Commenting is encouraged and appreciated. Feel free to comment on old posts as well.
Commenter 'steve' posted what should be one of the most important sociological papers:
In almost every conversation I've had regarding racial achievement differences, socio-economics is broached. I then present situations where the gap exists, but economics, parental education, and school quality are similar (see Shaker Heights, Princeton High, and other schools in the Minority Achievement Network). So the discussion inevitably leads to overt and institutional racism. The idea is two individuals of similar ability will be judged differently according to their race. The resume experiment from Freakonomics is usually mentioned. Basically, blacks can't ascend as a group because racist employers won't hire them.
Well, Dr. Kanazawa has blown away that myth. He follows black and white individuals and compares their NLSY scores with their incomes. He found that at a given intelligence level , blacks actually make more money than whites. Clearly, this black edge can be attributed to affirmative action. HBDers need to start advertising this study because it so accurately supports our conception of society.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
HBD: Too Simplistic an Explanation?
Frequently, anti-HBDers have accused me of espousing a very simplistic explanation for racial achievement differences. They contend that many cultural, environmental, and social effects intermingle in creating these disparities. With such a complex interweaving of external influences, anti-HBDers conclude these clearly influential factors preclude a genetic explanation. Thus, individuals who support HBD are championing a simplistic, reductionist explanation.
I have two main objections to this. First, their argument presumes HBDers advocate an entirely genetic model. Yet, no sane person believes intelligence and behavior to be entirely determined by heredity and this point has been repeated ad nausem by heavyweights such as Arthur Jensen.
Second, significant environmental effects do not negate the notion that intelligence is about 70% inherited. A complex system, stimulated by a number of complex causes, can still be primarily defined by a single, somewhat simple cause.
I'll give an analogy to illustrate the point. Basketball is a multifaceted game that requires its participants to have quickness, agility, strength, and athleticism. Each game is fast-paced, unpredictable, and each move is subject to numerous variables. Let's engage in a thought experiment. Take 1,000 white men (control for race and gender) above 5'10'' and 1,000 below 5'10''. Split them into teams of 5 and have a round robin tournament. I guarantee the teams comprised of the taller men will have a higher winning percentage than teams comprised of the shorter men. We can contribute this to a number of external factors, such as the taller men probably have more playing experience or the shorter men might have been subject to stereotype threat.
But it's rather obvious, even in such a complex system as a game of basketball with multiple external factors, one simple number basically explains the entirety of the data: height. The taller men were conferred a tremendous, inherent advantage due simply to their height.
Similarly, people venture through a multifarious world of social networks and cultural impulses, but that single inherited g factor seems to explain a great deal of the available data. I don't care if it seems simple, it's the best explanation for the available data.
I have two main objections to this. First, their argument presumes HBDers advocate an entirely genetic model. Yet, no sane person believes intelligence and behavior to be entirely determined by heredity and this point has been repeated ad nausem by heavyweights such as Arthur Jensen.
Second, significant environmental effects do not negate the notion that intelligence is about 70% inherited. A complex system, stimulated by a number of complex causes, can still be primarily defined by a single, somewhat simple cause.
I'll give an analogy to illustrate the point. Basketball is a multifaceted game that requires its participants to have quickness, agility, strength, and athleticism. Each game is fast-paced, unpredictable, and each move is subject to numerous variables. Let's engage in a thought experiment. Take 1,000 white men (control for race and gender) above 5'10'' and 1,000 below 5'10''. Split them into teams of 5 and have a round robin tournament. I guarantee the teams comprised of the taller men will have a higher winning percentage than teams comprised of the shorter men. We can contribute this to a number of external factors, such as the taller men probably have more playing experience or the shorter men might have been subject to stereotype threat.
But it's rather obvious, even in such a complex system as a game of basketball with multiple external factors, one simple number basically explains the entirety of the data: height. The taller men were conferred a tremendous, inherent advantage due simply to their height.
Similarly, people venture through a multifarious world of social networks and cultural impulses, but that single inherited g factor seems to explain a great deal of the available data. I don't care if it seems simple, it's the best explanation for the available data.
HBD: Offensive to Blacks?
Commenting is encouraged and appreciated. Feel free to comment on old posts as well.
Apparently, HBD offends black people. Who would have thought?
Well let me qualify the above statement. Black people are offended when you provide data suggesting blacks, on average, are less intelligent than whites. But if you tell them "white men can't jump", that's clearly not racist. Tell them about the dominance of blacks in sprinting events such as the 100 meters and they'll surely not accuse of insidious intentions.
But they get real pissed when you talk about intelligence. I think this speaks to the pervasive collectivism apparent in the black community. Now blacks were, at one point, excluded from most of the mainstream institutions. As a result, they were forced to create their own entirely black social structures, like black fraternities, churches, civil rights organizations, and the most communistic holiday ever: Kwanzaa. The problem is that while society's racial mores have progressed towards tolerance, blacks have been largely obdurate about integration. They stubbornly allow these exclusionary and "officially" black institutions to persist.
It's in this behavior that we see their holding onto racial collectivism. It's also the stimulus that causes their ire when confronted with racial intelligence differences. For many blacks, their self is strongly connected to their inclusion in a particular race, rather than their individual merit. Now I'm not discounting ethnic cohesiveness; it can provide a strong emotional base. But when that becomes an overriding theme to one's sense of self, that's a problem (see Obamas). They are actually personally insulted by statistics of a group.
I've witnessed this odd cognitive dissonance, but I still don't understand it. How can the average of a group insult you if it doesn't apply to you an an individual? Once again, we see how identity politics poisons.
Finally, I ask, Does Yao Ming feel slighted when Shaq comes up to him on the court and says: Ya know, Asians are, on average, shorter than blacks?
Apparently, HBD offends black people. Who would have thought?
Well let me qualify the above statement. Black people are offended when you provide data suggesting blacks, on average, are less intelligent than whites. But if you tell them "white men can't jump", that's clearly not racist. Tell them about the dominance of blacks in sprinting events such as the 100 meters and they'll surely not accuse of insidious intentions.
But they get real pissed when you talk about intelligence. I think this speaks to the pervasive collectivism apparent in the black community. Now blacks were, at one point, excluded from most of the mainstream institutions. As a result, they were forced to create their own entirely black social structures, like black fraternities, churches, civil rights organizations, and the most communistic holiday ever: Kwanzaa. The problem is that while society's racial mores have progressed towards tolerance, blacks have been largely obdurate about integration. They stubbornly allow these exclusionary and "officially" black institutions to persist.
It's in this behavior that we see their holding onto racial collectivism. It's also the stimulus that causes their ire when confronted with racial intelligence differences. For many blacks, their self is strongly connected to their inclusion in a particular race, rather than their individual merit. Now I'm not discounting ethnic cohesiveness; it can provide a strong emotional base. But when that becomes an overriding theme to one's sense of self, that's a problem (see Obamas). They are actually personally insulted by statistics of a group.
