Inductivist

The last post was incomplete because we were unable to see the percentages of whites who could be considered racist. The General Social Survey did not label most of the numbers, but let's assume the 6 means slightly racist, 7 is somewhat racist, and 8 is considerably racist. 

You can see that 14.5% of white dropouts are at least somewhat racist. Compared this to those with graduate degrees: only 3%. So, as I wrote in the last post, anti-black racism is concentrated among white dropouts. Cold feelings towards a race of people is not good, but these are people at the bottom of society. They don't have the power to deny someone an education or a good job. They are nobodies, and yet who do elites love to hate more? 

Our elites are sick.

I made the mistake of watching a CBS News story of how Gala apples are now passing Red Delicious as America's number 1 apple. I was pleased because Gala's are great, and I've always hated Red Delicious -- mealy and too sweet.

Then like an OCD patient who has to wash his hands 100 times a day, the journalist had to turn this amusing story into a moral message: Red Delicious represents 1950s White America where only one uniform color was valued. Galas represent 2018 America where a variety of colors -- read: fewer whites -- makes a superior apple.

Our elites need Zoloft, and I need some Pepto-Bismol.

You folks probably already know the story of how a study that attempts to explain greater variability among males versus females ended up being pulled from not one but two journals.

I wanted to see what was so horrible about the paper, so I read it word-for-word.  Holy crap, it's the most boring, technical paper you could ever read. The goal is to demonstrate mathematically why greater diversity among males makes sense in terms of evolutionary theory.

The paper does not even get into the idea that greater variability among guys causes a huge excess of men at the very high end of the distribution; that we should expect, for example, many more male than female geniuses. The paper doesn't even touch the topic. There is absolutely NO rational reason to pull this paper.

This story is just more proof that our elites are freaking insane. They are ruining this country. We have GOT to stop them.

While I am no expert, I keep on eye on sex research. The latest study to get media attention is the controversial study by Lisa Littman that suggests that peer influence might contribute to the epidemic of troubled girls saying they're actually boys.  

I'm not interested in weighing into the issue: My point is a more general one. This episode merely illustrates what I see every day: Sex researchers are obsessed with studying oddities and simply don't give a shit about what constitutes a healthy sexuality for the 90 plus percent of the population of kids, teens and adults who are typical sexually. The academy, and elites in general, do not give a shit about you. 

I'm excited to read this new book by leading behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin. From the book description:

I'm tired of the old Democrat myth that the Republican Party is the party of elites. Looking at General Social Survey data, it's not surprising to see that only 24% of high school dropouts voted for Romney in 2012, but how many people with advanced degrees voted for him? A whopping 32%. Most highly successful people vote Democrat because their competitors aren't the poor. Their enemies are America's Middle. They seek an alliance with the poor so they have the numbers to subjugate ordinary Americans.

According to an August 18th Gallup poll of registered voters, a head-to-head between Ron Paul and Obama gives Paul 45% and Obama 47%. (By the way, "don't knows" usually break for the challenger).

Wow.

Elites would never let Paul become President. If lack of financial support, media discrediting, or pinning a scandal on him failed to do the trick, somebody would put a bullet in his head.

I showed in a recent post that citizens of the United States are more conservative on immigration than most other developed countries. Here is the table again:

Now I want to look at the attitudes of elites. Here are the views of World Values Survey respondents who have university degrees:


















Comparing the first table with the second, you can see that educated Americans are much more liberal than  Americans overall. More than three times as many educated Americans favor open borders (21.8% versus 6.8% say we should let anyone in). Average Americans are almost twice as likely to want strict limits imposed.

While the first table shows how conservative Americans are, the second reveals that educated Americans are more liberal than their counterparts in other developed countries. Only Sweden and Switzerland look to be more liberal.

This analysis suggests that the divide between the more and less educated in the United States is larger than in many other countries. While regular Americans focus on the costs of immigration, educated Americans buy into the America-is-a-nation-of-immigrants propaganda.  

Compared to the rest of the world, American citizens must be much more pro-immigrant, right, because our immigration policy is so liberal.

The World Values Survey asked thousands of respondents from all over the world about the right immigration policy for their country. Here is the distribution for the full sample (sample size = 68,171):

Immigration policy--percent

Let anyone come 13.1
As long as jobs are available 38.6
Strict limits 37.7
Prohibit people from coming 10.6

And here are the responses from Americans:

Let anyone come 6.8
As long as jobs are available 36.6
Strict limits 48.9
Prohibit people from coming 7.6

While the modal category for the world is "as long as jobs are available," it is "strict limits" for Americans. Americans are more conservative than the rest of the world on this issue, but our policies are much more permissive. It's a government of elites, by elites, for elites.   

These elite liberals are completely mystified about why ordinary Americans don't want to tax the rich aggressively. These supposedly creative people even lack the imagination to come up with a good answer. So as the son of a retired maintenance man, let me help them out. The problem is that they assume that we rubes are naturally good at hating, so how in the world could we not want to stick it to the people who clearly deserve our hostility? They make the mistake of believing that we think like them.

The reality is that ordinary American assume that they are just as good as rich people; they are just people like ourselves. They are not cardboard monsters like liberals want us to believe. They are just folks. And just like we don't want blacks or Hispanics or Jews or regular white guys to get hosed, we don't want anyone to get hosed. If I don't get angry that some rich guy pays the same for a lawnmower at Sears as I do, why am I going to get worked up if he doesn't pay taxes at a higher rate?  He's paying much more into the system than I am as it is. If the government is giving him sweet deals that I don't get, then that should be stopped. But why squeeze more out of him?

