August 13, 2013

Higher IQ people "just better" at getting away with being prejudiced

From the Daily Mail:
Being more intelligent does not stop people being racist – it simply makes them better at covering it up. 
A study found that they were just as likely to be prejudiced as their less educated peers but did not act on their feelings.

Or, more accurately, did not naively express their beliefs, while still acting upon them. In contrast, the intelligent are more likely to send their children to, say, Sidwell Friends School than to a D.C. public school.
Researcher Geoffrey Wodtke examined the attitudes of more than 20,000 white respondents from a society-wide survey.

He then looked at how their cognitive ability, or how they processed information, was shown in their attitudes to black people. 
They were also asked about  policies designed to counter racial bias. 
Mr Wodtke, of the University of Michigan, said: ‘High-ability whites are less likely to report prejudiced attitudes and more likely to say they support racial integration in principle.

‘There’s a disconnect between the attitudes intelligent whites support in principle and their attitudes toward policies designed to realise racial  equality in practice.’

For example, four years after demanding that the term limit law preventing Michael Bloomberg from a third term as mayor be ignored, New York City liberals are shocked, shocked to discover today that racial profiling has been going on under Bloomberg.

But who could have known? If anybody had told us that millions of blacks and Latins were being stopped and frisked in New York, we would have done something about it. It's not like we wanted to make the point to blacks and Latins about who is in charge in New York and if they don't like it, well, there are Greyhound buses leaving from the Port Authority terminal every few minutes. No, it's just that, uh, there weren't enough studies being done on stop and frisk over the last decade for us to notice!
He said that in housing, nearly all whites with advanced cognitive abilities agreed that ‘whites have no right to segregate their neighbourhoods’. 
But, added Mr Wodtke, nearly half were content to allow prejudicial practices to continue rather than support laws to open up housing to ethnic minorities. 
He said the study showed racism and prejudice were not simply a result of low mental ability. 
Instead, they result from the need of dominant groups to ‘legitimise and protect’ their privileged social position over other social groupings. 
More intelligent citizens ‘are just better’ at this, added Mr Wodtke at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. 
In modern America, ‘this means that intelligent whites say all the right things about racial equality in principle but they just don’t actually do anything that would eliminate their privileges’. 
Mr Wodtke warned: ‘Any effort to point out or eliminate these privileges strikes them as a grave injustice.’

66 comments:

Assistant Village Idiot said...

High-IQ white people don't like our particular solutions, so they are prejudiced.

Chicago said...

Why are these oppression researchers always purporting to study whites? Study Obama, he's always talked up all the good virtues while doing something different for his children.
News alert: hypocrisy has been discovered in America. It's just a fact of life that people have to be hypocritical to some extent in order to get by, except for those with little to lose or who are willing to take the heat, not something most people can withstand. It's woven into the fabric of politics.

Anonymous said...

It is so clear that lay-about blacks have been removed one way or another from Manhattan in the last 15-20 years and thank goodness. There was an episode of "Girls" where they went to a party in Bushwick Brooklyn. Twenty five years ago when I worked in sales in NYC, I would not have gone to Bushwick at noon and here these young people were, walking around at night there. I still would recommend against doing that but 25 years ago it would have been unthinkable to make a sales call there.

Hopefully we are moving into a period where people are more honest and practical. It is a shame to allow cities to be destroyed because the elites won't allow anyone to control the monsters of society.

Noah172 said...

Being more intelligent does not stop people being racist – it simply makes them better at covering it up.
A study found that they were just as likely to be prejudiced as their less educated peers but did not act on their feelings.


Being more intelligent makes one better at avoiding unpleasant people of all races (but especially underclass blacks and mestizos).

The more intelligent are far more likely to act on their feelings than the less intelligent because the former have more wherewithal to do so.

Michael Bloomberg lives in the Upper East Side, not the South Bronx.

The Clintons and Obamas sent their daughters to Sidwell Friends, not the DC public schools.

Hollywood moguls and stars live in Bel Air, Brentwood, Malibu, and so on in the western side of LA, not East or South LA.