I've witnessed this odd cognitive dissonance, but I still don't understand it. How can the average of a group insult you if it doesn't apply to you an an individual? Once again, we see how identity politics poisons.
Finally, I ask, Does Yao Ming feel slighted when Shaq comes up to him on the court and says: Ya know, Asians are, on average, shorter than blacks?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Effect of Culture on Observable Genetic Traits
Commenting is encouraged and appreciated. Feel free to comment on old posts as well.
In arguing for the unequal gene frequencies amongst continent based populations, I've come across a few counterarguments I'd classify as not entirely absurd. I'll respond to one of them here.
Most environment proponents (EP) distinguish between two types of human traits: those affected by the environment ('nurture' traits) and those that are not ('nature' traits). In general, they categorize 'nurture' traits as those corresponding with intelligence, behavior, and social interactions and 'nature' traits' as those corresponding with many physical chracteristics. They contend the 'nature' traits are much less responsive to environment than 'nurture' traits. For example, someone with genes for red hair will always have red hair, independent of the environment. Behavioral traits and intelligence seem to be more conducive to change influenced by the environment. EP's then conclude that the environmental hypothesis is more likely true because they've attempted to isolate intelligence from the genetic or 'nature' category.
This argument is flawed on a number of accounts. First, it's largely a myth that IQ and 'g' areheavily influenced by the environment. Some data follows.
Twin Study: IQ is Inherited
Article about IQ Misconceptions:
So, it's clear IQ scores generally express one's innate and biological intelligence.
Second, by setting up this dichotomy, the EP's try to separate intelligence from those traits that are almost entirely dictated by genetics, like eye and hair color. Then, they can define intelligence as an 'nurture' trait instead of the 'nature' trait we know it to be. Yet, even by their own standards, this dichotomy fails. There are many traits that are almost universally accepted as genetic: like height, weight, build, strength, skin color.
But think about the above physical characteristics. While I agree that each person has a natural propensity towards either being tall or short or fat or skinny, it's ostensibly clear that environment can easily alter these characteristics. So even skin color, an important indicator of racial or ethnic origin, can be significantly altered by sun exposure, which is an environmental stimulus. Physique can be altered through intense exercise.
By setting up this false dual classification, the EP's offer up a strawman argument. No hereditarians espouse an entirely genetic exposition of the race/intelligence problem. Strong hereditarians like Jensen and Rushton have surmised intelligence is 70% inherited, leaving 30% for environmental or cultural factors. Thus, it's reasonable to place intelligence in the 'nature' category because, like weight and strength, it's largely defined by heredity, but not entirely so.
In arguing for the unequal gene frequencies amongst continent based populations, I've come across a few counterarguments I'd classify as not entirely absurd. I'll respond to one of them here.
Most environment proponents (EP) distinguish between two types of human traits: those affected by the environment ('nurture' traits) and those that are not ('nature' traits). In general, they categorize 'nurture' traits as those corresponding with intelligence, behavior, and social interactions and 'nature' traits' as those corresponding with many physical chracteristics. They contend the 'nature' traits are much less responsive to environment than 'nurture' traits. For example, someone with genes for red hair will always have red hair, independent of the environment. Behavioral traits and intelligence seem to be more conducive to change influenced by the environment. EP's then conclude that the environmental hypothesis is more likely true because they've attempted to isolate intelligence from the genetic or 'nature' category.
This argument is flawed on a number of accounts. First, it's largely a myth that IQ and 'g' areheavily influenced by the environment. Some data follows.
Twin Study: IQ is Inherited
But these new findings suggest that "g" is not just a statistical abstraction, but rather, that it has a biological substrate in the brain. I'm convinced that there are genes.
The finding suggests that environment - their own personal experiences, what they learned in life, who they knew - played a negligible role in shaping it.
Article about IQ Misconceptions:
A 2004 longitudinal study of a Scottish sample, conducted by an Edinburgh team of scientists led by Ian J. Deary, shows that intelligence changes very little after the age of 11. The correlation between IQ measured at age 11 and IQ measured at age 80 is .73. The little-known fact that intelligence remains stable after childhood means, among other things, that there is very little individuals can do in their adolescence and adulthood to increase their intelligence.
So, it's clear IQ scores generally express one's innate and biological intelligence.
Second, by setting up this dichotomy, the EP's try to separate intelligence from those traits that are almost entirely dictated by genetics, like eye and hair color. Then, they can define intelligence as an 'nurture' trait instead of the 'nature' trait we know it to be. Yet, even by their own standards, this dichotomy fails. There are many traits that are almost universally accepted as genetic: like height, weight, build, strength, skin color.
But think about the above physical characteristics. While I agree that each person has a natural propensity towards either being tall or short or fat or skinny, it's ostensibly clear that environment can easily alter these characteristics. So even skin color, an important indicator of racial or ethnic origin, can be significantly altered by sun exposure, which is an environmental stimulus. Physique can be altered through intense exercise.
By setting up this false dual classification, the EP's offer up a strawman argument. No hereditarians espouse an entirely genetic exposition of the race/intelligence problem. Strong hereditarians like Jensen and Rushton have surmised intelligence is 70% inherited, leaving 30% for environmental or cultural factors. Thus, it's reasonable to place intelligence in the 'nature' category because, like weight and strength, it's largely defined by heredity, but not entirely so.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Genes Linked to Intelligence
Commenting encouraged and appreciated. Feel free to comment on old posts as well.
Commenter 'steve' (Sailer?) recently posted an interesting article that I'm sure most of you have read: David Friedman on Liberal Creationism
It provides a good summary, but not as good as this one, of the race/intelligence debate. But what I found most interesting was one of the comments by Marc. He wrote:
I rather easily found information on SSADH and CHRM2 and their links to intelligence.
SSADH: A functional polymorphism in the succinate-semiaaldehyde gene is associated with cognitive ability
CHRM2: Association of CHRM2 with IQ
'Marc' claims that, from information contained in the Hapmap, these genes do not have equal frequencies amongst the continent based populations. Add this evidence to the gene frequency inequality and intelligence connections of Microcephelin and DAB1 and our side is slowly starting to find undeniable proof (besides all that "trivial" 100 years of stagnant testing data).
Will the leftist creationists continue to ignore this incredibly solid proof? I imagine so. Remember, creationists act solely on faith, not reason.
Note: Commenter 'steve' (not Sailer) has been leaving many great HBD links in the comments section of various posts. They're worth a quick gander. I may hightlight a few of them, like I did here.
Commenter 'steve' (Sailer?) recently posted an interesting article that I'm sure most of you have read: David Friedman on Liberal Creationism
It provides a good summary, but not as good as this one, of the race/intelligence debate. But what I found most interesting was one of the comments by Marc. He wrote:
The fact that those gene variants (rs2760118-C on SSADH, rs324650-T on CHRM2, and rs760761-C on DTNBP1, for example) which have been tied to IQ are not distributed evenly among the populations sampled in the Hapmap... this isn't compelling basis for speculation?
