, behavior, and ability. The world makes so much more sense when you understand and accept these facts, and I could see that this confirmed suspicions that she secretly had. I think it’s cruel to perpetuate lies about race. Everyone suffers as a result and society is destroyed with the futile attempts to attain equal outcomes.
You are brave, if she tells the average teacher that her father told that some groups are more intelligent than others, you could be in some trouble. It's totally crazy but something to keep in mind.
That's why I waited until she was old enough where I could trust her and where she fully understood how inflammatory these ideas are. Believe me, by the age of 16, white kids definitely know how toxic racial discourse is in America. They already know that they are supposed to keep their mouths shut and their heads down when the topic of race comes up. What prompted the discussion was one of her new humanities teachers. She is an ultra liberal, black they/them with dyed hair and she has been forcing a heavily one-sided discussion of reparations onto the kids. Of course, the white kids are made to feel guilty and somehow culpable in these discussions, and there is no room for a differing opinion on the subject. My daughter was understandably upset and so was I. I have just had enough of this horse shit, so I finally decided to tell her the truth. I have been priming her for a couple of years now to be resistant against this anti-white narrative because I knew she would eventually be exposed to it considering she is on the college path. I'm the only person she can vent to about racial issues she encounters because she can't trust any of her female friends who are all ensconced in this liberal worldview.
Thank you! It's tough being a parent right now, and parents better wake up and make sure that they are the predominant intellectual influence on their children. This new "successor ideology" has infiltrated every major institution and social media is drenched in it. You can't completely keep it away from your children, but you can help inoculate your children against it.
Local police departments, at least for the time being, do publish crime data that all decent commentators do their absolute best never to mention publicly. For example, on page 16 of the St. Louis Police Department's annual report for 2020, 74 of 82 persons arrested for homicide were black (90%), while 263 of 290 arrests for robbery were black (also 90%). St. Louis is 43% black. I suppose the woke will insist that countless nonblack murderers and robbers avoid arrest, while countless black arrestees are innocent. Perhaps... Source: https://www.slmpd.org/images/2020_Annual_Report.pdf
I have heard similar stats in other cities. And I might add it is often blacks committing crimes to other blacks. There is a problem with why this is happening and how to resolve. But the current woke methods are not working and need to take into account that other practical things like law and order, commerce, jobs awarded by talent etc needs to happen first. Otherwise you have anarchy.
Feb 11, 2023·edited Feb 11, 2023Liked by Richard Hanania
"and Arabs, supposedly, though I suspect they’re just throw in to pretend this is a “brown” issue too"
Every French reader wet themselves with this line because for the vast majority of French northern Africans (maghrebin) are much more prominently "an issue" than black Africans.
In fairness to all parties, a lot of the issues are driven by the lack of economic opportunity caused by two main forces: one, and the dominant one, economic segregation which is caused by France's insanely "pro-worker" labour laws, which are arguably a crime against humanity, and two, a very degraded education system including an extreme lack of school choice for poor people.
Education is meaningless in that it doesn't matter who chooses what school, there is no such thing as a good one or a bad one. There are, however, good students: they just tend to congregate in the same building.
That seems a bit trite: within certain bounds, which are not met by many French schools in predominantly mahgrebin areas, schooling is not relevant to learning.
But even if the kids were learning basic French and maths, which they are not, the schools still have a signaling role, which is as important as the market makes it to be.
None of the issues are driven by "lack of economic opportunity", which is communist nonsense.
Do you think Blacks and Arabs commit gang rapes because of unemployment? Come on.
Their races are simply cursed with low genetic quality combined with backwards culture and historical resentment. They could never do well, under any system whatsoever.
Since the 70's, the Republic has poured around €200 billion in so-called urban planning policies towards "disfranchised groups". And that doesn't even include massive public subsidies for community organizing, the changing of our laws to accomodate low-impulse populations by enacting hate speech laws, etc. And don't forget immigrants live 45-minutes away (at most) from the largest employment and economic centers in the country.
Of course, it never made a difference. It didn't lower crime. It didn't improve the schools. They kept behaving like savages. It didn't prevent younger generations of immigrants from embracing Islam.
But I'm sure we'll start to see the effects once we throw another €200 billion down the drain.
I don't expect that money to make any difference, but I'm pretty sure that abolishing the CDI and prud'hommes, and perhaps some degree of school choice, would. Halving the cotisations et charges sociales would likely also help but largely conditional on the first two.
Reducing or restricting allocations might also help.
The hostility of Black Africans and Magrehbis towards dominant French culture is ameliorated slightly by their ghettoization. It's counterintuitive but the segregation present in most cities means less scope for conflict.
Then again, geographic assimilation is increasing simply because the minority numbers are exploding, so oblivious BBRs will find themselves confronted sooner or later. We'll see if they can hold their nerve.
“Éric Zemmour was once even convicted of racist speech for defending the police by saying that most drug dealers are blacks or Arabs.”
So white people must lose their liberties to accommodate woke, egalitarian, multicultural, fantasies. But it’s not purely an ideological phenomenon; it’s also connected to the need to have to constantly smooth over the racial divisions that come from mass, non-white immigration. But this is the price that must be paid when you have a “cosmopolitan” elite that thinks the massive externalities that result from the loss of a homeland count for nothing.
For the cosmopolitan elite, that loss of a "homeland" does count for little or nothing. The globalized elite likely disdain the concept of having a homeland in the first place, so what would they care? It is in their active interest to promote mass immigration as it clearly helps them maintain power. It might be bad for the plebs, but it's good for the rulers.