From the Wikipedia article on "Desegregation busing":

During the 1970s, 60 Minutes reported that some members of Congress, government, and the press who supported busing most vociferously sent their own children to private schools, including Senator Edward Kennedy, George McGovern, Thurgood Marshall, Phil Hart, Ben Bradlee, Senator Birch Bayh, Tom Wicker, Philip Geyelin and Donald Fraser. Many of the judges who ordered busing also sent their children to private schools.

Anonymous said...

They needed a study to arrive at this conclusion? Folks like Matt Yglesias aren't living in Anacostia and sending their kids to the local public schools.

NYC has one of the most racially segregated school districts in the country.

Anonymous said...

I always hate studies like this. Essentially if you don't support building low income housing next to your house you must be a racist. No other explanations are possible. I wonder how blacks in the wealthy suburbs of Atlanta would rate on these types of policy questions. Guess everyone's a racist

David said...

>nearly all whites with advanced cognitive abilities agreed that ‘whites have no right to segregate their neighbourhoods’ <

This puts the finger on the problem.

Anonymous said...

When high IQ 'liberals' act prejudiced, they are being 'more evolved'. If they say you're clinically ill with phobia for rejecting 'gay marriage', they are not bigoted but just more enlightened.

carol said...

Great. This discovery, with the new diversity housing directive, will be used to impose top-down vibrancy on *everyone* and the self-loathing whites will still be unable to admit what is happening.

Anonymous said...

"Instead, they result from the need of dominant groups to ‘legitimise and protect’ their privileged social position over other social groupings."

This isn't quite true. After all, white and Jewish elites have been rather open-minded about integrating with browns and yellows. And even Jews and Arab-Americans get along well despite disagreements about foreign policy.

With blacks it's different because so many of them really are dangerous and unpleasant. So white elite hypocrisy regarding blacks isn't so much about guarding white social privilege against the rise of black power but about protecting safe communities from being Detroitized. If blacks acted mellow like Asians and many Mexicans, rich white liberals wouldn't mind. After all, whites have flung the door wide open to Asian success. The door is open even wider for black success, but the problem is too few blacks make the cut and too many blacks--who are physically tougher and more aggressive than whites--commit violence or threatening acts.

Lib whites are dishonest and hypocritical but out of fear of black fist than loss of social privilege to blacks. If anything, the support of obama was a white liberal message to the black community that goes, "if you guys act nice and friendly, we will give you everything!!" But a lot of blacks remain criminal and thuggish. A fact.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I have to pay $50K in private school tuition a year to maintain the illegitimate white privilege of my children. It's racist of me to protect my kids from being beaten into a coma, raped, or introduced to drugs and alcohol at age eight. They should be required to sit in classes where half the kids chat, bark, laugh, and noisily shift around at their desks while the teacher is providing mostly remedial instruction.

Svigor said...

He said that in housing, nearly all whites with advanced cognitive abilities agreed that ‘whites have no right to segregate their neighbourhoods’.

What an interesting thing to say. Hell, what an interesting thing to even ask YT.

It's self evident that all groups* have the right to segregate their neighborhoods, course.

* All of 'em. Divide or categorize however you wish, it makes no difference.

P.S., why was the word, "white" necessary to that statement? Why was it included?

Anonymous said...

I have a friend that claims to be not "racist". He sends his daughter to Sidwell Friends. When pressed on why he sends her there rather than to the local public schools (about 40% NAM, more mestizo than black but still with a critical mass of blacks) he said because the local public schools aren't "good schools". He claims to have no problem with the NAM component, just that the schools aren't "good". As if the problem is something in the plumbing or the masonry.

With a few drinks in him he'll admit he doubts that a "good school" with a sizable NAM component actually exists. Yet in his mind he's not "racist".

I frequently remind him that using his definition of "racist", all you have to do to not be "racist" is to deny that you're "racist" - it doesn't matter what you DO, what matters is how you explain it to people. So I can use the "n word" and tell black jokes as long as I say that I'm not "racist" afterwards.

Conatus said...

Isn't this a case where The Intelligence Paradox by Kanazawa works? In this novel evolutionary event called modern race relations, you must be waaay counter intuitive and declaim loudly your disloyalty to your own kind, your own genes, by saying loudly, for all to hear, that you really don't mind living next to Coolio(I know he's rich but what about his cousins?) because Diversity is strength.
But when school redistricting starts you lobby like a madwoman, in the sub rosa style of course, to keep little Rachel out of that new ghet-toe school district?
So plain old lying just turns out to be one of the main uses for the novel Evolutionary abilities that constitute greater intelligence.