I rather easily found information on SSADH and CHRM2 and their links to intelligence.
SSADH: A functional polymorphism in the succinate-semiaaldehyde gene is associated with cognitive ability
CHRM2: Association of CHRM2 with IQ
'Marc' claims that, from information contained in the Hapmap, these genes do not have equal frequencies amongst the continent based populations. Add this evidence to the gene frequency inequality and intelligence connections of Microcephelin and DAB1 and our side is slowly starting to find undeniable proof (besides all that "trivial" 100 years of stagnant testing data).
Will the leftist creationists continue to ignore this incredibly solid proof? I imagine so. Remember, creationists act solely on faith, not reason.
Note: Commenter 'steve' (not Sailer) has been leaving many great HBD links in the comments section of various posts. They're worth a quick gander. I may hightlight a few of them, like I did here.
Add it to HBD, NAM, and SWPL
I am now christening a new acronym that will spread rapidly through the HBD blogosphere.
WCM = White Christian Male
Start using it!
WCM = White Christian Male
Start using it!
Dumbest Way to Account for Achievement Gap: Baby Doll Test
Commenting encouraged and appreciated. Feel free to comment on old posts as well.
I have recently come across possibly the worst way to account for the black-white achievement gap. Sadly, this "study" and expert testimony played an integral part in the desegregation of schools. Ya know because blaming whitey is clearly more tenable than simply promoting equality.
Back in the 40's, a black guy named Kenneth Clark did a number of experiments with young black children. His goal: Prove these children internalized the racist norms of the dominant society and that it significantly affected their school performance. To this day, this wildly speculative conjecture (which, ironically, matches the offending parties' worldview) seeps into the black-white gap debate.
He took very young black children, around 5 years old, and asked them to attribute certain characteristics to either a black baby doll or a white baby doll. The three most important descriptions were: pretty/ugly, good/bad, nice/mean. In the original experiment, more kids associated the white doll with pretty, good, and nice. The black doll was more often associated with the negative adjectives.
Kenneth Clark, in a highly "critical" analysis of the data, concluded this was clearly evidence of racism. The young black children were inundated with the "soft bigotry of low expectations", as Bush would later say in his NCLB mandate. Clark claimed white racism and cultural norms that assumed white superiority were to blame for this "troubling data". But despite how much liberals want to believe this, might there be better reasons for the results? Might there be real-world experiences that contribute to these correlations?
I think so. Let's look at each trait separately.
Pretty vs Ugly: Perhaps people in general consider fairer skin and straight hair to be more attractive than physical features prevalent amongst blacks. There's a reason why almost everyone considers Sweden to have the most attractive women. I must concede though that this is the only characteristic I'd be willing to "blame" on societal norms. Yet, in what manner will this reduce black achievement? And aren't there examples of non-white groups that this doesn't seem to affect, like Asians? And aren't all girls of every race self-conscious about their looks?
Good vs Bad: Well this one shouldn't be hard if you're aware of the prevalence of black crime. It's reasonable that these children had already become cognizant of this disparity. It's also possible they noted the difference in behavior patterns amongst the races. Blacks tend to be disruptive and insubordinate in school.
Nice vs Mean: From personal experience, I generally associate fairer colors with more serene environments. I associate a light pastels, such as rose-imbued white pigmentation, with spring and warmth. In popular culture, lighter colors are used to decorate happier scenes, while dark colors and nighttime are harbingers of danger. As far as people, it's possible the anti-social mores common amongst black parents, such as drug abuse, absenteeism, and neglect, soured these childrens' view of blacks. In desegregated schools in the North, it's also reasonable to assume their kindergarten teachers were progressive, nice, pretty, 23 year-old women from NYU or Brown.
But despite these seemingly plausible alternatives, Clark argued his results clearly implied black kids had become inundated with the ideas of racism and, in turn, hated themselves. Considering black self-esteem is generally higher than white self-esteem, this is almost laughable. His conclusions constitute merely one possible interpretation amongst many other more reasonable ones which aren't restrained by ideological bias.
Further, it's interesting to note Good Morning America re-did this study a few months ago. They, not surprisingly, found the results were almost switched. A young student's response even implies their choices were at least somewhat dictated by real-world experience:
I have recently come across possibly the worst way to account for the black-white achievement gap. Sadly, this "study" and expert testimony played an integral part in the desegregation of schools. Ya know because blaming whitey is clearly more tenable than simply promoting equality.
Back in the 40's, a black guy named Kenneth Clark did a number of experiments with young black children. His goal: Prove these children internalized the racist norms of the dominant society and that it significantly affected their school performance. To this day, this wildly speculative conjecture (which, ironically, matches the offending parties' worldview) seeps into the black-white gap debate.
He took very young black children, around 5 years old, and asked them to attribute certain characteristics to either a black baby doll or a white baby doll. The three most important descriptions were: pretty/ugly, good/bad, nice/mean. In the original experiment, more kids associated the white doll with pretty, good, and nice. The black doll was more often associated with the negative adjectives.
Kenneth Clark, in a highly "critical" analysis of the data, concluded this was clearly evidence of racism. The young black children were inundated with the "soft bigotry of low expectations", as Bush would later say in his NCLB mandate. Clark claimed white racism and cultural norms that assumed white superiority were to blame for this "troubling data". But despite how much liberals want to believe this, might there be better reasons for the results? Might there be real-world experiences that contribute to these correlations?
I think so. Let's look at each trait separately.
Pretty vs Ugly: Perhaps people in general consider fairer skin and straight hair to be more attractive than physical features prevalent amongst blacks. There's a reason why almost everyone considers Sweden to have the most attractive women. I must concede though that this is the only characteristic I'd be willing to "blame" on societal norms. Yet, in what manner will this reduce black achievement? And aren't there examples of non-white groups that this doesn't seem to affect, like Asians? And aren't all girls of every race self-conscious about their looks?
Good vs Bad: Well this one shouldn't be hard if you're aware of the prevalence of black crime. It's reasonable that these children had already become cognizant of this disparity. It's also possible they noted the difference in behavior patterns amongst the races. Blacks tend to be disruptive and insubordinate in school.
Nice vs Mean: From personal experience, I generally associate fairer colors with more serene environments. I associate a light pastels, such as rose-imbued white pigmentation, with spring and warmth. In popular culture, lighter colors are used to decorate happier scenes, while dark colors and nighttime are harbingers of danger. As far as people, it's possible the anti-social mores common amongst black parents, such as drug abuse, absenteeism, and neglect, soured these childrens' view of blacks. In desegregated schools in the North, it's also reasonable to assume their kindergarten teachers were progressive, nice, pretty, 23 year-old women from NYU or Brown.