This is true for the American elite and the German elite and the Scandinavian elite, sure, but France is something of an outlier. Nationalism is still very much de rigeur there. It's counterintuitive in a way, that the cradle of the Enlightenment and of human universalism is also the most flag-waving, but that's how it is. Even if a French elite was embarrassed of his homeland and wanted to be a global citizen, the climate is such that he'd keep it quiet.
It's not clear to me why we can't have Lee Kwan Yee's approach of frankness on race. Compared to current egalitarian ideology it would come across as harsh initially, but eventually we'd get used to it and perhaps even try to change to avoid some of the more negative and true nurture-related stereotypes.
In a world concerned only with truth, of course people would be frank about race. But, in reality, people face many other incentives besides only seeking truth, and those incentives typically outweigh the mere observation of truth. For instance, in the United States the ruling regime has a de facto alliance with the black population against its mostly-white opposition class of "conservatives." It is in the interest of the US government to lie about race and to severely suppress any racial wrongthink until such time as the nation may undergo regime change.
“Point out a disparity, ignore obvious but unpleasant explanations, and jump to the conclusion that discrimination must be the cause. In the area of public policy, this is pretty much all wokeness is! Police arrest more black people, so police are the problem. Blacks score lower on all written tests, the tests are the problem. Blacks have less money, which means that capitalism….you get the point.”
I have never seen anyone put my, and others’, concern about left identitarianism in politics so succinctly and so well. Well done.
Surely there's some (constitutional, moral) limit to "I have to accept worse treatment because of my demographic's greater propensity towards violence," though? As a society we have norms around what the police can do if they have suspicion, vs. what they can do if they have probable cause, and of course we lock people up only after due process.
How often is it reasonable for a law-abiding person to be bothered by police? Whatever the amount, there's some level of proportionate (i.e. targets people at a rate proportional to their demographic's propensity to commit crime) police activity that would end up with law-abiding white Americans being under that level, and law-abiding black Americans being above that level.
I think it's very consistent to complain about, say, stop and frisk, even if the police are being proportionate as described above, if the end result is that many law-abiding black men are frequently harassed by police.
Also, given de facto segregation (not a factor for age or sex), normalizing this sort of proportionality is likely to have second-order effects. You would expect to further alienate law-abiding black residents from the police and the dominant culture. In fact, this is exactly what we see happening - despite being by far the biggest victims of black crime, black Americans (as you have pointed out) are leery about "tough on crime" policies.
(To be clear, I'm not talking about incarceration or arrests, but rather things like stop and frisk where a significant burden is borne by those who are under suspicion largely due to their demographics).
An alternative measure to your kind of proportionality would be "how often are we bothering innocent members (as determined after the fact) of a given demographic"? There are genuine costs imposed by policies with many false positives.
There was actually a very interesting studies run on police stop in Paris public transport system. The researchers observed who was stopped and gathered information about them.
It turns out that while people from arab and african origins where indeed stopped much more often than the average, that was mostly because the police was mostly stopping young men dressed in "youth culture" (hip hop, gothic, etc). A black or arab man dressed in a casual (but not urban / youth) way had a much lower chance to be arrested, not very different from the general population, and people from all origin wearing business attire were almost never arrested.
So indeed, police stop are not random, but africans and arabs are more likely to be arrested mostly because they have observable characteristics which trigger police stop.
>Not even anti-wokes seem comfortable acknowledging that yes, police might treat people of certain ethnic groups differently, but they are justified in doing so.<
There are plenty of people who acknowledge this, but they also tend to hold views that you would likely find abhorrent due to being "actually racist" or some such (for instance, desiring to not live around black people). Whereas your sphere is more likely to be populated by "anti-wokes" who are basically just pre-Trump liberals that didn't follow the rest of the left off the deep end.
The evidence provided by reality is that in any mixed-race society, racial differences will exist and cannot be removed by any means, and there does not seem to be any possible policy or intervention that can do anything about it except to make things worse as wokeness does. Thus the reality-based approach to racial differences can only be one of two things: Separatism, or just get over it and deal with it being a fact.
The through-line with gender insanity is the insistence that no, there *must* be a way to somehow "solve" this "problem" and make people equal. Just as gender ideologues are not content to simply deal with the physical reality that men and women are different, racial ideologues think likewise about ethnicity.
I doubt that "desiring to not live around black people" would be considered beyond the pale here considering that most people behave like that anyway, whatever their politics. As Joe Sobran said, "in their mating and migratory habits, liberals are no different from members of the KKK".
I meant in this substack's comment section, not in the US. I am an Estonian but I know enough about the US to say that it is beyond the pale to say it, but not to act on it and that is crucial. It is a lot easier to help people when they already behaviorally agree with you. Imagine if whites actually wanted to live in the blackest countries/cities/neighborhoods they could find, and send their children to the blackest schools they could find, and their children to marry blacks (which the neurobiological studies show is considered reflexively disgusting by whites who are both pro- and anti-miscegenation). Then we would be in real trouble. What could we do? The fact that most whites are behaviorally race realists is great. It shows that they are still healthy, their minds aren't that sick. They are only superficially sick, pathologically altruistic, cowardly, desiring to please, etc.
It's slightly more complicated than that. The people who consciously and deliberately associate "good school district" with demographics are probably a slim minority, and of those the vast majority feel kind of guilty about it (although not guilty enough to sacrifice their own little kid at the altar of diversity.)
Of those that just don't piece it together, if you confront them with that information, half of them will be stunned into silence, and the other half - the half that votes in every election - will say what a terrible injustice it is, and there should be more opportunity for minorities to come to the good school districts, and they wished it was different.