I guess this guy is right?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Post-Truth-Era-Dishonesty-Contemporary/dp/0312306482

Shouting Thomas said...

The assumption underlying this nonsense, i.e., that people don't have the right to live among their own kind, is preposterous.

Leftists like to volunteer other people to achieve their social engineering schemes.

My hometown, Woodstock, NY, is full of liberal scolds demanding that other communities integrate.

Woodstock is 98% white, and most Wooodstockers openly state that they'd prefer that Republicans not live in their town. The town isn't just segregated by race, it is segregated by ideology.

Anonymous said...

Most so-called Hispanics/Latin in NYC are Carribean.

They aren't Central-South American (who are mostly mixed and have white ancestry from all European regions).

They surely aren't Mediterranean either.

Anonymous said...

Um where does Wodtke (Vodka) live? Who did he vote for and are they going to build some projects on his street? Well, Mr. Geoffrey Smarty Wodtke?

lol

authentication word to post this is

heywwwo

Anonymous said...

And yet.... I'm guessing they don't seem to care if their neighbors are East Asians and South Asians, which would tend to undermine the white privilege argument, but let's not wonder about the differences between blacks and Hispanics on one hand and Indians and South Koreans on the other, we are sociologists after all.

Power Child said...

I'd like to see a study on the racist attitudes of people in interracial marriages, like me.

(Apologize if this is a repeat...my last comment looks like it got lost to an internet error.)

Shouting Thomas said...

After thought?

Is this just another screed about how the lower classes will be much improved if only they can spend their lives residing next to nice white ladies?

Anonymous said...


He said that in housing, nearly all whites with advanced cognitive abilities agreed that ‘whites have no right to segregate their neighbourhoods’.



Segregate how? by economics? by race? I am pretty sure that whites (or blacks, Asians etc.) with advanced cognitive abilities don't want to live around white trash, meth addicts, or any other nasty poor white folks. I mean the British had a class system because smart rich folks didn't want to live next door to trashy folks. Hell, I bet rich blacks in Africa don't want to live in neighborhoods with poor folks.

Piper said...

The one thing which definitely is not "segregated" in America is single-family housing. Anyone who can come up with the money can buy a house in any neighborhood (and non-whites are given especially favorable home-loan terms by government decree).

I hate the way leftists misuse the word "segregated," giving it two different meanings at the same time. They wish their audiences to hear "intentionally, malevolently 'segregated' by government action using injunctions, arrests, and beatings to drive away non-whites." But when you ask for evidence more recent than 1964-- six decades ago and nearly passed from living memory-- then the leftists weasel that "segregated" merely means "racially imbalanced for whatever, likely benign, reason." You know, the way Eskimos are "segregated" around the Arctic Circle.

It annoys me to hear today's leftists tell how evil whites refuse to "support laws to open up housing to ethnic minorities," but are rather "content to allow prejudicial practices to continue." Talk about the "big lie!" America enacted broad, complete, absolute "laws to open up housing" three generations ago and has enforced them with vigor ever since. There is nothing "closed" left to "open up" by law.

Americans may live in "racially imbalanced" neighborhoods, but those reflect variations in wealth (consequent to variations in cognitive abilities, mainly), not racial predjudice and certainly not "segregation."

Anonymous said...

Higher IQ people "just better" at getting away with being prejudiced

Higher IQ people are better at getting away with EVERYTHING.

Wanna get away with bribery? Re-name it to be "Campaign Contributions".

Wanna get away with infanticide? Re-name it to be "Choice".

Wanna get away with usury? Re-name all of the financial regulations to be "Anti-Semitism".

If High-IQ folk wanna get away with something, they'll just purchase sufficiently many jurists and legislators and administrators and regulators, and, before you know it, it won't even be a crime anymore.

PS: And then there's the question of whether the Super-High-IQ Hannibal Lecter geniuses actually exist - mass murderers who are so clever at covering their tracks, and who are so much more intelligent than the LEO's tasked with finding them, that they can effectively NEVER be caught.