But despite these seemingly plausible alternatives, Clark argued his results clearly implied black kids had become inundated with the ideas of racism and, in turn, hated themselves. Considering black self-esteem is generally higher than white self-esteem, this is almost laughable. His conclusions constitute merely one possible interpretation amongst many other more reasonable ones which aren't restrained by ideological bias.
Further, it's interesting to note Good Morning America re-did this study a few months ago. They, not surprisingly, found the results were almost switched. A young student's response even implies their choices were at least somewhat dictated by real-world experience:
It talks back and don't follow directions," said 7-year-old Alexis Lindsey, a second-grader who chose the black doll as the bad one.I will discuss later how one can actually falsify the "internalization racism" idea. Teaser: It involves "Occam's Butterknife."
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Why Focus on Groups and not Individuals
Commenting encouraged and appreciated. Feel free to comment on old posts as well.
A comment (by David) recently inquired why this blog focuses on group differences instead of stressing the importance of the individual. I was actually going to broach this topic after a post about Judge Sotomayor, but I'll briefly offer a few reasons.
First, racial differences are intellectually stimulating. It's not necessary that every intellectual study have practical application. The beauty of Proust's prose or the vastness of space serve almost entirely to engage our imaginations.
Second, racial and ethnic differences provide an incredible explanatory tool for societal phenomenon. Of course, let me qualify this by stating genetics do not present a deterministic model for cultural advancement. European hegemony resulted partly from proximity to connecting waterways like seas and rivers. But why is Africa still so destitute? The relatively low African intelligence goes a long way in explaining this. Why are Asian countries less prone to violence? Asian temerity and passiveness explain much of this. Average racial differences can account for most of the disparities in standardized test scores, educational attainment, crime rates, job promotion rates, mortgage default rates, and average income.
Third, and somewhat connected to the above, the study of Human Biodiversity is a direct consequence of liberal whining and programs like affirmative action. Conservatives believe in the notion of the individual and his unique merit and ability. Programs like affirmative action, that subjugate the individual to his collective, that assume racial averages are equal, contradict these ideals. Affirmative action, diversity programs, and the like rest on the false Marxist egalitarian principle. As much as liberals attempt to raise the status of the black man, to imbue him with white-collar jobs, to increase his social status above the depraved, to increase his monetary holdings above the poor, it will never occur. Genetics limit the social ascension of groups. And that's what liberals are primarily concerned with. They don't consider equity the ability for an individual to ascend. Rather, they consider equity the equality of racialachievement rates. So to counter this ill conceived idea, HBD conservatives have to advertise the false premise of these programs. Simply, they'll never succeed and these programs undermine the free, meritocratic nature of our society.
Basically, the only way we can stop these programs is so appeal to human biodiversity.
But David is right, in the end, only individuals matter. Individuals are hired or fired. Individuals sit before a potential employer. Individuals are chosen for work or admission. So, while we are cognizant of these average differences, it's important we don't apply these differences to individuals of various collectives. Judgment of the individual should be based solely on their own worth.
The Ricci New Haven firefighter case is a clear illustration of this point. So apprehensive about a possible discrimination lawsuit, the fire department simply stopped promoting anyone. But if human biodiversity was widely accepted, the results of the intelligence exam (where no blacks could pass it and the top was dominated by whites) would simply be accepted as reflecting average racial differences. As a result of the false premise of racial average equality, hard working, diligent, honest men were denied opportunities almost entirely on the basis of their skin color (but of course, in contemporary society, you can't discriminate against whites.)
A comment (by David) recently inquired why this blog focuses on group differences instead of stressing the importance of the individual. I was actually going to broach this topic after a post about Judge Sotomayor, but I'll briefly offer a few reasons.
First, racial differences are intellectually stimulating. It's not necessary that every intellectual study have practical application. The beauty of Proust's prose or the vastness of space serve almost entirely to engage our imaginations.
Second, racial and ethnic differences provide an incredible explanatory tool for societal phenomenon. Of course, let me qualify this by stating genetics do not present a deterministic model for cultural advancement. European hegemony resulted partly from proximity to connecting waterways like seas and rivers. But why is Africa still so destitute? The relatively low African intelligence goes a long way in explaining this. Why are Asian countries less prone to violence? Asian temerity and passiveness explain much of this. Average racial differences can account for most of the disparities in standardized test scores, educational attainment, crime rates, job promotion rates, mortgage default rates, and average income.
Third, and somewhat connected to the above, the study of Human Biodiversity is a direct consequence of liberal whining and programs like affirmative action. Conservatives believe in the notion of the individual and his unique merit and ability. Programs like affirmative action, that subjugate the individual to his collective, that assume racial averages are equal, contradict these ideals. Affirmative action, diversity programs, and the like rest on the false Marxist egalitarian principle. As much as liberals attempt to raise the status of the black man, to imbue him with white-collar jobs, to increase his social status above the depraved, to increase his monetary holdings above the poor, it will never occur. Genetics limit the social ascension of groups. And that's what liberals are primarily concerned with. They don't consider equity the ability for an individual to ascend. Rather, they consider equity the equality of racialachievement rates. So to counter this ill conceived idea, HBD conservatives have to advertise the false premise of these programs. Simply, they'll never succeed and these programs undermine the free, meritocratic nature of our society.
Basically, the only way we can stop these programs is so appeal to human biodiversity.
But David is right, in the end, only individuals matter. Individuals are hired or fired. Individuals sit before a potential employer. Individuals are chosen for work or admission. So, while we are cognizant of these average differences, it's important we don't apply these differences to individuals of various collectives. Judgment of the individual should be based solely on their own worth.
The Ricci New Haven firefighter case is a clear illustration of this point. So apprehensive about a possible discrimination lawsuit, the fire department simply stopped promoting anyone. But if human biodiversity was widely accepted, the results of the intelligence exam (where no blacks could pass it and the top was dominated by whites) would simply be accepted as reflecting average racial differences. As a result of the false premise of racial average equality, hard working, diligent, honest men were denied opportunities almost entirely on the basis of their skin color (but of course, in contemporary society, you can't discriminate against whites.)
Sotomayor: From a Racial Perspective
Commenting encouraged and appreciated. Feel free to comment on old posts as well.
President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for a seat of the Supreme Court today. As is usually the case with Obama, there are racial undercurrents to this decision. As with Obama's affirmative action election, this appointment and the subsequent media coverage of this "monumental event" belies the notion of a "post-racial" society. There are important implications concerning race relations and the coming racial demographics.