In other words what's happening is less a display of *in-group* preference and more either a display of bovine complacency, *familial* preference, or actively seeking to undermine in-group preference.
There are pockets of the country here and there where this is different, and segregation is alive and well, but I assure you these are absolutely tiny in both size and cultural importance compared to what I've described above.
In other words, I disagree that Whites are behaviorally race-realist in most cases. I think they are, in very limited cases, race-realist in a kind of complacent sense, and only inasmuch as it affects their children. Otherwise, they don't really care.
I mean, by the standards of your average American I'm probably massively "racist", yet I have family members from mixed marriages whom I love dearly, friends from most racial groups, I live in a diverse neighborhood etc. I'm animated by a sense of the country's demographic future, but that doesn't change who's here now and who I'm going to have Sunday dinner with - I will love them as people, not as statistics. I get the feeling this is a common attitude in the US.
" I think they are, in very limited cases, race-realist in a kind of complacent sense, and only inasmuch as it affects their children. " I think that is far better than nothing. If we somehow could force our rulers' children to suffer like their poorer white counterparts suffer due to multiracialism, then there would be some change, I presume. That's what I find optimistic. it's not much, but it's something. The same is true of Europe and its elite. They can evade the consequences of their own policies. If they were forced to live among the diversity they nobly forgo, there will be massive change. At some point this will happen as whites become an ever-shrinking and hated minority in their own countries. The elites will be affected as well at some point, and their enemies (the public) will shove their faces and their children's faces in multiracialism, so they'll suffer too for what they've done. It might be too little too late, but it's something. And racial consciousness among whites will increase as they become smaller and more hated. It's already at 15% based on a survey about racial identity among different groups. And there's social desirability bias there as well. So, the trend is promising. I agree it is nowhere near good enough, though.
It's not just whites, of course. Every race has a healthy preference for having children with their own race and ethnicity, otherwise they wouldn't exist at all. Ethnocentrism is an evolved trait referring to in-group preference and out-group animus. Whites seem to be the least ethnocentric group based on different pieces of evidence (interracial adoptions, mass immigration, pro-miscegenation laws, surveys of their attitudes towards different races an their own race, etc.), but it's still there, however much propaganda whites are being fed about how lovely it would be if they all miscegenenated away, so that there would be no white supremacy, etc.
Lol true. I guess what I meant was people who actually have no problem saying out loud they don't want to live around blacks, as opposed to the liberal behavior of mismatched words and deeds.
Richard - I think you would enjoy reading Lee Kuan Yew. Excerpt from "The Man and His Ideas":
---
I did the exact opposite
Having arrived reluctantly at the conclusion that the gap in performance between races would not be eliminated simply by providing the less well off with a head start through better educational and life opportunities, Lee did what would have been unthinkable to most politicians elsewhere - he went public, airing his observations and concerns before the whole country
Not for him the race-blind approach, which sought to gloss over ethnic differences, whether out of political expedience or ethnic guilt. For Lee, that was an exercise in self-deception, or worse, raising false expectations. Nor would he brook programmes such as affirmative action schemes which he saw as misguided attempts to hobble the more adept in society so that others might catch up. This,
he felt, would only hold the whole society back.
"I did the exact opposite. Once I discovered that special tuition, special food and all this did not produce the necessary result, I looked up the prewar records and I found the same weaknesses in mathematics and so on. So I decided: first, inform the leaders and the elders and inform the teachers, then publish it. So please, let there be no misunderstanding. This has nothing to do with discrimination or lack of support or whatever. It's a profound problem.
"The reasons why I did this are simple ones. This way, we are going to get results. The other way, we are going to confuse people and you're going to get wrong results. Now, I suppose maybe it's too touchy a problem to say this openly, but to pretend that we are all egual and therefore I am not in it because you have discriminated against my caste, so I need a quota - it's going to lead to very unhappy consequences ...
"I do not believe that the American system of solving the problem stands any chance. First, they deny that there is a difference between the blacks and the whites. Once you deny that, then you're caught in a bind. All right, if we are egual, then why am I now worse off? You have fixed me. The system has fixed me. So they say, right, let's go for affirmative action. Lower marks to go to university, and you must have a guota for number of salespersons or announcers on radio or TV. And so you get caught in a thousand and one different ways. And you say, since the army is now 30, 40 per cent blacks, you must have so many generals, so many colonels, and so on.
"I don't know how they have got into this bind, but I think that is not realistic. You don't have to offend people because they are not as good as you. I mean I'm not as smart as an Israeli or many Chinese for that matter. But that doesn't mean that I'm not to be treated as equal in my rights as a
human being.
"The only way we can all really be physiologically equal in brain power and everything else is to have a melange. All go into a melting pot and you stir it. In other words, force mixed marriages, which is what the people in Zanzibar tried. The blacks wanted to marry all the Arab girls so that the next generation, their children, will be half-Arab. But I don't think that's a practical way nor will it solve the problem. And you can't do that worldwide, you can - maybe you can do that in Zanzibar. In the process,
you diminish Zanzibar. Because whereas before you had some outstanding people who can do things for Zanzibar, now you have brought them down to a lower level.
"So my attitude now would be a very practical one of saying that we are equal human beings. Whether you can run 100 yards in 20 minutes, 20 seconds or 10 seconds, you've got a right to be here. But that doesn't mean that because you run at 20 seconds, I must run at 20 seconds. Then
we'll all get nowhere."
But Singapore also has race based government positions and extremely strict hate speech laws
The race based positions are just figureheads though.