I'm open to arguments either way [as to the existence or non-existence of real-life Lecters].

hbd chick said...

ot - steve sailer reference in an ed west tweet. (^_^)

Anonymous said...

"He said that in housing, nearly all whites with advanced cognitive abilities agreed that ‘whites have no right to segregate their neighbourhoods’" - seems kind of ambiguous here, are they refering to jim crow, or the current setup which has taken place under freedom of association?

"Why are these oppression researchers always purporting to study whites?" - Who else can they guilt?

Big Bill said...

Why "whites"?

Anyone who knows blacks knows that they all generally dislike whites.

The smarter ones say they don't dislike whites, it's just that whites continue to discriminate against them and keep them down.

The dumb ones are more direct: "I just hate dem punk-ass muhfuh crackas.

Why would white people express their racism/racialism differently than black people?

When OJ was acquitted, the black mask collectively fell and all black people, rich and poor, educated and ignorant, cheered together, side by side.

Anonymous said...

News Tip: World Bank demands we give our countries away and go and live in the Third World:

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com/2013/08/world-bank-demands-that-europeans-hand.html#comment-form

Anonymous said...

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com/2013/08/world-bank-demands-that-europeans-hand.html#comment-form

World Bank demands we give our countries away and go and live in the Third World.

Anonymous said...

High-IQ white people don't like our particular solutions, so they are prejudiced.

Exactly.

Anyone have a link to the paper?

Matthew said...

The rich white liberal sending his kid(s) to Sidwell Friends will reply that 40% of students at Sidwell Friends are "ethnic minorities" (though God and the headmaster alone know how many of those "minorities" are Jewish, Armenian, Lebanese, etc.)

It's a bit more subtle than just sealing themselves off from diversity. To the extent that elite whites have to experience diversity, they get a highly selective form of it.

There may or may not be a lot of blacks and Hispanics attending Sidwell Friends School, but it's a sure thing that none of them have criminal records or are 11th graders reading at a 2nd grade level.

The public schools that middle/working class white kids attend don't get to exclude the dumbest, most violent minorities.

Rich white parents can pat themsleves on the back for sending their kid to a "diverse" school where their fellow black students are the children of a president, cabinet secretaries, congressmen, and the CEO of BET.

Anonymous said...

Check the researcher's website: http://gtwodtke.com/

He appears to be a big joke of a social scientist. Assuredly, he is against Euro-Centrism, but somehow finds the time to review data on white people. You can find 10x the quality of original work in the HBD-sphere.

He has a study on neighborhood effects. The graph relates to African Americans, but the body text does not. His general assertion that neighborhood effects may have very real and more pernicious effects than previously thought, is useless because it does not take diversity into account. He is likely just measuring life outcomes based on IQ. If you are a smart kid, then this world is wide open to you. You might muck-it up, but that is on you. Society has made is so the innercity urban core has plenty of opportunities, any claim to the contrary is massively ignorant. You go to school, you have a teacher, you get free food. What else you want? A cookie?

Anonymous said...

Alert: All white folk, you are never again allowed to dislike anyone NOT white, not ever, ever, ever. That is all.

Whiskey said...

Hypocrisy as a matter of daily life, imposes massive costs, not the least of which is most people including those of average intelligence see the lies and the actual behavior deviating from dogma, and so are very much unlikely to sacrifice for the common good or believe in defending the society.

Just as Obama's "Secret Wars" out of a Marvel Comic book imposes the costs of most people knowing the lies behind the cant and actual action, and thus believing in nothing and defending nothing, racial hypocrisy imposes that cost on pretty much every action in society: from good samaritan helping a stranger, to paying taxes, to following government regulations, to everything.

Examples: Italy, Greece, Spain, France.

Counterexamples of non-hypocritical nations include -- Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Finland, and Switzerland. Tight social cohesion and the cultural capital (productive people who sacrifice for the common good) does not just happen. It has to be earned by basic honesty in public discourse.

Tarrou said...

Or maybe, high IQ people understand that "policies to alleviate inequities" do nothing of the sort. Just a thought. If their measure of latent prejudice is "not supporting boilerplate liberal bullshit", then I'd imagine most intelligent people show some latent prejudice.