It's not surprising that the growing Hispanic population will result in even more identity politics in the political arena. As the Latino population grows, yet another low achieving group will grouse about perceived inequality. To placate this, the political sphere and the media will undoubtedly engage in more racial racketeering. The coverage of this appointment is similar to the Obama presidency. As I discussed earlier, the youth and the country in general now believe that meritocratic achievement warrants less acclaim than the presence of the first [insert "oppressed minority"] [insert important position]. The main story has been the nomination of the first Latino woman and secondary topics involve her judgments (ya know because law decisions aren't really that important for judges).
As far as race goes, Sotomayor has an almost as discouraging record as Obama. In the Ricci case, she denied Ricci his rightful promotion. This implies her approval of grossly unfair affirmative action and diversity policies. Second, and much worse, she made the following quote:
It doesn't get much more transparent than that. But as any objective observer has noted, claiming superiority of any race but white is not indicative of racism. Maybe someone will claim I'm a hypocrite because I believe in average racial differences and her statement is concerning average racial differences. But my "beliefs" are based in data, hers are based in a conceited notion of her culture being "richer" than that of Mainstream America (a contention laughable considering the state of South America vs the US).
President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for a seat of the Supreme Court today. As is usually the case with Obama, there are racial undercurrents to this decision. As with Obama's affirmative action election, this appointment and the subsequent media coverage of this "monumental event" belies the notion of a "post-racial" society. There are important implications concerning race relations and the coming racial demographics.
It's not surprising that the growing Hispanic population will result in even more identity politics in the political arena. As the Latino population grows, yet another low achieving group will grouse about perceived inequality. To placate this, the political sphere and the media will undoubtedly engage in more racial racketeering. The coverage of this appointment is similar to the Obama presidency. As I discussed earlier, the youth and the country in general now believe that meritocratic achievement warrants less acclaim than the presence of the first [insert "oppressed minority"] [insert important position]. The main story has been the nomination of the first Latino woman and secondary topics involve her judgments (ya know because law decisions aren't really that important for judges).
As far as race goes, Sotomayor has an almost as discouraging record as Obama. In the Ricci case, she denied Ricci his rightful promotion. This implies her approval of grossly unfair affirmative action and diversity policies. Second, and much worse, she made the following quote:
a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male
It doesn't get much more transparent than that. But as any objective observer has noted, claiming superiority of any race but white is not indicative of racism. Maybe someone will claim I'm a hypocrite because I believe in average racial differences and her statement is concerning average racial differences. But my "beliefs" are based in data, hers are based in a conceited notion of her culture being "richer" than that of Mainstream America (a contention laughable considering the state of South America vs the US).
Diversity Programs: Conflict for the HBD Conservative Individualist
Comments are encouraged and appreciated.
Diversity programs abound in just about every single organization. There's an "Office of Minority Affairs" on almost every campus, Diversity outreach positions at every hospital, law firms specializing in racial racketeering, and non-profits propagating the virtues of affirmative action and diversity programming.
Conservatives generally criticize these initiatives as unnecessary, unfair, and opposed to the individualistic bedrock of our society. Affirmative action programs steal spots from deserving candidates merely on the basis of their race. In turn, highly underqualified minority candidates are given positions for which they aren't suitable. Diversity programs generally overemphasis the contributions of minority groups, engage in hypocrisy concerning the glorification of minority cultures over those of the West, denigrate achievements of the West, support cultural and moral relativism, and worst of all: assume aspects of the individual are almost predetermined by their origin culture. Or equivalently, individuals of specific races or ethnicities bring a certain viewpoint merely on the basis of their inclusion in one of these groups.
Modern conservatism stresses the importance of the individual, his decision making, his industry, and his unique ability. Thus, the conservative opposes these programs because it suppresses the individual to the collectives.
Yet, a conflict arises for the HBD believer (or more appropriately, the HBD acceptor because it sure isn't a matter of faith). The HBDers generally accept the notion that races differ on their average characteristics. So if you get 1000 Italians and compare their aggressiveness to 1000 Asians, the Italian average will surely be higher. The same applies to racial predilections, blacks being aggressive, Asians passive and hard-working, Irish socially affable, etc.
As an illustrative example, consider racially themed college dorms. Conservatives generally oppose the notion that blacks should live with other blacks because it's a comforting environment and the blacks are able to connect more easily with each other. The conservative says people are individuals, not merely constructs of their culture. Yet, from HBD, it's apparent blacks will generally harbor personality traits more common amongst other blacks. This can also be applied to work settings or businesses.
In the end, I think we have two options:
1) Keep fighting the conservative viewpoint and ignore the notion of HBD because liberals will never accept that premise.
2) Concede the diversity programs on the basis of HBD. This entails liberals would necessarily have to accept HBD in order to agree with us.
I guess either way we win. If I had to choose, I'd go with number two. HBD has such practical importance and possibly a concession or two is necessary to ensure it's dissemination.
Diversity programs abound in just about every single organization. There's an "Office of Minority Affairs" on almost every campus, Diversity outreach positions at every hospital, law firms specializing in racial racketeering, and non-profits propagating the virtues of affirmative action and diversity programming.
Conservatives generally criticize these initiatives as unnecessary, unfair, and opposed to the individualistic bedrock of our society. Affirmative action programs steal spots from deserving candidates merely on the basis of their race. In turn, highly underqualified minority candidates are given positions for which they aren't suitable. Diversity programs generally overemphasis the contributions of minority groups, engage in hypocrisy concerning the glorification of minority cultures over those of the West, denigrate achievements of the West, support cultural and moral relativism, and worst of all: assume aspects of the individual are almost predetermined by their origin culture. Or equivalently, individuals of specific races or ethnicities bring a certain viewpoint merely on the basis of their inclusion in one of these groups.
Modern conservatism stresses the importance of the individual, his decision making, his industry, and his unique ability. Thus, the conservative opposes these programs because it suppresses the individual to the collectives.
Yet, a conflict arises for the HBD believer (or more appropriately, the HBD acceptor because it sure isn't a matter of faith). The HBDers generally accept the notion that races differ on their average characteristics. So if you get 1000 Italians and compare their aggressiveness to 1000 Asians, the Italian average will surely be higher. The same applies to racial predilections, blacks being aggressive, Asians passive and hard-working, Irish socially affable, etc.
As an illustrative example, consider racially themed college dorms. Conservatives generally oppose the notion that blacks should live with other blacks because it's a comforting environment and the blacks are able to connect more easily with each other. The conservative says people are individuals, not merely constructs of their culture. Yet, from HBD, it's apparent blacks will generally harbor personality traits more common amongst other blacks. This can also be applied to work settings or businesses.
In the end, I think we have two options:
1) Keep fighting the conservative viewpoint and ignore the notion of HBD because liberals will never accept that premise.
2) Concede the diversity programs on the basis of HBD. This entails liberals would necessarily have to accept HBD in order to agree with us.
I guess either way we win. If I had to choose, I'd go with number two. HBD has such practical importance and possibly a concession or two is necessary to ensure it's dissemination.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Asians: The Minority Liberals Don't Like
Comments are encouraged and appreciated.