And I have no problem with hate speech laws as long as they’re applied unilaterally. The issue in the west is that the elite despises the majority population. So it essentially means that whites and Christians are fair game while everyone else is off limits.
The article says the exact opposite of what you're trying to claim though - some insane leftists are trying to stir shit up but the govt is shutting them down!
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2019/01/30/activist-sangeetha-thanapal-receives-stern-warning-from-authorities-after-calling-singapore-a-terribly-racist-country/
---
"Vocal activist Sangeetha Thanapal has been given a stern warning by the police over a Facebook post that they say promotes feelings of ill will and hostility between the races.
Ms Thanapal, originally from Singapore, now lives in Melbourne where she works as a researcher. The police confirmed to the Straits Times (ST) that they investigated her earlier this month when she returned to Singapore on 2 Jan. She was investigated for her remarks made on a Facebook post in which she claimed Chinese Singaporean were racists towards other races.
In consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, police issued her a stern warning on Jan 16, “for an offence of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race” under Section 298A of the Penal Code."
---
I love Singapore even more now.
Wow you're right thank you.
I have the book (highly recommend). Full text is here also:
https://archive.org/stream/lee-kuan-yew/Lee%20Kuan%20Yew_djvu.txt
Interestingly, ethnic Indians in Singapore have higher income now than ethnic Chinese. A big part of LKY’s immigration strategy was keeping demographic balance largely stable. But it was more so that they could continuously rely on high skill immigration. The fear was that if you rock the boat, then populists come into power and totally restrict immigration which would be a death knell to a country like Singapore which is small and has low TFR. The left-wing opposition is actually far more anti-immigration than PAP since they’re more populist.
Why more countries don’t just study high-TFR developed countries like Israel is an interesting question(I know I bring it up a lot but Israel has a high TFR, conservative youth etc. so I think it’s a good role model) In this case Israel’s high TFR is partly due to religiosity. How to make that happen in an East Asian country like Singapore I don’t know (though RoK has a high Christian population, maybe in their case that could be used to an advantage)
At some point you have to consider the possibility that the people who disagree with you are simply physically unable to perceive reality and or uninterested in it, as opposed to say being aspiring Bayesians aiming at the truth. Once you start modeling people as the former, many of their bizarre epistemic shortcomings seem to make a whole lot more sense.
I'm fine with people having "epistemic shortcomings". I'm tired of elites wrapping their preferences and biases in esoteric language and pretending it's everyone else fumbling around in the dark.
Indeed, yet there's value in argument that, although the possibility explains many things on population level, treating any _specific_ individual in front of you as not being interested in truth without very strong additional evidence _for that individual specifically_ is taboo because it precludes (or, at least, greatly complicates) your updating.
Humans are, in general, all too trigger-happy to press the "they're just not worth listening to further" button in their brain (guilty as charged).
However, with regards to many specific beliefs... when groups of explicitly aspiring Bayesians come to different conclusions, then, by Aumann's theorem, you should be worried even if you can't detect a flaw in your argument.
Lol. I saw your tweet earlier about Rufo (where he mentioned David French) and was temporarily thrown off by the the content of this essay.
What's funny is you could STILL blame minorities committing more crimes, being arrested more, etc. on the "legacy of slavery" but it doesn't change the fact that depolicing has a really negative effect on minority communities. But you can't "listen to the people" on this issue because they aren't rational. Some twitter guy said it best: "People in minority communities want more policing, just not for their nephew who is really a good kid."
If a lion is trying to eat me, I don’t really care whether the lion is exercising free will or if it is just playing out a deterministic process. Similarly, don’t care if a person murders because of structural racism or because he thinks Allah wants me dead of because he’s a sadist. Being shot sucks regardless of which world historical narrative it’s part of.
Well said. In fact, an environmentally and/or genetically deterministic worldview (which I think is correct and anything else is ineffable) should make the execution and general punishment of criminals easier since it means they can't change their behavior, just like a man-eater can't change once it has taken its first human life. Yet egalitarians also believe in social engineering, so they think they can rehabilitate everyone (while in actuality rehabilitation doesn't work) by creating the perfect policy or even prevent anyone from becoming a criminal in the first place, creating a perfect crimeless utopia. That's why hereditarians and egalitarians have such different political beliefs, I think.
Rehabilitation works dramatically on a few people. I don't think there's any way to deny that some young men really undergo a dramatic change and are "scared straight". E.g. Merle Haggard.
What can probably be said is that for the criminal majority, rehabilitation really only works by aging teens and young men into the maturity of middle age. Even in middle age, some of these will remain criminals, but they'll be engaged in less egregious and violent crime than before.
And then there's a minority that is psychopathic/sociopathic and completely incorrigible. E.g. John Wayne Gacy, who only seems to have gotten worse as his life progressed into middle age.
Williams misunderstands the crowd's reaction. I guarantee you, absolutely promise you, that a good 90% of those who "hissed" would do so if a White guy said the same thing. They're hissing because it's intensely anti-French (as a creed, not an ethnicity) to put one's race, sex, orientation, or whatever above the nation. If you are French, you are French. Hence the lack of race as an option on the census, etc.
You can say this is idealistic and isn't really true, but it's besides the point: the average French patriot wants it to be true, very much so.
The white-specific disease of civic nationalism just doesn't seem to die off.
"Not even anti-wokes seem comfortable acknowledging that yes, police might treat people of certain ethnic groups differently, but they are justified in doing so."
