Bread and Circuses
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Race and the Alt Right
Last weekend a video was released of Richard Spencer ending a speech by saying “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!”. In response to this, several members of the audience rose to their feet and gave Spencer the “nazi salute”. Video of this incident has received millions of views and has been commented on by a huge number of people.
One group of said commenters consists of people claiming that Richard Spencer is tarnishing the name of the alt-right. The alt-right, they say, is essentially a group of politically incorrect conservatives and libertarians who don’t actually care about race. Even the racist memes which the alt-right are known for are supposedly created simply in order to offend people. There is no genuine racism behind them.
Spencer and his ilk, the story goes, represent a small and fringe group within the alt-right. The media is giving this group attention in order to sully the good name of the non-racist factions of the alt-right.
This is all a tremendous load of crap. Had any of these commenters bothered to read his Wikipedia page, they would know that Richard Spencer helped to coin the term “alt-right” when he created AlternativeRight.com back in 2010.
The website (which has since been shut down) eventually grew, with the influence of others, into a White identity movement. Until recently, this was known by everyone who talked about the alt-right. Breitbart’s famous “guide” to the alt-right refers to Spencer’s 2010 website as a center of alt-right thought alongside other explicitly pro-White sites such as V-Dare and American Rennisanse. (The owners of both of these sites were also at the NPI conference this last weekend).
Even the Southern Poverty Law Center understands this and describes the alt-right as, at its core, a movement about White identity. In fact, just about every article written on the alt-right before 2016 recognized the movement as being about race.
Fueled by the growing tide of anti-White propaganda on the left, and the rise of the Black terrorist organization Black Lives Matter, and the Trump campaign’s emphasis on immigration, the alt-right’s popularity grew each year and exploded in 2016.
A few months ago, Hilary Clinton gave a speech on the alt-right. Unsurprisingly, she had no clue what she was talking about and so identified the alt-right with nonracial groups like Info Wars. Amazingly, some people within Info Wars, most notably Paul Joesph Watson, were so stupid that they actually believed Clinton’s fabrications about themselves and began to call themselves alt-right.
Shortly after this, I began to encounter people who did not know anything about the alt-right movement which had been growing for more than half a decade, instead they were merely familiar with the milktoast conservatism of people like Milo and Watson, but nonetheless identified as members of the alt-right. Moreover, they attacked racialist members of the alt-right, people who had built the movement up from its beginning, as being false representatives of the movement.
Now, these people are attacking Spencer for supposedly misrepresenting the alt-right by giving the media the impression that the alt-right is full of racist nazis. This is absurd for at least three reasons. First, Spencer has as much right as anyone else, and more than most people, to represent the alt-right. Second, the alt-right has always been about race. Third, Spencer is not a Nazi.
Yes, he and the audience at NPI evoked nazi imagery. As Spencer has said, this was done in a spirit of fun. The left is constantly calling anyone who talks about race a nazi and they have built up the nazis as the ultimate bogey man. Because of this, doing things like the “nazi salute” is funny and irreverent. No one was calling for a genocide of Jews, an invasion of Poland, or any other crime that the actual Nazis are remembered for.
So yes, the alt-right does like to troll and this trolling often involves irreverent hyperbole. But make no mistake, the movement really is about racial identity. It always has been. It always will be. This is clear to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the movement’s history.
One person without such knowledge is Mike Cernovich.Cernovich is a kind of ideological mercenary who will sometimes literally just make stuff up for attention and money. He also sells shitty self-help books to teen agers. Cernovich is socially clueless and, as a result, didn’t understand what people were doing at NPI. In fact, Cernovich, not knowing anything about the history of the movement or Spencer’s place in it, unironically accused Richard Spencer controlled opposition promoted by the CIA.
While the stupid antics of people like Cernovich and Watson can be amusing, arguing about words isn’t really all the interesting. These “alt-lite” types think that race in and of itself does not matter. I think they are wrong, and here is a brief summary of why.
Developmental psychologists have shown that infants have a visual preference for members of their own race and are better at recognizing emotions displayed on faces of members of their own ethnic group. Similarly, adults empathize more with members of their own race and experiments show that people are more likely to trust others if they are members of the same race.
These and other cognitive foundations of ethnic preferences explain why it is that people are more likely to befriend and marry members of their own race than they are members of other races. People also tend to live near members of their own race and, in fact, race is better than income at predicting what neighborhood someone will live in, and voluntary associations like churches tend to be highly racially segregated.
