Well Yes, let's talk about racism. Your article is fine - up to a point - except that it seems predicated on the bien pensant falsehood that 'racism' is intrinsically something that white people direct at non-white people. There is infact a truly massive racism problem in the Western world and it is (primarily) White-on-White racism. Are we too concerned about it? No, on the contrary.... our vast university sheep-dipped graduate middle class is not concerned about it enough....is infact in denial about it.
A snippet: "Any fair-minded narration of events of the summer of 2020 following the death of George Floyd whilst being arrested by a Minneapolis police officer, would have been a very different telling than the one that gushed hysterically from the Western world’s mainstream media. It would – after acknowledging that the actions of the officer did indeed warrant urgent investigation - have moved on to also acknowledge that the incidence of black men dying at the hands of police in the USA is dwarfed by the problem of them dying at the hands of other black men. And as protests erupted in cities across America and beyond, the plot would have thickened when it turned out that this protest regularly found expression in the looting and vandalising of nearby black and Asian neighbourhood businesses. And as the summer wore on, journalists and tv crews would have started to pick up on the sharp upsurge of black-on-black violence in the most crime ridden neighbourhoods as shamed and demoralised city police departments backed off from attempting to maintain order......Eventually a constructive national conversation might then have begun on the question of whether ‘Systemic Racism’ really exists in today’s America. The angry charge of white racism (ironically emanating more from young middle class whites than from black people themselves) would have sparked a vigorous media interrogation. But this was not to be. In its stead we got an impassioned psychodrama playing out on a vast scale on the major news and commentary networks all across the Western world. ....."
Young black males are 10 times more likely to shoot a cop* than young white males and every cop knows this and wants to live. This produces cop* behaviors that are inherently racist and can result in the shooting of unarmed black men. There is no solution to this problem.
*Cops of any race. Black cops are equally afariad of young black men.
I agree with your comment with one little caveat. The actions of the police officer did not cause St. George Floyd, to die. The career criminal died of an overdose as per the autopsy.
"Last year, the University of Illinois announced that it “will no longer routinely use race, ethnicity or national origin as a descriptor in public safety advisories”. This is because public safety has to be balanced “with the potential negative perpetuation of stereotypes”."
The University of Minnesota (because of course) has also been doing the same thing since 2015. https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/u-m-changes-approach-suspect-descriptions-crime-alerts However, this has certainly changed: "If there is sufficient information to aid our community in identifying a specific individual suspect (e.g., some combination of gender, race, clothing, height, body type, build, accent, tattoos, hair color, facial hair, etc.), we will continue to include that information." Race hasn't been mentioned in alerts under any circumstances for the last several years.
The problem with "too much attention to racism" is that the judgment assumes something that liberal morality, at its core, denies. The liberal reduces all of ethics to rights discourse, and all of rights discourse to equality and nondiscrimination. Another way of putting this is to say that a liberal is someone who positively avoids any rich conception of virtue or culture. To have one, after all, would be to "privilege" some people over others.
So he swings this brutal formalism like a cudgel, and there is a puritanical joy in this.
Is there too much attention to racism? For a non-liberal the answer is "absolutely yes"... but then this assumes that a person is concerned with other matters, other kinds of human excellence, and that a hypertrophied sense of generalization concerning groups is in perspective just a minor flaw. It's not the all-consuming black hole vortex for all other flaws.
I think the practical questions here are just how many hardcore worshippers of the vortex will continue to be produced, and what the rest of us will be prepared to do about them. It will have to be unpleasant.
The US committed two mortal sins: (1) we enslaved Africans and (2) after slavery, parts of the US held black people in a serf-like status until 1970. Those sins were committed on the basis of race and we can't pretend that they weren't racist and unfair. This predicate poisons our ability to discuss the realties of race and culture because we stand guilty of really bad racial policies. Nonetheless, we must confront facts, as Charles Murray says, and look at objective criteria including anthropology, genomics, IQ tests, and social behavior indices. These are facts and we must confront them but in a fair and unbiased way. Hatred has no place in the discussion. But we must find a way to explain the reasons for the difference between the IQs of Papuans and Japanese.
Human history is (amongst other things) one long story of racial/ethnic oppressions of one kind or another. The US is no greater 'sinner' than others in this broader perspective. It just agonises about it more.
It's not clear why you think it's essential to start with race. Just for fun, like, must you also find a way to explain the difference between IQ in red flyover states and blue coastal states? Why not start by arguing that poorer educational, vocational and educational performance in poor red states is highly heritable? There's certainly more consensus around in-group heritability than between-group heritability, so wouldn't you be on firmer ground there?