Ichabod Crane said...

"[High IQ people do] not naively express their beliefs...."

What does that say about us, the isteve community?

NOTA said...

Pretty much everyone everywhere and everywhen will squawk when their privileges get challenged. It seldom matters if those privileges ever made any sense, or have outlasted their justification. It is an extremely rare person who says "yes, my family and friends and I have too much, and we should lose so that others may gain."

Most people, if you ask them, will say that it's important to feed starving kids. Many even donate some money to charity to accomplish that goal. But almost none sell their house and move into a cheap shack somewhere so that they can make a serious effort at feeding the hungry,

Smarter and more-educated people are broadly on top in our society, for good and ill. That means they (we) enjoy better standards of living than many other people, and so have a lot of good things that we want to protect. I want poor black and brown kids to get a good education, just not in a way that messes up my kids' school or my property values. I want low-income housing available, just not close to anyplace I or my family need to be. And so on.

This is just human nature. If you had asked minor noblemen in the 1700s, you would have seen the same thing--broad surface-level acceptance of the widespread acceptable beliefs of the day (we're all God's children, we have a duty to the less fortunate, etc.) combined with a fierce willingness to defend their existing privileges.

In our own nation's history, we had a lot of thinkers who both saw the moral and practical problems with slavery, and who also managed to hang onto their slaves, since the alternative was losing the privileges and social position they were accustomed to. Later and further north, we had plenty of very overtly Christian factory owners and managers who were absolutely willing wring every penny out of their employees, hire thugs to keep their employees from negotiating for better wages, etc. This is just human nature, and it (like the poor) with be with us always.

Anonymous said...

As fun as it is to see racial hypocrisy documented, this study is a bit grating.

First, the authors don't follow through their findings to the logical conclusion:

"But, added Mr Wodtke, nearly half were content to allow prejudicial practices to continue rather than support laws to open up housing to ethnic minorities."

I.e., half of smart people are hypocrites on race.

But a more consistent and realistic interpretation is that the impeccably liberal half of smart respondents comprises people who are even better liars and hypocrites than the unenlightened half of smart respondents.

Surely if these people actually supported the "laws" they claim to support, upscale liberal communities would be full of Sun People. But they're not.

Second, what's with all this smarmy language about "privilege" and "allowing prejudicial practices to continue"?

Communities with smart, successful people descended from smart, successful ancestors operating over generations in a free country have accumulated a lot of social and financial capital. Being a part of such a community provides access to those advantages. But, as a commenter shrewdly pointed out below a previous post, in-group altruism is not "privilege."

And what "prejudicial practices" are being allowed to continue? Freedom of association? I wish we still enjoyed that liberty!

In summary, I have more sympathy for the smart conservative liars and the smart liberal uber-liars who participated in the study than I do for the researchers, who force otherwise intelligent people to dissemble by perpetuating these tendentious racial narratives.

John said...

Instead, they result from the need of dominant groups to ‘legitimise and protect’ their privileged social position over other social groupings.

They start from the position of assuming that dominant positions are never earned, and completely ignore that NE Asians are completely immune to 'white privilege' and are perfectly capable of achieving without any special treatment to overcome stated but never specified white racism.

If you measure 'racism' in the vilification ofa group, as well as which group is preyed upon in interracial crimes, and which group suffers because racism is codified into laws against said group, it's clear who the 'racists' are, and that includes pusillanimous Whites who seek to gain status by denigrating their own kind.

Anonymous said...

Prejudice or prevenjudice?

Not wanting to live with blacks most often has nothing to do dislike for black skin than fear of the black fist that all too often happens to be associated with racial crime in this country.

Mr Lomez said...

Hairsplitting: "Latins?" Are you using this nomenclature purposefully?

My understanding is that Latin refers specifically to those not born here and who aren't fluent in English, whereas Latino is inclusive of anyone of Latin American ancestry.

Anonymous said...

Lol these "studies" still employ the same methodology as their great granddaddy, "The Authoritarian Personality": ask some whites (and only whites) some banal questions about normal and healthy group preference, portray those giving the healthy response as moral reprobates or "potential fascists," use the "findings" to expound on the unique evil of whites, disseminate within friendly media outlets.

Anonymous said...