In short, despite wide-ranging attempts to change this, people typically prefer members of their own race (whether they will admit it or not).
Given this, it should come as no surprise that ethnic diversity damages social relations. Research done by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has shown that, even after controlling for differences in crime and wealth, the more ethnically diverse an area is the fewer friends people tend to have, the less people tend to trust others, and the less satisfied people report being with their lives. That people report having less overall satisfaction with their lives shows that the social and psychological costs of racial diversity outweigh any benefits that diversity might bring.
Moreover, there is nothing wrong with preferring your own kind. Just as preferring members of your own family does not imply that you hate non-members of your family, preferring members of my own racial group does not imply that I hate Black, Arab, or Asian people. I don’t. I simply like Europeans more.
Racial identity is an essential and healthy part of human psychology. Diversity is at odds with this fundamental aspect of human nature and, as a result, lessens our quality of life.
2. Race and Politics
Race is also important because it has a profound impact on politics, especially in a democracy/republic. African, Hispanic, and Asian Americans overwhelmingly vote democrat and have for many years. In fact, if US presidential elections were decided only by the White vote, we would have only had one democrat president in the last 64 years.
To some degree, these voting patterns are the result of policy differences. For instance, compared to White Americans, non-White Americans are much more likely to think that we need a larger government and laws which violate freedom of speech.
These policy differences are no doubt partly due to differences in what each race perceives to be in its own interest. Big government, for instance, is probably more in the interest of Hispanics and African Americans than it is White Americans. These non-White groups are far more likely to use welfare and far less likely to make enough money to be significantly burdened by taxes on the rich.
Similarly, laws regulating hate speech are essentially just laws regulating verbal attacks on non-Whites. These laws are obviously more in the interest of non-Whites than they are Whites.
That being said, even non-Whites who hold conservative views on the economy and social issues still vote democrat.
Even self-identified conservative non-Whites vote democrat:
This is fundamentally racial. Non-Whites are voting with their race, whether Whites like it or not. Ignoring this ethnic conflict won’t remove you from it, it will just ensure that you lose.
3. Race and American History
Americans like to ignore the fundamentally racial nature of democratic politics. Part of this means denying the historically obvious fact that America was meant to be a White country.
In 1790, America passed its first naturalization act. It mandated that new citizens be free Whites. Following this was wave after wave of immigration, but it was always European immigration. When it wasn’t, Americans took notice. For instance, in 1882 we passed the Chinese exclusion act which simply banned immigrants from China once the public felt that we had had enough of them.
Ironically, today we are called Nazis for having racial views which are traditional in America. In fact, they were the norm among the people who actually fought the Nazis. Of course, it is obvious that most Americans in 1945 held views which would today be considered racist. They looked down on race mixing, enforced strict limits on immigration based on race, and openly discriminated against people based on their racial group.
This was also true of our leaders. FDR famously had Japanese Americans interned, refused to see Black Olympic athletes, and refused to support anti-lynching legislation. Then there was Harry Truman who once said “I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s not a nigger or a Chinaman… I am strongly of the opinion that Negros ought to be in Africa, yellow men in China, and White men in Europea and America”.
A fellow on twitter summarized the modern situation nicely when they said “Our grandparents fought Nazis so we could be called Nazis for believing what our grandparents believed.”
4. Anti-White Lies
The central anti-White lie of our times is that White people are responsible for the failures of non-Whites. There are a few different theories about how exactly it is that White people ruin things for non-Whites.
Some hold that White America hampers the success of Black America by getting Blacks to internalize racist stereotypes about themselves. A major problem for this view is the fact that Blacks have higher self-esteem than whites (Twenge and Crocker, 2002). In fact, Blacks are more likely than Whites to think they are intelligent. On this second point, it is worth quoting Micheal Levin’s book, Why Race Matters, at length:
Black students estimate their own academic competence more highly than Whites despite their own objective and self reported lower academic achievement (Hare 1985: Table 3; Tashakkori 1993: 97). Black high school seniors in the Coleman study were more apt than Whites to classify themselves as “among the brightest” and less likely to agree that “Sometimes I feel that I just can’t learn” despite poor academic performance (Coleman et al. 1966L 287-288, Tables 3.13.11, 3.13.12). Remarkably, southern rural Blacks, whose academic performance fell below that of all other blacks as well as all Whites, were more apt than other Blacks to classify themselves as Bright and able to learn” – Levin, 2016, page 75
Besides making non-Whites feel bad about themselves, Whites also supposedly hold non-Whites back by denying them various opportunities. To substantiate this point, liberals often point to studies showing that employers prefer to hire Whites even when they are competing against Blacks with identical credentials. The assumption in this argument is that Whites and Blacks with the same credentials are equally skilled. This is false.