This. I am 100% comfortable believing and stating this fact. I grew up in an area that is roughly 50/50. You have a group of teens that have fuss fights in the hall that cause some hair pulling and fist fights if they feel whatever way that day. You have another group bringing razor blades to cut those they "feel" have caused them a problem that day. Everyone is getting suspended, but the group that's known to carry the razor blades is being searched in the mornings because the danger is on another level. It's justified until it changes. That's my belief.
There is a Schelling point where you disallow policing that differs based on race, but allow it to differ based on location, and if said location correlates with race then you throw your hands up and say what can I do it's a higher-crime neighborhood. My impression is that both the US and France are usually quite comfortable at that point and the US will return to it once the next really bad crime case hits the news cycle (which at this point is permeable enough for it to happen, but it has to happen to someone with social status and press-savvy friends; imagine the Paul Pelosi attack but the attacker being black).
The bigger problem IMHO is that decades of opposition to police *as a very concept* from the educated strata (just look at how the word "cop" is used) has turned policing into a low-status job for those lacking either the skills or the ambitions for other pursuits. The stereotypes only fully apply to a small fraction of the personnel, but the fraction suffices to keep a never-ending stream of Tyre-Nichols-like cases in the news, which in turn ensure that the social status of police remains low. It would take something truly heroic to break out of this cycle of mistrust and incompetence, and I'm not sure how much opportunity for heroism is still left in policing.
Absolutely! Until the police are better trained, the job pays much more, and only the best of the best are hired we will continue to have these episodes. It requires a high school degree and a few weeks of training. That's not nearly enough.
Even if this takes place because by definition the police demographics will no longer match that of their service area, and the allegations of discrimination will thus not decrease but rather increase:
If you require that only the elite become police, then you must define your criteria for being elite.
It is necessary that one of these criteria be low time preference. Another must be low impulsivity. Another, less important but still required, will be sufficient intelligence to carry out complex policing tasks.
None of these correlate positively with the demographics of high-crime neighborhoods.
The inevitable outcome of an elite police service is one dramatically unrepresentative of the people it's in contact with every day, which as well as breeding resentment has its own dangers.
The current alternative, as seen in Memphis, is that the police both demographically and cognitively resembles that of its home community. This is one reason why the world reacted with shock to the death of George Floyd - for all that we posture about it and pretend that police brutality and White racism are everyday facts of life, they're really not, and it's both horrific and disorienting to see them up close. However, when five Black cops beat another Black guy to death, even though the footage is monstrous, we're not really surprised when we see it, because that's just a fact of life in neighborhoods where these people live.
True. All of it. I live in suburbs 3 miles from Memphis. What I was thinking was requiring college degree with psychological training. Representation related to iq of community is not that important imo. But, that's another talk for another day. Altogether, I agree with you.
One more thought, maybe we should just make police wear full on storm trooper suits so no one can see their color? I was not nearly as shocked as some by the Tyre Nichols thing because you can see this happen any weekend you want in Memphis. And, no, I don't believe for one second the narrative of White people bad, Black people good. It's absolute nonsense.
The majority of American blacks have an identity centered around a quasi-religious narrative of being victims of omnipresent racial discrimination. Facts that contradict the narrative are rejected a priori. It's like trying to convince a young-earth creationist with evidence of evolution; their priors, all accepted "on faith" in advance or reason or evidence, won't allow them to consider the possibility that what you are saying could be true. Unfortunately, things have to get awful enough and people have to feel endangered enough for there to be any real change. But as quickly as things seem to be falling apart, we may get to that point in the next couple years.
Structural racism is a pretty benign explanation. The source of inequality is not that black people have inferior genes, it’s that all of their 4x great grandparents either (a) were illiterate and penniless or (b) impregnated women they owned. This disadvantage was compounded by 90 years of Jim Crow, which denied basic government services to black peoples’ more recent ancestors. A black middle class can develop over time, indeed the black middle class today is stronger than ever. The catch is, only unusually talented people can escape intergenerational poverty, so there will be a large black underclass for many generations
What is your evidence that the black middle class is stronger today than ever?
The progress is slow but real.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-black-middle-class-needs-political-attention-too/?amp
The article is from a black advocate, writing in the context of the 2020 election campaigns and BLM movement, which is giving an analysis of the black middle class so Democrats can tailor their campaign rhetoric. Nowhere does the article claim that the black middle class is stronger than ever, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
The black home ownership rate is lower now than 1 decade ago https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/homes/us-black-homeownership-rate/index.html
Median wealth of black Americans may fall to zero by 2053
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/sep/13/median-wealth-of-black-americans-will-fall-to-zero-by-2053-warns-new-report
genes?
mmmmm
rather some cultural attitudes make a better explanation
What do afro-americans aspire to or teach their kids?
To be a rapper, basketball player or athlete and thats it
asians were not brought here as slaves.
Jews faced centuries of discrimination all around Europe and still thrived. Check the ethnic composition of oligarchs in Russia, a country famous for having pogroms.
every asian american has ancestors who had the means to arrange passage and the balls to leave everything they knew in search of a better life. middling peasants never got here.
Why does lower cognitive ability need make one trash? If our society is ordered in such a way that people of lower intelligence can't get ahead, that's one thing - but it doesn't negate their worth as humans, or at least shouldn't.
There is no predestined reason why this needs to be the case at all, anyway, economically speaking. The hollowing-out of manual labor in this country and the slow dispossession of its working class (now joined by its middle class) was a choice we made, not a cosmic destiny.
Completely unrelated: it's high time people on the right grew up and stopped laying all of the blame for Black dysfunction at the feet of white liberals. It's childish stuff. The Black community has plenty of its own homegrown problems that have nothing to do with White people whatsoever.