In general, if there is any trend, it is that IQ increases with latitude. California and Texas are both slightly below normal. The red northern Rocky Mountain states are slightly above normal. New Mexico is a very blue, poor state and has one of the lowest average IQs in the US.
IQ correlates with many factors. It does not correlate well with statewide political affiliation or distance from coast, as readers will see if they link to the maps I cite.
Thanks, Alice K. I don't know about the methodology of your sources (it's only loosely described) but the substantive question is that since there is significant variation between states and we might presume that 'g' has something to do with it, so why is racial variation more important that state variation? We hear a lot about the former, nothing about the latter.
Hi, Realist. You misunderstand me. I was replying to Y Andropov's comment to the effect that there was an imperative ("we must") to discover the causes of racial IQ variation. I asked why we should consider racial variation so important when there is much regional variation. Clearly, if 'g' were a variation in racial variation it would also be in regional, or even state variation. Alice K's two attachments do indeed show that there is considerable regional or state variation, which is precisely my point. I wondered why we hear so much about racial variation, yet little about regional variation. I should say that Alice K's attachments do not take account of 'g', while 'g' is the thing most people here are concerned about. It seems quite possible that southern states are more affected by immigration and that immigrants are more affected by negative environmental factors. Best wishes, Eric
Laws, rules and regulations in and of themselves don’t explain very much. You have to look back in history to comprehend THE REASONS WHY those strictures were put in place to begin with in order to appreciate the varying shades of grey. Most people content themselves with black and white.
Yes, racism is a big problem in America. Not only are most blacks racist against whites, they are also racist against Hispanics, Asians, Jews and even other blacks. This wouldn't necessarily be a big problem except that blacks are exceedingly violent. While blacks are only around 15% of the population, they commit the vast majority of violent crimes including homicide and rape. To view blacks with suspicion or concern when amongst them is not racist. It is a self-preservation response based on experience and knowledge of verifiable facts. Go look up the FBI statistics.
If you're a white person or an asian or a Jew and you are not racist that simply means that you have never lived around blacks. Such a person should go live in Crown Heights, Bed Stuy, the Bronx, Baltimore, the south side of Chicago or anywhere else where "urban youths" and dindus are the majority. If that person somehow manages to survive, I doubt they'll have the same views on racism afterwards.
Marshall Yeats' article today https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2024/06/18/jews-are-rewarding-black-criminality/ describes the Californian Racial Justice Act 2020 in which Black (or, in principle, Hispanic) people who are charged with violent crimes, with extra charges due to the gang nature of the crime, can have those extra charges deleted because of the statistical fact that such extra charges are applied to people of their race. There is no need to show intent on the part of law enforcement officers or prosecutors.
"In other words, Black criminals will benefit from the fact their race commits disproportionately more crimes — Black criminality is thus rewarded, at the expense of victims of all ethnic backgrounds."
This has the effect of increasing Black violence - and so of harming and killing more Blacks, who make up the great majority of victims.
Racism is hatred of another race. Hatred is an emotion.
How exactly do you control people’s emotions in a manner that overrides their opinions formed by personal experience? The answer is YOU CANNOT CONTROL people’s thoughts and feelings.
You certainly can try to manipulate and brainwash people, but ultimately that is futile.
Even the multi-billion $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ DoD-implemented, weapons-grade propaganda campaign targeting the American People was doomed to failure.
Eventually, the public figures out they’re being lied to, deceived and totally fucked over. And they are PISSED OFF and will never trust authority figures or the institutions those usurpers have infiltrated ever again. Not ever.
One’s primary focus should be discrimination contrary to the law. And that’s where it should end.
No one is entitled to behave like a total bastard and then expect others to behave like you’re a great person to have around. If you are obnoxious and hateful, people will hate you. Tough shit if you don’t like it.
You can’t force people to put up with hostility, denigration and frankly, outright criminality indefinitely. There is a limit to how much relentlessly abusive Marxist rhetoric people are willing to put up with…and White America has hit that limit. Surpassed it, actually.
Going forward, things in this country are going to be very different. Tolerance of the intolerable and weaponized altruism are very much out of fashion, never again to be resurrected.
"Racism" and "sexism" as used currently are about outcomes. It simply implies fatuity on the part of accusers and rationality on the part of the accused. Thus "males are taller than females" is sexism. "Black criminality" is racism etc..