In the early 1990’s the government carried out a huge study on this question and tested American adults on tests of mathematical, reading, and writing competence. This study, the National Adult Literacy Survey, found that African Americans in post graduate school performed worse than White college drop outs on all three tests.
It is also sometimes pointed out that Blacks have a harder time than Whites when getting a loan even when they have the same credit score. This is true, and the explanation is that the credit scoring system is biased against Whites. Economists have shown that if you give out a loan to a Black and a loan to a White with equal credit scores you are more likely to get your money back from the White.
Perhaps the strongest evidence that racism is not the cause of differences in loan approval rates comes from studies showing that Black owned banks are even less likely than White own banks to give Black customers a loan.
A final opportunity supposedly denied to Blacks is quality education.It is true that Black schools tend to be crummy ones. But this is not the fault of White people. Contrary to popular mythology, spending per pupil is actually higher for black students than it is for White students.
The last refuge an anti-White propagandist has to turn to in order to blame Whites for the actions of others are historical narratives. First, they point to slavery. In the first generation, after the civil war, there was a gap in socio-economic status between African Americans who descended from slaves and those who did not. This was the real impact of slavery. This gap disappeared more than one hundred years ago. No one is poor today because their great great grand parents were slaves.
Internationally, this narrative relies on colonialism. The empirical fact of the matter is that the longer and more intensely an area was colonized by Europeans in the past the richer it tended to end up being today.
In summary, the supposed sins of White people do not explain the failure of non-White populations. This is an anti-White lie used to justify policies which rob resources from Whites and redistribute them to non-Whites.
Race also matters because the races are not the same. Racial groups differ on almost every important metric and this is partly due to genetics.
Before looking at this in more depth, it is important to realize that I am talking about averages. There are people of every kind in every race. Everyone knows that. This does not exclude the possibility that some kinds of people are more common in one race than in another.
First, let’s look at IQ. People unfamiliar with intelligence research are often skeptical of IQ tests ability to measure intelligence. One way we know that IQ tests measure intelligence is that a person’s score on an IQ test predicts how intelligent their family and peers will say they are. IQ tests also predict income and education outcomes and in fact are better predictors of these variables than is a person’s parent’s socio-economic status.
People also sometimes say that IQ tests are racially biased. This is not true and we know this for a few reasons.
IQ tests predict income and education equally well for Blacks and Whites. If IQ tests under-estimated how smart Blacks are, you would expect them to underpredict Black people’s income and educational attainment.
East Asians and Jews score higher than Whites on IQ tests. This implies that IQ tests were not designed as tools of White supremacy.
IQ test items judged to be the least culturally biased are the ones on which we find the largest racial gaps.
The problems on IQ tests that Whites find to be the hardest are also the ones that Blacks find to be the hardest. If there were culturally biased questions, Blacks should find them to be among the hardest of questions while Whites should not. This does not happen.
When you give IQ tests to large samples of Americans, African Americans score, on average, 15 points below White Americans who score, on average, 5 points below Asian Americans. Most of the Black/White IQ gap remains even if you control for socio-economic status and single parenthood. In fact, rich Blacks do worse than poor Whites on the SATs (which correlate strongly with IQ tests).
Black Journal of Higher Education (2009)
Furthermore, trans-racial adoption studies have shown that the IQ gap remains even when Blacks are raised in middle-class White homes.
Sources: Loehlin (2000) and Lynn (2015)
The Black/White IQ gap is similar today to what it was in the 1910’s. It can be detected in mental tests of infants and has been shown to be present in samples of people from nations all over the earth. Surveys of researchers in intelligence show that the majority of them think that genes account for a significant proportion of the Black/White IQ gap.
Rindermann, Coyle, and Becker (2013)
In 2015 the first study looking at racial differences in the frequency of IQ-related genes was published. The results strongly supported hereditarianism: for every gene variant that was looked at, Whites were more likely than Blacks to possess the variant associated with higher IQ.
Prior to this, researchers had to rely on more indirect evidence. One peice of indirect evidence has to do with the fact that some cognitive abilities are more heritable than others. For instance, how well you do on a vocabulary test may be more or less heritable than how you do on a test which asks you to memorize and repeat strings of words that are read aloud to you. As it turns out, several studies have shown that there is a systematic relationship such that the more heritable a cognitive ability is the more the races tend to differ in it.