1) Oh, absolutely. Agreed 100%.
2) I'm not so sure about this. We already run adult daycare in all kinds of sectors. People are generally unhappy but I'm not sure how much this contributes.
3) We're already in a negative eugenic cycle if we presuppose that intelligence is eugenic. In fact there's a negative correlation between educational attainment and fecundity (among both sexes) and between income and fecundity (among women all the time, and among men until, predictably, the upper reaches of income.)
Much like with the "two parent households produce better life outcomes" thing, there's a real cause-effect quagmire here. It's not necessarily the case that conservatives have more children - it could be, and anecdotally I've witnessed this happening in real time - that parenthood makes people more conservative. Either way, it's far too pat, and leaves aside the vast majority of the population - the dysgenic part, if we're speaking of intelligence - who simply aren't political and can barely conceive of an ideology at all.
It is a fair point that we subsidize the low IQ, but 'subsidy' is a word too narrow. We also subsidize the low IQ through the advancement you proclaim to want. Few people have lived the high IQ dream as much as Bill Gates. There are also few people, if any, who have done as much to explode the population of Sub-Saharan Africa as Bill Gates. He is, meanwhile, very conservative with his own family and his own money. You can't have advancement without having people who are going to make their mission elevating the great unwashed.
I had to have a talk about the reality of race with my daughter recently. It’s not like kids don’t already notice racial group differences anyways. How could they not help but notice? These differences are even more pronounced at the meritocratic and highly selective high school she attends. At this school, there are a LOT of Asian students, quite a few whites students, and very few black students. Kids are going to construct a narrative to explain the differences that are plainly obvious, and I refuse to allow her understanding of these issues to only be shaped by the mainstream narrative of systemic racism and white supremacy. I simply told her the truth; there are innate differences among racial groups in intelligence, behavior, and ability. The world makes so much more sense when you understand and accept these facts, and I could see that this confirmed suspicions that she secretly had. I think it’s cruel to perpetuate lies about race. Everyone suffers as a result and society is destroyed with the futile attempts to attain equal outcomes.
You are brave, if she tells the average teacher that her father told that some groups are more intelligent than others, you could be in some trouble. It's totally crazy but something to keep in mind.
That's why I waited until she was old enough where I could trust her and where she fully understood how inflammatory these ideas are. Believe me, by the age of 16, white kids definitely know how toxic racial discourse is in America. They already know that they are supposed to keep their mouths shut and their heads down when the topic of race comes up. What prompted the discussion was one of her new humanities teachers. She is an ultra liberal, black they/them with dyed hair and she has been forcing a heavily one-sided discussion of reparations onto the kids. Of course, the white kids are made to feel guilty and somehow culpable in these discussions, and there is no room for a differing opinion on the subject. My daughter was understandably upset and so was I. I have just had enough of this horse shit, so I finally decided to tell her the truth. I have been priming her for a couple of years now to be resistant against this anti-white narrative because I knew she would eventually be exposed to it considering she is on the college path. I'm the only person she can vent to about racial issues she encounters because she can't trust any of her female friends who are all ensconced in this liberal worldview.
Thank you for being a great parent! Hope you and your daughter will retain this healthy relationship!
Thank you! It's tough being a parent right now, and parents better wake up and make sure that they are the predominant intellectual influence on their children. This new "successor ideology" has infiltrated every major institution and social media is drenched in it. You can't completely keep it away from your children, but you can help inoculate your children against it.
Local police departments, at least for the time being, do publish crime data that all decent commentators do their absolute best never to mention publicly. For example, on page 16 of the St. Louis Police Department's annual report for 2020, 74 of 82 persons arrested for homicide were black (90%), while 263 of 290 arrests for robbery were black (also 90%). St. Louis is 43% black. I suppose the woke will insist that countless nonblack murderers and robbers avoid arrest, while countless black arrestees are innocent. Perhaps... Source: https://www.slmpd.org/images/2020_Annual_Report.pdf
I have heard similar stats in other cities. And I might add it is often blacks committing crimes to other blacks. There is a problem with why this is happening and how to resolve. But the current woke methods are not working and need to take into account that other practical things like law and order, commerce, jobs awarded by talent etc needs to happen first. Otherwise you have anarchy.
"and Arabs, supposedly, though I suspect they’re just throw in to pretend this is a “brown” issue too"
Every French reader wet themselves with this line because for the vast majority of French northern Africans (maghrebin) are much more prominently "an issue" than black Africans.
In fairness to all parties, a lot of the issues are driven by the lack of economic opportunity caused by two main forces: one, and the dominant one, economic segregation which is caused by France's insanely "pro-worker" labour laws, which are arguably a crime against humanity, and two, a very degraded education system including an extreme lack of school choice for poor people.
Education is meaningless in that it doesn't matter who chooses what school, there is no such thing as a good one or a bad one. There are, however, good students: they just tend to congregate in the same building.
That seems a bit trite: within certain bounds, which are not met by many French schools in predominantly mahgrebin areas, schooling is not relevant to learning.
But even if the kids were learning basic French and maths, which they are not, the schools still have a signaling role, which is as important as the market makes it to be.
None of the issues are driven by "lack of economic opportunity", which is communist nonsense.
Do you think Blacks and Arabs commit gang rapes because of unemployment? Come on.
Their races are simply cursed with low genetic quality combined with backwards culture and historical resentment. They could never do well, under any system whatsoever.
This is one of the most racist things I have read this year. Congrats. Low genetic quality? Is this Eugenics 101?
Yeah. What are you gonna do about it?