I've been reading some of the articles here and noting responses below the line. This article's interesting, (I've read some of Noah Carl's papers and usually find something which provokes thought. He's someone people should read). It discusses how people might respond to racism, although it doesn't actually say what racism is. Richard Lynn was very generous with his time with me fairly recently. He argued that his science was sound and accepted that he was a racist. Why? Because racism is a social construct and it's up to people what they construct socially, he said. "If they say I'm a racist, then in the end I am. But I don't disavow my science" (I paraphrase, but include quotes her for brevity, although I do have the verbatim notes). Reading some of the replies to articles here, it seems that some people who support his intellectual line are mounting a kind of rearguard action against the charge of racism. Nathan Cofnas' article seemsobviously racist: To wit; black people are genetically predisposed to, on average, be of lower intelligence that others". And so I wonder, what is the point of arguing that your aren't racist if the 'science' (scare quotes neutralising from a technical point of view but if you are stupied enough not to like it then I can't be bothered to explain and do fuck off) says you're right? Whether the science says you're right or not has literally no bearing on the status of a social construction. Anyway, just a thought.
The purpose of the exaggerated 'concern' of racism is not to stem real racism but to destroy the fabric of our society. This is just one of many Acts of Societal Disruption to weaken Western Civilization to facilitate further subjugation.
Thanks so much for this, Realist. I honestly think that people come at this from their own angle. You are absolutely free to argue as you wish. My point is that you might want to accept that you are, from your perspective scientifically, a racist? Like Lynn?
Well Yes, let's talk about racism. Your article is fine - up to a point - except that it seems predicated on the bien pensant falsehood that 'racism' is intrinsically something that white people direct at non-white people. There is infact a truly massive racism problem in the Western world and it is (primarily) White-on-White racism. Are we too concerned about it? No, on the contrary.... our vast university sheep-dipped graduate middle class is not concerned about it enough....is infact in denial about it.
I am pleased you talk about the 'Ferguson/George Floyd Effect' as I wrote a piece on this on my own 'stack a few days back: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/back-in-the-summer-of-2020
A snippet: "Any fair-minded narration of events of the summer of 2020 following the death of George Floyd whilst being arrested by a Minneapolis police officer, would have been a very different telling than the one that gushed hysterically from the Western world’s mainstream media. It would – after acknowledging that the actions of the officer did indeed warrant urgent investigation - have moved on to also acknowledge that the incidence of black men dying at the hands of police in the USA is dwarfed by the problem of them dying at the hands of other black men. And as protests erupted in cities across America and beyond, the plot would have thickened when it turned out that this protest regularly found expression in the looting and vandalising of nearby black and Asian neighbourhood businesses. And as the summer wore on, journalists and tv crews would have started to pick up on the sharp upsurge of black-on-black violence in the most crime ridden neighbourhoods as shamed and demoralised city police departments backed off from attempting to maintain order......Eventually a constructive national conversation might then have begun on the question of whether ‘Systemic Racism’ really exists in today’s America. The angry charge of white racism (ironically emanating more from young middle class whites than from black people themselves) would have sparked a vigorous media interrogation. But this was not to be. In its stead we got an impassioned psychodrama playing out on a vast scale on the major news and commentary networks all across the Western world. ....."
Young black males are 10 times more likely to shoot a cop* than young white males and every cop knows this and wants to live. This produces cop* behaviors that are inherently racist and can result in the shooting of unarmed black men. There is no solution to this problem.
*Cops of any race. Black cops are equally afariad of young black men.
True.... I refer to this aspect as well in the essay.
I agree with your comment with one little caveat. The actions of the police officer did not cause St. George Floyd, to die. The career criminal died of an overdose as per the autopsy.
The "right" amount of concern about racism is- zero, zilch, none!
We jumped the shark on this topic years ago, back when race relations were actually very good, and created this modern panic out of whole cloth.
I'll never concern myself with "racism", ever again. I won't even humor concern about it, in any form.
"Last year, the University of Illinois announced that it “will no longer routinely use race, ethnicity or national origin as a descriptor in public safety advisories”. This is because public safety has to be balanced “with the potential negative perpetuation of stereotypes”."
The University of Minnesota (because of course) has also been doing the same thing since 2015. https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/u-m-changes-approach-suspect-descriptions-crime-alerts However, this has certainly changed: "If there is sufficient information to aid our community in identifying a specific individual suspect (e.g., some combination of gender, race, clothing, height, body type, build, accent, tattoos, hair color, facial hair, etc.), we will continue to include that information." Race hasn't been mentioned in alerts under any circumstances for the last several years.