Modern liberalism, the kind espoused by SWPL's, is centered on the concept of collectivism. But to modern liberals, only some collectives are acceptable. The one big collective that they assuredly despise: White Christian Males (other posts will surely deal with this). This is evident to the perceptive Conservative. But there's another group the liberals don't particularly like, a group largely absent from the public consciousness: Asians. Note: When I use the word "Asian", I primarily mean people of Chinese, Korean, or Japanese descent.
Yes, the liberal media isn't too fond of the Asians. Why? Why would the elite liberal media be so unwilling to spotlight the supposed "model minority"? It originates from the liberal establishment's incessant protecting of their pet minority groups: primarily blacks, but also Latinos.
First, let me give you an example of how the media portrays Asians. This was from the daily newspaper at Princeton. It was their joke issue where they mocked Jian Li, an Asian applicant who sued Princeton for racial bias due to their affirmative action policies.
You can figure out the rest. Now imagine if a similar article had been written in Ebonics about a black person. OK you get the point.
So back to the question. Liberals hate Asians because they don't follow the supposed minority archetype. Basically, Asians are too successful. According to liberals, here's how America is supposed to work. America is a good ol' boys network where hard work and natural ability are inevitability offset by nepotism and, in the case of blacks/Latinos, racism. Yet, the Asians, most likely to their higher average intelligence and cultural propensity for diligence, perform even better than whites.
The liberals have a conflict. They want to blame whitey for disallowing the social mobility of blacks, but the Asians throw the whole minority hypothesis in a loop. It seems as though a given minority can do just fine if they have the natural gifts required for success. Hmmm, interesting that we live in a country where industriousness and actual merit are rewarded. Liberals seek to undermine the notion of economic freedom to protect their pet groups.
Unfortunately, due to Asians not fitting the standard, the liberal argument is weakened. But it doesn't really matter. Liberals just ignore them and rant about institutional racism.
Modern liberalism, the kind espoused by SWPL's, is centered on the concept of collectivism. But to modern liberals, only some collectives are acceptable. The one big collective that they assuredly despise: White Christian Males (other posts will surely deal with this). This is evident to the perceptive Conservative. But there's another group the liberals don't particularly like, a group largely absent from the public consciousness: Asians. Note: When I use the word "Asian", I primarily mean people of Chinese, Korean, or Japanese descent.
Yes, the liberal media isn't too fond of the Asians. Why? Why would the elite liberal media be so unwilling to spotlight the supposed "model minority"? It originates from the liberal establishment's incessant protecting of their pet minority groups: primarily blacks, but also Latinos.
First, let me give you an example of how the media portrays Asians. This was from the daily newspaper at Princeton. It was their joke issue where they mocked Jian Li, an Asian applicant who sued Princeton for racial bias due to their affirmative action policies.
Just in cases, let me refresh your memories. I the super smart Asian. Princeton the super dumb college, not accept me. I get angry and file a federal civil rights complaint against Princeton for rejecting my application for admission.
You can figure out the rest. Now imagine if a similar article had been written in Ebonics about a black person. OK you get the point.
So back to the question. Liberals hate Asians because they don't follow the supposed minority archetype. Basically, Asians are too successful. According to liberals, here's how America is supposed to work. America is a good ol' boys network where hard work and natural ability are inevitability offset by nepotism and, in the case of blacks/Latinos, racism. Yet, the Asians, most likely to their higher average intelligence and cultural propensity for diligence, perform even better than whites.
The liberals have a conflict. They want to blame whitey for disallowing the social mobility of blacks, but the Asians throw the whole minority hypothesis in a loop. It seems as though a given minority can do just fine if they have the natural gifts required for success. Hmmm, interesting that we live in a country where industriousness and actual merit are rewarded. Liberals seek to undermine the notion of economic freedom to protect their pet groups.
Unfortunately, due to Asians not fitting the standard, the liberal argument is weakened. But it doesn't really matter. Liberals just ignore them and rant about institutional racism.
Quick, Easy to Understand Primer on Average Racial Intelligence Differences
Comments are encouraged and appreciated.
If you hadn't figured it out yet, the "One Standard Deviation" references the stubborn gap between whites and blacks on every single cognitive examination.
Being a hereditarian, I attribute about 70% of the gap to genetics and the other 30% to environment. I borrowed this split from JP Rushton, though it reflects common anecdotal experience. But do the races actually have different distributions of intelligence?
Here's a shock to anyone who attended an inter-racial school: yes. And I contend the gap, unaffected by the Flynn Effect, is substantially genetic. So how would I prove this?
Here's a quick primer for proving average racial intelligence differences.
If you hadn't figured it out yet, the "One Standard Deviation" references the stubborn gap between whites and blacks on every single cognitive examination.
Being a hereditarian, I attribute about 70% of the gap to genetics and the other 30% to environment. I borrowed this split from JP Rushton, though it reflects common anecdotal experience. But do the races actually have different distributions of intelligence?
Here's a shock to anyone who attended an inter-racial school: yes. And I contend the gap, unaffected by the Flynn Effect, is substantially genetic. So how would I prove this?
Here's a quick primer for proving average racial intelligence differences.
1) Prove Race is a Biological Reality
Since the 1970's, the elite educational system has perpetrated the falsehood that race is merely a social construct. They propose that race is only skin-deep, that no average differences besides texture of hair, skin color, facial features, etc. exists. Of course, this is patently absurd. But what is a race? According to Steve Sailer, race is simply an extended family. The way I like to look at it: The races are continent based populations that have been genetically affected by various selection pressures that reflect the relevant continent's environment. Basically, humans emigrated out of Africa, then adpated, through natural selection, traits properly suited for survival in the relevant climate (e.g. polar bears are white because they can hide better in snow or Nordics have blonde hair due to surrounding terrain).
So if the races were actually biological, gene frequencies should not be equal amongst these populations. We should be able to obtain an individual's DNA, analyze their genes, and based on that, predict what continent their ancestors came from. Generally, continents correspond to races: Europe is white, Africa is black, Asia is Asian, South America is Latino, etc.
So what evidence do we have. Here's a recent article from the New York Times: "Humans Spread Globally, Evolved Locally", which includes this quote from a Univ. of Chicago Researcher:
The rest of the article discusses the lack of gene overlap and the local adaptions found through genetic analysis. For further proof, see this study by Noah Rosernberg of the University of Michigan which includes this quote:
Generally, IQ provides a suitable basis for measuring intelligence. It has its detractors (liberals hate objectivity because that means little Jacob won't be an Ivy Leaguer), but it has significant predictive value. See below article.
IQ Will Put You in Your Place: Charles Murray controlled for environment by only including sibling pairs who exhibit a significant intelligence gap.
IQ also seems to be a rather stable trait, which implies it's largely inherited. See article below.