Forget you exist entirely 😘
Backwards culture, both their own and France's, is indeed an issue.
But I do not see much evidence for the other points, in particular, "arabs" have in the past created large empires and sophisticated civilisations.
And yes, I see economic opportunities as an essential part of any solution.
Since the 70's, the Republic has poured around €200 billion in so-called urban planning policies towards "disfranchised groups". And that doesn't even include massive public subsidies for community organizing, the changing of our laws to accomodate low-impulse populations by enacting hate speech laws, etc. And don't forget immigrants live 45-minutes away (at most) from the largest employment and economic centers in the country.
Of course, it never made a difference. It didn't lower crime. It didn't improve the schools. They kept behaving like savages. It didn't prevent younger generations of immigrants from embracing Islam.
But I'm sure we'll start to see the effects once we throw another €200 billion down the drain.
I don't expect that money to make any difference, but I'm pretty sure that abolishing the CDI and prud'hommes, and perhaps some degree of school choice, would. Halving the cotisations et charges sociales would likely also help but largely conditional on the first two.
Reducing or restricting allocations might also help.
How many Pakistani Muslims are there in the Tory party?
The hostility of Black Africans and Magrehbis towards dominant French culture is ameliorated slightly by their ghettoization. It's counterintuitive but the segregation present in most cities means less scope for conflict.
Then again, geographic assimilation is increasing simply because the minority numbers are exploding, so oblivious BBRs will find themselves confronted sooner or later. We'll see if they can hold their nerve.
“Éric Zemmour was once even convicted of racist speech for defending the police by saying that most drug dealers are blacks or Arabs.”
So white people must lose their liberties to accommodate woke, egalitarian, multicultural, fantasies. But it’s not purely an ideological phenomenon; it’s also connected to the need to have to constantly smooth over the racial divisions that come from mass, non-white immigration. But this is the price that must be paid when you have a “cosmopolitan” elite that thinks the massive externalities that result from the loss of a homeland count for nothing.
For the cosmopolitan elite, that loss of a "homeland" does count for little or nothing. The globalized elite likely disdain the concept of having a homeland in the first place, so what would they care? It is in their active interest to promote mass immigration as it clearly helps them maintain power. It might be bad for the plebs, but it's good for the rulers.
This is true for the American elite and the German elite and the Scandinavian elite, sure, but France is something of an outlier. Nationalism is still very much de rigeur there. It's counterintuitive in a way, that the cradle of the Enlightenment and of human universalism is also the most flag-waving, but that's how it is. Even if a French elite was embarrassed of his homeland and wanted to be a global citizen, the climate is such that he'd keep it quiet.
It's not clear to me why we can't have Lee Kwan Yee's approach of frankness on race. Compared to current egalitarian ideology it would come across as harsh initially, but eventually we'd get used to it and perhaps even try to change to avoid some of the more negative and true nurture-related stereotypes.
https://lkyonrace.wordpress.com/
In a world concerned only with truth, of course people would be frank about race. But, in reality, people face many other incentives besides only seeking truth, and those incentives typically outweigh the mere observation of truth. For instance, in the United States the ruling regime has a de facto alliance with the black population against its mostly-white opposition class of "conservatives." It is in the interest of the US government to lie about race and to severely suppress any racial wrongthink until such time as the nation may undergo regime change.
See the hypothetical Presidential speech at the end of Michael Levin’s book, Why Race Matters.
Singapore has race based government positions including president
The lines:
“Point out a disparity, ignore obvious but unpleasant explanations, and jump to the conclusion that discrimination must be the cause. In the area of public policy, this is pretty much all wokeness is! Police arrest more black people, so police are the problem. Blacks score lower on all written tests, the tests are the problem. Blacks have less money, which means that capitalism….you get the point.”
I have never seen anyone put my, and others’, concern about left identitarianism in politics so succinctly and so well. Well done.
Surely there's some (constitutional, moral) limit to "I have to accept worse treatment because of my demographic's greater propensity towards violence," though? As a society we have norms around what the police can do if they have suspicion, vs. what they can do if they have probable cause, and of course we lock people up only after due process.
How often is it reasonable for a law-abiding person to be bothered by police? Whatever the amount, there's some level of proportionate (i.e. targets people at a rate proportional to their demographic's propensity to commit crime) police activity that would end up with law-abiding white Americans being under that level, and law-abiding black Americans being above that level.
I think it's very consistent to complain about, say, stop and frisk, even if the police are being proportionate as described above, if the end result is that many law-abiding black men are frequently harassed by police.
Also, given de facto segregation (not a factor for age or sex), normalizing this sort of proportionality is likely to have second-order effects. You would expect to further alienate law-abiding black residents from the police and the dominant culture. In fact, this is exactly what we see happening - despite being by far the biggest victims of black crime, black Americans (as you have pointed out) are leery about "tough on crime" policies.
(To be clear, I'm not talking about incarceration or arrests, but rather things like stop and frisk where a significant burden is borne by those who are under suspicion largely due to their demographics).
An alternative measure to your kind of proportionality would be "how often are we bothering innocent members (as determined after the fact) of a given demographic"? There are genuine costs imposed by policies with many false positives.
There was actually a very interesting studies run on police stop in Paris public transport system. The researchers observed who was stopped and gathered information about them.
It turns out that while people from arab and african origins where indeed stopped much more often than the average, that was mostly because the police was mostly stopping young men dressed in "youth culture" (hip hop, gothic, etc). A black or arab man dressed in a casual (but not urban / youth) way had a much lower chance to be arrested, not very different from the general population, and people from all origin wearing business attire were almost never arrested.