I see soaking the rich as a little like gang robbery. We take his money because we've got the numbers to get away with it. And then liberals make us feel righteous about our crime. "Social justice" sounds so noble, doesn't it? We don't want to bleed the guy because we're not criminals. If he stole the money, then he needs to rot in prison.  But we don't believe capitalism is organized theft. If he didn't break any laws to get it, then I'm the thief if I join the mob to strip him of his cash.

In a recent post, I showed that approval of abortion for any reason is widespread among Jewish women, and that almost one-quarter fail to have even a single child. The situation is even worse with another elite American group--Episcopalians. Sixty-three percent of women of that faith believe in unlimited abortion, and a whopping 30 percent end up having zero children (GSS data). Politically and culturally, it may be a good thing that our elites are not replacing themselves because they have been a disaster.

It is interesting how elites have worked so hard since the 1960s to reform the criminal justice system in response to minority complaints about bias and mistreatment. But when the white majority and white police officers complain that the courts are incompetent at controlling crime, and feel that ordinary citizens must take defensive actions like keeping a handgun, elites respond that their concerns are just expressions of racism and nativism. This reveals that, in the eyes of the powerful, minority complaints have a moral claim, while white concerns do not. Dark skin carries with it moral weight. Any toughness in the system is there because of popular demand, not because it reflects elite priorities.  

Here we see a similar pattern for men asked the same question in this decade (N = 3,060). Once again, access to abortion is a concern of educated people. Educated men want the autonomy to facilitate a move up the social ladder, so abortion is a vital option since children are long-term, expensive entanglements. Elites are preoccupied with freedom and money and status. Kids are not a priority.

As shown by the graphs, some ordinary people have these concerns--many do not. But this kind of thinking is the norm among elite Americans. If we look at women with 20 years of education (the highest category in the GSS data) the number in favor of abortion for any reason rises to 70 percent (data not shown). Among these women, it's the norm. Abortion is for the educated.  

Elites disgust me. The major news networks might laugh at the yokels, but not right-wing Fox, right? I just watched Shepard Smith (clown name) mock the fact that Miss California believes that her being asked about gay marriage might have been a temptation. Laughable rubes. The Gallup graph above shows that 70% of Americans--an impressive majority--believe in the devil--up from 55% in 1990.

Shepard, hehe. They do sheep, right? Tabloid journalist. He's a liberal. Sneering at religious people. Why should I be surprised? Like we're supposed to take a college dropout seriously.

The nativists are rational: In honor of the New York Times fact-free smear of the guys over at VDARE, let's try a novel approach to immigration: statistics.

Our saintly editors mock Marcus Epstein for writing that moderate diversity is good if it brings desirable traditions to the country. So I guess they prefer undesirable traditions? It seems that way. Our cultural elites appear to celebrate the massive movement of illiterates into the country. The more, the better. If I wanted peasants as a political constituency to control and exploit, and if I wanted house servants too dumb to argue with me, I might call immigration restrictionists bad names, too.

The 2001-2003 American Community Survey asked almost 2.4 million people about their birthplace and their educational level. Respondents reported dozens of countries, so let's keep things simple and limit it to the ten most educated groups and the ten least. (Don't ask me who some of these whites are).


Top Ten

Kuwait--nonwhite 13.8
Tanzania--white 13.6
Southwest Asians 13.5
Taiwan--nonwhite 13.4
Malaysia--white 13.4
Cameroon 13.4
Kenya--white 13.4
India--white 13.3
Zimbabwe--nonwhite 13.3
South Africa--white 13.2


Botton Ten

Guatemala--nonwhite 8.03
Laos--white 8.02
El Salvador--white 8.01
Cambodia--white 8.00
Cambodia--nonwhite 7.91
El Salvador--nonwhite 7.79
Azores 7.73
Laos--nonwhite 7.57
Mexico--white 7.49
Mexico--nonwhite 7.14


I'm shocked, shocked that Mexico is on the very bottom of a VERY long list. "7" means the respondents went no further than tenth grade. "13" is for those who completed an associates degree. The New York Times loses sleep over America's educational ills, but welcomes a limitless supply of illiterate, high school dropouts from the south, and libels concerned citizens like Epstein.

Elite white hostility toward whites: I've heard a number of journalists today suggest that most white Mississippian Democrats voted for Hillary yesterday because they hate blacks. Comparing the state to Georgia, Chris Matthews said that whites in metropolitan places like Atlanta are "too busy to hate."

These attitudes reveal the hostility that elites have for ordinary whites. I haven't heard anyone in the MSM claim that some whites are voting for Obama because he is black, and certainly not that doing so deserves brownie points. The conventional intepretation is that they have overcome their bigotry, and are voting simply for the real person, whoever that is.

So, if whites favor blacks, they're not really favoring them. They're just finally becoming decent. If, on the other hand, a white person votes against Obama, it is assumed that it is done out of hate. An elite white gains extra status for being simpleminded and cynical about race issues. "I'm so morally superior, I even brainlessly trash fellow whites."

The elite never feels the impulse to explore it any further: maybe the white person voted for Hillary because he knows enough to realize that an elite black man is likely to be very liberal, very concerned about blacks, and very unconcerned about whites qua whites. When a white woman asked Willie Brown, the then mayor of San Francisco, about how affirmative action hurts her children, he angrily responded, "I don't give a damn about your children."

The white voter may feel no ill will whatsover, but has decided that a man like Obama is a bad bet--he probably will not represent my interests. It's the same logic as racial profiling: I don't have all day to learn about this man's true character, but his race is an indicator. And a black man's politics can be predicted much, much better than his tendency to break the law.