Another piece of indirect evidence comes from race mixing. Biracial children have been shown time and time again to have IQs in-between the mean IQs of the races of their parents. Similarly, White genetic admixture has been shown to correlate with income and educational attainment among African Americans.
These genetic differences in IQ have important real world consequences. For instance, controlling for IQ and age basically eliminates racial wealth disparities.
The same is true of educational attainment:
Controlling for IQ also eliminates the majority of racial differences in crime.
Of course, some people deny that the races even differ in their rates of crime. Instead, they argue that arrest rates are racially biased.
This argument can easily be refuted using data from The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS is a survey carried out yearly in which the Department of Justice asks Americans about their experience with crime over the last year. The DOJ first asks participants if they have been the victim of a violent crime and, if they have, they are asked to answer various questions about the crime and the perpetrator of said crime.
Using this data, the proportion of violent criminals who are Black, according to the victims of violent crimes, can easily be calculated. We can then compare these figures to the offender rates by race in the FBI’s arrest data. Doing so reveals that there is essentially no racial bias in arrest data. This shows that Blacks commit violent crime at far higher rates than Whites do.
“The National Crime Victimization Survey Validates the Uniform Crime Report’s Data on Black Crime“
Others claim that there is bias in sentencing, but studies show that there is no racial gap in sentencing at all once you control for life time violence and IQ.
Mainstream political factions have different stories to explain why it is that Black people have such high crime rates. They are all wrong. The proportion of a city’s population which is Black continues to correlate with its crime rate even after controlling for variables like poverty, single parent homes, education, and lead exposure. In fact, upper-class Blacks have higher crime rates than do poor Whites. These facts alone dispel most of the common narratives on racial crime disparities.
Chart from Ehrenfreund (2016) data from Zaw and Darity (2016)
Two explanations which may still seem plausible are racism and ghetto culture. Both of these explanations are refuted by the fact that the racial crime gap was already present in the early 20th century, before ghetto culture arose, but has gotten larger as the culture has become less racist.
Moreover, Black crime rates are even higher in African countries where there are no White people to oppress them and where there is no notion of “ghetto culture”.
Several genes associated with criminality have been shown to be more common among Blacks than among Whites. For instance, Blacks have been shown to be far more likely than Whites to carry versions of the MAO-A gene which dramatically increase someone’s chance of being a criminal. The effects of this gene have been demonstrated not just in Humans but also in mice.
Blacks are also more likely than Whites to carry versions of the androgen receptor gene which make them more sensitive to the aggression-inducing effects of testosterone.
This in combination with the international consistency of racial crime differences, the fact that these gaps have existed for as long as we’ve been keeping crime records, and the fact that Blacks begin getting in trouble more often than Whites as early as pre school, all suggest that genetics probably plays a significant role in explaining Black criminality.
7. America: White no More?
Earlier, I noted that America was meant to be a White nation. Were it a White nation, many of the country’s biggest problems would instantly be improved.
For instance, were whites the only consumers of government services and tax payers, we would have no federal debt. Our education statistics would instantly improve such that we would be on top of most European nations. We would be substantially richer as well.
In a White America, the incarceration rate would be half of what it is now. We wouldn’t even be among the top ten nations with the highest incarceration rates. Out of wedlock births and welfare rates would fall dramatically, as would the size of government.
And America would regain some of that close sense of community which characterized the nation our grandparents grew up in. In short, we, White Americans, would all be happier.
These are the real costs of racial diversity in America. It has harmed the nation in nearly every conceivable way.
Of course, we cannot have a completely white nation in the United States. This is obvious. But White America nonetheless works as a valuable, even if unreachable, goal, which can inform how we look at immigration, family size norms, welfare, etc., as well as the more long-term destiny of politics in North America.
On the other hand, we could have the opposite of White America. Demographic projections tell us that White people will be a minority in America in our life times if current trends continue. If we allow this to happen, all the problems I have just mentioned, and many I have not, will only get worse.
Hopefully, I’ve done an okay job at explaining why it is that race matters. These aren’t the only reasons, but they are some of the biggest ones. Racial identity is normal and healthy. Diverse societies are not. When societies are made to be diverse, their politics fracture along racial lines and ethnic conflict emerges. Said ethnic conflict is furthered by anti-White lies which place blame on Whites for the failures of others. Such lies spread in part because of the taboo which has stopped us from talking about the obvious fact that the races are not equal with respect to traits that are essential to success in life. Currently, America is in demographic decline, and where it is headed does not look pretty.