Microcephalin, a Gene Regulating Brain Size, Continues to Evolve Adaptively in Humans
Another intelligence gene:
Here's SAT data controlling for income (not all blacks are poor).
Here's SAT data controlling for parental education (not all blacks grow up without educational role models).
Note the poorest whites score slightly better than the wealthist blacks and the children of the high school educated whites score slightly better than the children of graduate degree blacks.
Third, let's look at LSAT data. All people who take the LSAT are college graduates (see page 17).
Further, case studies have been done of middle class and affluent blacks. The most prominent was a study conducted by John Ogbu of Shaker Heights. This study once again showed the obdurate black-white achievement gap depsite socio-economic and educational quality being almost identical for the two groups.
If that's not enough, the U.S. Military, who is very fond of IQ testing, has been conducting intelligence examinations since 1917. For over 90 years, they have been compiling data concerning IQ scores and parsed it by race. Over that time period, black social status and quality of life have improved dramatically. Thus, the environmentalist position would assume the intelligence gap should undergo a commensurate change. Nope. The gap has been constant for 80 years.
Charles Murray has obtained similar results.
So how about the environmentalists arguments? Most of them will rant on about the "Flynn Effect". Apparently, raw IQ scores have been increasing every decade. Unfortunately, the increase has been the same for both whites and blacks (and Asians and Jews). So the gap has stayed constant. It's also interesting to note that the Flynn effect hasn't really affected the higher reaches of the Bell Curve where 'g' or innate intelligence is required. I'll have more on this in a later post, but it implies the Flynn Effect reflects our increasing technological advancement. IQ scores do have an environmental component (well the easiest questions do) and the little gadgets we have like cell phones and remotes can help in increasing IQ scores. But most importantly, the Flynn Effect stopped in the early 1990's, so it ain't doing anything right now.
Note: If you ever present this information to the average liberal, he will probably close his ears, call you a racist, then return to his gated community in the suburbs.
So if the races were actually biological, gene frequencies should not be equal amongst these populations. We should be able to obtain an individual's DNA, analyze their genes, and based on that, predict what continent their ancestors came from. Generally, continents correspond to races: Europe is white, Africa is black, Asia is Asian, South America is Latino, etc.
So what evidence do we have. Here's a recent article from the New York Times: "Humans Spread Globally, Evolved Locally", which includes this quote from a Univ. of Chicago Researcher:
There are difficulties in where you put boundaries on the globe, but we know now there are enough genetic differences between people from different parts of the world that you can classify people in groups that correspond to popular notions of race.
we found that individuals could be partitioned into six main genetic clusters, five of which corresponded to Africa, Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas
2) Intelligence is Genetic or Intelligence is Mostly Set at Birth
Generally, IQ provides a suitable basis for measuring intelligence. It has its detractors (liberals hate objectivity because that means little Jacob won't be an Ivy Leaguer), but it has significant predictive value. See below article.
IQ Will Put You in Your Place: Charles Murray controlled for environment by only including sibling pairs who exhibit a significant intelligence gap.
IQ also seems to be a rather stable trait, which implies it's largely inherited. See article below.
The findings suggest that achievement tests and IQ tests aren’t all that different, and that IQ remains consistent over time. “IQ is typically a very stable trait,” said lead researcher Ruth Spinks.
People seem to be “locked in” to outcomes at early ages, said Douglas Detterman, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio.So since it's clear IQ is generally an innate human trait, a genetic link must be found between measurable intelligence and functioning of the brain. Unsurprisingly, there is novel research being conducted in this field.
Microcephalin, a Gene Regulating Brain Size, Continues to Evolve Adaptively in Humans
The gene Microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size and has evolved under strong positive selection in the human evolutionary lineage. We show that one genetic variant of Microcephalin in modern humans, which arose ~37,000 years ago, increased in frequency too rapidly to be compatible with neutral drift. This indicates that it has spread under strong positive selection, although the exact nature of the selection is unknown.The above clearly implies this gene's frequency (which means better cognitive functioning) has increased after humans left Africa.
Another intelligence gene:
A robust body of evidence suggests that cognitive abilities, particularly intelligence, are significantly influenced by genetic factors. Existing data already suggests that dysbindin may influence cognition.And one more:
In a study by Dr. Scott Williamson of Cornell University, A newer version of the DAB1 gene had been shown to be universal among those of Chinese ancestry, but not found among other global populations. Being related to organizing the cells of the areas in the brain associated with higher cognitive function.Have scientists discovered the EXACT connection between intelligence and these genes or mapped these genes' frequencies amongst the races? This has been completed for a handful of genes, but an exhaustive picture of cognitive genetics has yet to be obtained. But clearly, an unbiased observer can see there is a biological and inherited component of brain functioning. Since genes do not have the same frequency amongst population groups (obvious examples include eye color, hair color, and skin color), it's highly unlikely these "intelligence" genes' frequencies will be equal amongst the races. Of course, the Marxists will revert to their "liberal creationism" if you present this, much like the creationists who won't accept evolution until EVERY transitional fossil has been found.
3) Intelligence Exams Show Racial Disparities
Here's SAT data controlling for income (not all blacks are poor).
Here's SAT data controlling for parental education (not all blacks grow up without educational role models).
Note the poorest whites score slightly better than the wealthist blacks and the children of the high school educated whites score slightly better than the children of graduate degree blacks.
Third, let's look at LSAT data. All people who take the LSAT are college graduates (see page 17).
Further, case studies have been done of middle class and affluent blacks. The most prominent was a study conducted by John Ogbu of Shaker Heights. This study once again showed the obdurate black-white achievement gap depsite socio-economic and educational quality being almost identical for the two groups.
If that's not enough, the U.S. Military, who is very fond of IQ testing, has been conducting intelligence examinations since 1917. For over 90 years, they have been compiling data concerning IQ scores and parsed it by race. Over that time period, black social status and quality of life have improved dramatically. Thus, the environmentalist position would assume the intelligence gap should undergo a commensurate change. Nope. The gap has been constant for 80 years.
Charles Murray has obtained similar results.
So how about the environmentalists arguments? Most of them will rant on about the "Flynn Effect". Apparently, raw IQ scores have been increasing every decade. Unfortunately, the increase has been the same for both whites and blacks (and Asians and Jews). So the gap has stayed constant. It's also interesting to note that the Flynn effect hasn't really affected the higher reaches of the Bell Curve where 'g' or innate intelligence is required. I'll have more on this in a later post, but it implies the Flynn Effect reflects our increasing technological advancement. IQ scores do have an environmental component (well the easiest questions do) and the little gadgets we have like cell phones and remotes can help in increasing IQ scores. But most importantly, the Flynn Effect stopped in the early 1990's, so it ain't doing anything right now.
Note: If you ever present this information to the average liberal, he will probably close his ears, call you a racist, then return to his gated community in the suburbs.