I don't like this. It appears as though some busybodies in the media are taking it upon themselves to ascertain motives into people's thoughts regarding whether or not they harbor "racist" thoughts and feelings.

I don't like it. Could be a precedent to something more devious down the road (from a legal standpoint) to come.

helene edwards said...

The door is open even wider for black success, but the problem is too few blacks make the cut and too many blacks--who are physically tougher and more aggressive than whites--commit violence or threatening acts.

I'll never forget a front-page series the WSJ did on race/workplace in the '90's. They interviewed a black executive at IBM, who complained, "you have to be non-threatening," as if such requirement didn't apply to everyone.

Power Child said...

Man bites dog = dog bites man, if you insist on ignoring the fact that dogs typically bite men and not the other way around.

But dog bites man isn't very interesting, which is why I'd like to know about racist attitudes specifically among people in interracial marriages.

carol said...

something more devious down the road (from a legal standpoint) to come.

You bet. As I was saying.

What were those public confession ordeals the Red Guard used to impose...watch the libs cravenly debase themselves. Then the fingers will point straight at us.

Paranoid? Maybe.

Anonymous said...

Matthew said...”The rich white liberal sending his kid(s) to Sidwell Friends will reply that 40% of students at Sidwell Friends are "ethnic minorities"...It's a bit more subtle than just sealing themselves off from diversity. To the extent that elite whites have to experience diversity, they get a highly selective form of it.”

Even worse, my friend isn’t a liberal. He self-identifies as a “conservative” (though his views are pure WSJ editorial page nonsense). He gets the joke on the “diversity” at Sidwell and has cracked about them welcoming D.C. blacks as long as they live on the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue or their father is some corrupt African diplomat. My friend knows all about diversity. He just won’t admit it.

The high school that we both attended (suburban DC) in the late 70’s and early 80’s was about 15% black – mostly bused in from elsewhere in the county. If they wanted to learn they’d put them in regular classes. About half the bused in kids fell into this category. For the other half they had a few rooms on the ground floor near where the band practiced and where the baseball batting cages and weight room and the auto body shop were located. The rooms were collectively known as “day care” or less charitably “the zoo” by other students. They could sit in there and beat on their desks as if it was a drum and impregnate the girls and watch TV and generally do as they liked. There would be a “teacher” who’d sit and read comic books or sports magazines and make sure they didn’t kill each other. At the end of four years they’d hand them a diploma and send them on their way. To be fair, there were a few white dolts down in these rooms as well. In those days there were no “Hispanics”. Our other minorities were the Vietnamese that began showing up en masse in Maryland and N. Virginia in the mid 70’s after Saigon fell. The Vietnamese kids were all in normal or AP classes and were very well-behaved. Because none of them played sports or would dream of taking auto shop, I doubt they even were aware of the existence of the Day Care section. Once the old school principal that had been there since the early 60’s retired, they closed The Zoo and tried to make the nitwits go to regular classes. Fortunately I was gone by then.

usticute said...

Not wanting to live with blacks most often has nothing to do dislike for black skin than fear of the black fist that all too often happens to be associated with racial crime in this country.

True, hardly anyone is bothered by mere skin color, but even if blacks had no special penchant for violence, I would still avoid them because of their contempt for English. Same reason I'm against Mexican immigration - I don't want to have to hear Mayan/Spanish everywhere. You young folks out there: the libs of the '60/70's had a chance to couple the extension of civil rights to blacks with a requirement of meeting white standards, but they deliberately whiffed on that, endorsing separatism. That is the crux of the story you're now living with.

Jonathan Silber said...

Who in these United States has, since the sixties, contributed more to the ruin and suffering of feckless blacks: racists, or Liberals?

Anonymous said...

"I have a friend that claims to be not "racist". He sends his daughter to Sidwell Friends. When pressed on why he sends her there rather than to the local public schools (about 40% NAM, more mestizo than black but still with a critical mass of blacks) he said because the local public schools aren't "good schools". He claims to have no problem with the NAM component, just that the schools aren't "good"."