So indeed, police stop are not random, but africans and arabs are more likely to be arrested mostly because they have observable characteristics which trigger police stop.
Study in English is here for those interested : https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-population-2012-3-page-349.htm
>Not even anti-wokes seem comfortable acknowledging that yes, police might treat people of certain ethnic groups differently, but they are justified in doing so.<
There are plenty of people who acknowledge this, but they also tend to hold views that you would likely find abhorrent due to being "actually racist" or some such (for instance, desiring to not live around black people). Whereas your sphere is more likely to be populated by "anti-wokes" who are basically just pre-Trump liberals that didn't follow the rest of the left off the deep end.
The evidence provided by reality is that in any mixed-race society, racial differences will exist and cannot be removed by any means, and there does not seem to be any possible policy or intervention that can do anything about it except to make things worse as wokeness does. Thus the reality-based approach to racial differences can only be one of two things: Separatism, or just get over it and deal with it being a fact.
The through-line with gender insanity is the insistence that no, there *must* be a way to somehow "solve" this "problem" and make people equal. Just as gender ideologues are not content to simply deal with the physical reality that men and women are different, racial ideologues think likewise about ethnicity.
I doubt that "desiring to not live around black people" would be considered beyond the pale here considering that most people behave like that anyway, whatever their politics. As Joe Sobran said, "in their mating and migratory habits, liberals are no different from members of the KKK".
To phrase it thus is absolutely and completely beyond the pale, hence euphemisms like "good school district."
I meant in this substack's comment section, not in the US. I am an Estonian but I know enough about the US to say that it is beyond the pale to say it, but not to act on it and that is crucial. It is a lot easier to help people when they already behaviorally agree with you. Imagine if whites actually wanted to live in the blackest countries/cities/neighborhoods they could find, and send their children to the blackest schools they could find, and their children to marry blacks (which the neurobiological studies show is considered reflexively disgusting by whites who are both pro- and anti-miscegenation). Then we would be in real trouble. What could we do? The fact that most whites are behaviorally race realists is great. It shows that they are still healthy, their minds aren't that sick. They are only superficially sick, pathologically altruistic, cowardly, desiring to please, etc.
It's slightly more complicated than that. The people who consciously and deliberately associate "good school district" with demographics are probably a slim minority, and of those the vast majority feel kind of guilty about it (although not guilty enough to sacrifice their own little kid at the altar of diversity.)
Of those that just don't piece it together, if you confront them with that information, half of them will be stunned into silence, and the other half - the half that votes in every election - will say what a terrible injustice it is, and there should be more opportunity for minorities to come to the good school districts, and they wished it was different.
In other words what's happening is less a display of *in-group* preference and more either a display of bovine complacency, *familial* preference, or actively seeking to undermine in-group preference.
There are pockets of the country here and there where this is different, and segregation is alive and well, but I assure you these are absolutely tiny in both size and cultural importance compared to what I've described above.
In other words, I disagree that Whites are behaviorally race-realist in most cases. I think they are, in very limited cases, race-realist in a kind of complacent sense, and only inasmuch as it affects their children. Otherwise, they don't really care.
I mean, by the standards of your average American I'm probably massively "racist", yet I have family members from mixed marriages whom I love dearly, friends from most racial groups, I live in a diverse neighborhood etc. I'm animated by a sense of the country's demographic future, but that doesn't change who's here now and who I'm going to have Sunday dinner with - I will love them as people, not as statistics. I get the feeling this is a common attitude in the US.
" I think they are, in very limited cases, race-realist in a kind of complacent sense, and only inasmuch as it affects their children. " I think that is far better than nothing. If we somehow could force our rulers' children to suffer like their poorer white counterparts suffer due to multiracialism, then there would be some change, I presume. That's what I find optimistic. it's not much, but it's something. The same is true of Europe and its elite. They can evade the consequences of their own policies. If they were forced to live among the diversity they nobly forgo, there will be massive change. At some point this will happen as whites become an ever-shrinking and hated minority in their own countries. The elites will be affected as well at some point, and their enemies (the public) will shove their faces and their children's faces in multiracialism, so they'll suffer too for what they've done. It might be too little too late, but it's something. And racial consciousness among whites will increase as they become smaller and more hated. It's already at 15% based on a survey about racial identity among different groups. And there's social desirability bias there as well. So, the trend is promising. I agree it is nowhere near good enough, though.
Can you tell me the studies that show white disgusted by miscegenation? That would be extremely helpful to me in future discussions
If you can't open the Amren website, then here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103116300555
Thank you fren
If you want to read more about the arguments against miscegenation, here:
https://www.amren.com/commentary/2012/06/race-purists-are-they-slightly-nuts/
https://www.amren.com/news/2017/07/yuck-disgust-affective-bias-interracial-couples/
It's not just whites, of course. Every race has a healthy preference for having children with their own race and ethnicity, otherwise they wouldn't exist at all. Ethnocentrism is an evolved trait referring to in-group preference and out-group animus. Whites seem to be the least ethnocentric group based on different pieces of evidence (interracial adoptions, mass immigration, pro-miscegenation laws, surveys of their attitudes towards different races an their own race, etc.), but it's still there, however much propaganda whites are being fed about how lovely it would be if they all miscegenenated away, so that there would be no white supremacy, etc.
Lol true. I guess what I meant was people who actually have no problem saying out loud they don't want to live around blacks, as opposed to the liberal behavior of mismatched words and deeds.
The Woke-lite crowd would rather destroy single family zoning than confront racial differences.