Why Barack Obama Got the Youth Vote
Comments are encouraged and appreciated.
OK, it's pretty clear Barack Obama was not only the first part black President, he was also the first affirmative action President. Now, I'm not contending his qualifications, such as a Harvard Law Degree and Senate experience, were accomplished primarily on the basis of his race. I surmise he legitimately attained these accolades. Rather I am pointing at his ascension to the Presidency and his unparalleled success amongst the (white liberal) youth vote.
We all know about "white guilt" and how it manifests in white support for affirmative action, diversity programs, and other race baiting. But this generation has been inundated with another deleterious aspect of racial brainwashing. The generation comprising individuals of the ages 18-35 have grown up in a society entirely lacking in racial segregation. They've grown up post-LBJ, the time period when the national policy began to require the majority "raising the status of the Negro."
As a result, our Marxist dominated educational systems (and popular culture and media) have taken the role of The Party, Orwell's paragon of public control. The teachers and schools have decided not only to present history, but to rewrite it with a revisionist slant designed to glorify the achievements of blacks and denigrate the oppressive system created by whites. So, unsurprisingly, we get results like the following:
USA Today Survey of High School Students on Famous Americans
According to the current youth, MLK, Rosa Parks, and Harriet Tubman are the most important Americans. Notice the link between them? More important than the Wright Bros, Bill Gates, Jonas Salk, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, etc.
Today's youth have internalized the overemphasis on black achievement. Subsequently, they subconsciously connect American progress with primarily the progress of blacks. The most important events in our history classes aren't American Independence or the defeat of totalitarians regimes or Communism; no it's protected minorities being granted rights (not that there's anything wrong with that). The Civil War has become a tale of slavery, not economics. The Civil Rights Era trumps Sputnik and the end of the Cold War. MLK has become a demi-god, the only individual besides Jesus with a national holiday on his birthday. Jackie Robinson, not Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle or Sandy Kouvax, is the most famous baseball player of all time. Let me qualify this: The progression of blacks was a wonderful step forward for this country, but when it begins to outshine more important progress, the kind that has facilitated American hegemony, and become the most pivotal type of progress, there's a problem.
When the youth saw Barack Obama, they actually did see "Change and Hope." They saw their unique opportunity to be a Rosa Parks, a Union soldier, or a Harriet Tubman. The media deluged them with the monumental possibility of the "first Black President". This could be their "first Black ____" and they were going to make it happen! Their vote was indicative of the ultimate type of change: the kind where blacks achieve some monumental ascension. So the youth voted to engage in the kind of change their history teachers taught them was the most important.
Knowing this, is it any coincidence that the youth were so enthralled by a charismatic black man?
OK, it's pretty clear Barack Obama was not only the first part black President, he was also the first affirmative action President. Now, I'm not contending his qualifications, such as a Harvard Law Degree and Senate experience, were accomplished primarily on the basis of his race. I surmise he legitimately attained these accolades. Rather I am pointing at his ascension to the Presidency and his unparalleled success amongst the (white liberal) youth vote.
We all know about "white guilt" and how it manifests in white support for affirmative action, diversity programs, and other race baiting. But this generation has been inundated with another deleterious aspect of racial brainwashing. The generation comprising individuals of the ages 18-35 have grown up in a society entirely lacking in racial segregation. They've grown up post-LBJ, the time period when the national policy began to require the majority "raising the status of the Negro."
As a result, our Marxist dominated educational systems (and popular culture and media) have taken the role of The Party, Orwell's paragon of public control. The teachers and schools have decided not only to present history, but to rewrite it with a revisionist slant designed to glorify the achievements of blacks and denigrate the oppressive system created by whites. So, unsurprisingly, we get results like the following:
USA Today Survey of High School Students on Famous Americans
According to the current youth, MLK, Rosa Parks, and Harriet Tubman are the most important Americans. Notice the link between them? More important than the Wright Bros, Bill Gates, Jonas Salk, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, etc.
Today's youth have internalized the overemphasis on black achievement. Subsequently, they subconsciously connect American progress with primarily the progress of blacks. The most important events in our history classes aren't American Independence or the defeat of totalitarians regimes or Communism; no it's protected minorities being granted rights (not that there's anything wrong with that). The Civil War has become a tale of slavery, not economics. The Civil Rights Era trumps Sputnik and the end of the Cold War. MLK has become a demi-god, the only individual besides Jesus with a national holiday on his birthday. Jackie Robinson, not Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle or Sandy Kouvax, is the most famous baseball player of all time. Let me qualify this: The progression of blacks was a wonderful step forward for this country, but when it begins to outshine more important progress, the kind that has facilitated American hegemony, and become the most pivotal type of progress, there's a problem.
When the youth saw Barack Obama, they actually did see "Change and Hope." They saw their unique opportunity to be a Rosa Parks, a Union soldier, or a Harriet Tubman. The media deluged them with the monumental possibility of the "first Black President". This could be their "first Black ____" and they were going to make it happen! Their vote was indicative of the ultimate type of change: the kind where blacks achieve some monumental ascension. So the youth voted to engage in the kind of change their history teachers taught them was the most important.
Knowing this, is it any coincidence that the youth were so enthralled by a charismatic black man?
What's This Blog About
Comments are encouraged and appreciated.
This is a blog concerning the topics of race and intelligence. You probably read iSteve, HalfSigma, GNXP, and Mangan's, amongst others. Fortunately, the HBD community has created a somewhat visible niche on the Interwebs. My intentions for this blog are to discuss relevant subjects with regards to the race/intelligence debate and the connected topic of race relations in contemporary American society. I imagine my posts will generally appeal to the same audience that frequents sites like those mentioned above. I will use this website as a cathartic means to vent my frustrations with the PC race denialists as well as present recent (or old, but important) work underpinning the hereditarian hypothesis.
My main targets of censure will be the deluded Marxist egalitarians, the PC thought-police elite liberals, the individuals comprising and preserving the "racial racketeering business", and maybe just profligate liberals in general.
I'll gauge readership primarily by the number of comments. So all comments are welcome.
This is a blog concerning the topics of race and intelligence. You probably read iSteve, HalfSigma, GNXP, and Mangan's, amongst others. Fortunately, the HBD community has created a somewhat visible niche on the Interwebs. My intentions for this blog are to discuss relevant subjects with regards to the race/intelligence debate and the connected topic of race relations in contemporary American society. I imagine my posts will generally appeal to the same audience that frequents sites like those mentioned above. I will use this website as a cathartic means to vent my frustrations with the PC race denialists as well as present recent (or old, but important) work underpinning the hereditarian hypothesis.
My main targets of censure will be the deluded Marxist egalitarians, the PC thought-police elite liberals, the individuals comprising and preserving the "racial racketeering business", and maybe just profligate liberals in general.
I'll gauge readership primarily by the number of comments. So all comments are welcome.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)