The problem with "too much attention to racism" is that the judgment assumes something that liberal morality, at its core, denies. The liberal reduces all of ethics to rights discourse, and all of rights discourse to equality and nondiscrimination. Another way of putting this is to say that a liberal is someone who positively avoids any rich conception of virtue or culture. To have one, after all, would be to "privilege" some people over others.
So he swings this brutal formalism like a cudgel, and there is a puritanical joy in this.
Is there too much attention to racism? For a non-liberal the answer is "absolutely yes"... but then this assumes that a person is concerned with other matters, other kinds of human excellence, and that a hypertrophied sense of generalization concerning groups is in perspective just a minor flaw. It's not the all-consuming black hole vortex for all other flaws.
I think the practical questions here are just how many hardcore worshippers of the vortex will continue to be produced, and what the rest of us will be prepared to do about them. It will have to be unpleasant.
The US committed two mortal sins: (1) we enslaved Africans and (2) after slavery, parts of the US held black people in a serf-like status until 1970. Those sins were committed on the basis of race and we can't pretend that they weren't racist and unfair. This predicate poisons our ability to discuss the realties of race and culture because we stand guilty of really bad racial policies. Nonetheless, we must confront facts, as Charles Murray says, and look at objective criteria including anthropology, genomics, IQ tests, and social behavior indices. These are facts and we must confront them but in a fair and unbiased way. Hatred has no place in the discussion. But we must find a way to explain the reasons for the difference between the IQs of Papuans and Japanese.
Human history is (amongst other things) one long story of racial/ethnic oppressions of one kind or another. The US is no greater 'sinner' than others in this broader perspective. It just agonises about it more.
It's not clear why you think it's essential to start with race. Just for fun, like, must you also find a way to explain the difference between IQ in red flyover states and blue coastal states? Why not start by arguing that poorer educational, vocational and educational performance in poor red states is highly heritable? There's certainly more consensus around in-group heritability than between-group heritability, so wouldn't you be on firmer ground there?
I checked your assertions, as I generally do. I wonder if you are aware those assertions are false.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-iq-by-state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
In general, if there is any trend, it is that IQ increases with latitude. California and Texas are both slightly below normal. The red northern Rocky Mountain states are slightly above normal. New Mexico is a very blue, poor state and has one of the lowest average IQs in the US.
IQ correlates with many factors. It does not correlate well with statewide political affiliation or distance from coast, as readers will see if they link to the maps I cite.
Thanks, Alice K. I don't know about the methodology of your sources (it's only loosely described) but the substantive question is that since there is significant variation between states and we might presume that 'g' has something to do with it, so why is racial variation more important that state variation? We hear a lot about the former, nothing about the latter.
"...so why is racial variation more important that state variation?"
Because state of residence is a choice, race is not.
Hi, Realist. You misunderstand me. I was replying to Y Andropov's comment to the effect that there was an imperative ("we must") to discover the causes of racial IQ variation. I asked why we should consider racial variation so important when there is much regional variation. Clearly, if 'g' were a variation in racial variation it would also be in regional, or even state variation. Alice K's two attachments do indeed show that there is considerable regional or state variation, which is precisely my point. I wondered why we hear so much about racial variation, yet little about regional variation. I should say that Alice K's attachments do not take account of 'g', while 'g' is the thing most people here are concerned about. It seems quite possible that southern states are more affected by immigration and that immigrants are more affected by negative environmental factors. Best wishes, Eric
Laws, rules and regulations in and of themselves don’t explain very much. You have to look back in history to comprehend THE REASONS WHY those strictures were put in place to begin with in order to appreciate the varying shades of grey. Most people content themselves with black and white.
Yes, racism is a big problem in America. Not only are most blacks racist against whites, they are also racist against Hispanics, Asians, Jews and even other blacks. This wouldn't necessarily be a big problem except that blacks are exceedingly violent. While blacks are only around 15% of the population, they commit the vast majority of violent crimes including homicide and rape. To view blacks with suspicion or concern when amongst them is not racist. It is a self-preservation response based on experience and knowledge of verifiable facts. Go look up the FBI statistics.
If you're a white person or an asian or a Jew and you are not racist that simply means that you have never lived around blacks. Such a person should go live in Crown Heights, Bed Stuy, the Bronx, Baltimore, the south side of Chicago or anywhere else where "urban youths" and dindus are the majority. If that person somehow manages to survive, I doubt they'll have the same views on racism afterwards.
Marshall Yeats' article today https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2024/06/18/jews-are-rewarding-black-criminality/ describes the Californian Racial Justice Act 2020 in which Black (or, in principle, Hispanic) people who are charged with violent crimes, with extra charges due to the gang nature of the crime, can have those extra charges deleted because of the statistical fact that such extra charges are applied to people of their race. There is no need to show intent on the part of law enforcement officers or prosecutors.
"In other words, Black criminals will benefit from the fact their race commits disproportionately more crimes — Black criminality is thus rewarded, at the expense of victims of all ethnic backgrounds."
This has the effect of increasing Black violence - and so of harming and killing more Blacks, who make up the great majority of victims.
He also argues, that support for this specific piece of legislation came disproportionately from Jews. He doesn't mention the similar pattern of advocacy and financial support which has the effect of increasing crimes by limiting prosecutions - many of which are committed by Blacks and/or drug addicts, with Blacks, addicts among the victims - as is the case with Jewish billionaire George Soros funding "soft on crime progressive prosecutors": https://web.archive.org/web/20230606015129/https://www.zerohedge.com/political/jews-against-soros-group-argues-criticizing-billionaire-activist-isnt-antisemitic.
Racism is hatred of another race. Hatred is an emotion.
How exactly do you control people’s emotions in a manner that overrides their opinions formed by personal experience? The answer is YOU CANNOT CONTROL people’s thoughts and feelings.
You certainly can try to manipulate and brainwash people, but ultimately that is futile.
Even the multi-billion $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ DoD-implemented, weapons-grade propaganda campaign targeting the American People was doomed to failure.
Eventually, the public figures out they’re being lied to, deceived and totally fucked over. And they are PISSED OFF and will never trust authority figures or the institutions those usurpers have infiltrated ever again. Not ever.
One’s primary focus should be discrimination contrary to the law. And that’s where it should end.
No one is entitled to behave like a total bastard and then expect others to behave like you’re a great person to have around. If you are obnoxious and hateful, people will hate you. Tough shit if you don’t like it.
You can’t force people to put up with hostility, denigration and frankly, outright criminality indefinitely. There is a limit to how much relentlessly abusive Marxist rhetoric people are willing to put up with…and White America has hit that limit. Surpassed it, actually.
Going forward, things in this country are going to be very different. Tolerance of the intolerable and weaponized altruism are very much out of fashion, never again to be resurrected.
"Racism" and "sexism" as used currently are about outcomes. It simply implies fatuity on the part of accusers and rationality on the part of the accused. Thus "males are taller than females" is sexism. "Black criminality" is racism etc..
I've been reading some of the articles here and noting responses below the line. This article's interesting, (I've read some of Noah Carl's papers and usually find something which provokes thought. He's someone people should read). It discusses how people might respond to racism, although it doesn't actually say what racism is. Richard Lynn was very generous with his time with me fairly recently. He argued that his science was sound and accepted that he was a racist. Why? Because racism is a social construct and it's up to people what they construct socially, he said. "If they say I'm a racist, then in the end I am. But I don't disavow my science" (I paraphrase, but include quotes her for brevity, although I do have the verbatim notes). Reading some of the replies to articles here, it seems that some people who support his intellectual line are mounting a kind of rearguard action against the charge of racism. Nathan Cofnas' article seemsobviously racist: To wit; black people are genetically predisposed to, on average, be of lower intelligence that others". And so I wonder, what is the point of arguing that your aren't racist if the 'science' (scare quotes neutralising from a technical point of view but if you are stupied enough not to like it then I can't be bothered to explain and do fuck off) says you're right? Whether the science says you're right or not has literally no bearing on the status of a social construction. Anyway, just a thought.
“Properly defined, of course, racism is wrong. And nobody’s suggesting we should ignore the phenomenon.”
Violence and state privilege for whites is wrong but discrimination is not wrong, as no one is entitled to jobs, neighborhoods, apartments, etc.
The purpose of the exaggerated 'concern' of racism is not to stem real racism but to destroy the fabric of our society. This is just one of many Acts of Societal Disruption to weaken Western Civilization to facilitate further subjugation.
Who defines 'real racism'. If people say it's racism and it's a social construction, who are yo to argue? just asking.
"Who defines 'real racism'."
You mean you don't think there is such a thing as real racism?
"If people say it's racism and it's a social construction, who are yo to argue?"
I am free to argue as I wish. Genuine racism is based on malice.
Ninety percent of accused racism is phony.
Thanks so much for this, Realist. I honestly think that people come at this from their own angle. You are absolutely free to argue as you wish. My point is that you might want to accept that you are, from your perspective scientifically, a racist? Like Lynn?
Eric Kaufmann has just written on this subject - about the salience of emotion connected to different topics.