Technically speaking, your Liberal friend is not a 'racist'. In other words, IF there were a perfectly good school with lots of blacks, he wouldn't mind sending his kids to that school. He probably wouldn't mind his kids marrying good blacks.
So, he doesn't care about racial differences in looks; he doesn't care about race mixing.
His problem is with the fact that a school with blacks tend to be bad. but if it were good, he wouldn't mind sending his kids there.

So, he isn't like a 'racist' who wouldn't send his kids even to a good school with lots of blacks because he wants to be with his own kind, because he wants his kids to have white friends, and because he wants to his kids to have children with white spouses. Such a 'racist' may have 'aesthetic' objections to America becoming overly non-white. Indeed, I would say most people around the world are 'racist' in this way. Chinese want China to remain Chinese, Kenyans want Kenya to remain black, Greeks want Greece to remain mostly Greek, etc. Such a 'racist' may not hate other races, but in his own nation or community, he wants to preserve the uniqueness of his people. He wants his nation or community to be filled with people who LOOK like him and his family. He may tolerate or welcome some degree of diversity but he doesn't want to be swamped by them.

Liberals generally have less such feelings or worries. They don't care about preserving whiteness. They'll welcome and integrate with anyone of any color as long as he or she is decent and nice.
So, blackness in looks and features don't bother white liberals, and if white features get all mixed with non-white ones, they don't care either. But white liberals don't wanna integrate with dangerous people, and many such people tend to be black. Now, liberals are avoiding them for their dangerousness than for their blackness, but over time, some more honest observers would notice that the link between blackness and dangerousness isn't just some random accidental arbitrary fluke. Nor is it purely the result of past history of injustice or poverty. No, there is a racial link between blacks and dangerousness because blacks are physically stronger, temperamentally more aggressive, emotionally less inhibited, and morally more psychopathic.

Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/) (or Sociopathy (/ˈsoʊsiəˌpæθ/)) is a personality trait or disorder characterised partly by enduring antisocial behavior, a diminished capacity for empathy or remorse, and poor behavioral controls.[1]

Thus, if the liberal is honest, he will admit his avoidance of blacks on the basis of dangerousness actually has a race-ist element since there are genuine racial differences that account for why so many blacks are troublesome. Even non-criminals like Obama, Holder, Oprah, Cornel West, and Jesse Jackson seem to have far less integrity than people of other races.

Even so, since not all blacks are dangerous and since affluent liberals do make friends with some affluent nice negroes, they can perpetuate the myth that all whites and all blacks can get along happily together.

Matthew said...

"At the end of four years they’d hand them a diploma and send them on their way."

This is why we need honors diplomas. Do any states do this now?

We're never going to be allowed to increase graduation requirements to a point where dropout rates increase, especially among blacks. At least give the kids who make an honest effort a chance to differentiate themselves from the kids like the ones you describe.

District 14 said...

They're really pushing it with whitey by hammering away at this.

You've already got whitey pretending they're getting privileges while letting minorities be the ones getting them. All that whitey asks for in return is to publicly pretend that they agree with it. And they want to take that away?

I say, swing away Mr. Wodtke!

Maguro said...

Breaking news: White people still evil, racist. Film at 11.

Devindra H. said...

"But a more consistent and realistic interpretation is that the impeccably liberal half of smart respondents comprises people who are even better liars and hypocrites than the unenlightened half of smart respondents.

Surely if these people actually supported the "laws" they claim to support, upscale liberal communities would be full of Sun People. But they're not."

- That's why gays fit so well into the new liberal victim handbook. They can let a few 'butt cowboys' in their community, and other than the extra shiny doorknobs, and a few other oddities on display, they are completely safe and can at the same time claim they have 'diverse' communitities. I'm quite sure when the new HUD diversity ball comes rolling down the road, this will be the ploy that liberal whitopias use to maintain their whiteness while the Red State whitopias catch hell. And best of all, the NE Scots-Irish communitities are diverse enough as it is because the Scots-Irish are minorities when they want to be, so a community of 100% of them is being diverse.

David said...

>I hate the way leftists misuse the word "segregated," giving it two different meanings at the same time. They wish their audiences to hear "intentionally, malevolently 'segregated' by government action using injunctions, arrests, and beatings to drive away non-whites." But when you ask for evidence more recent than 1964-- six decades ago and nearly passed from living memory-- then the leftists weasel that "segregated" merely means "racially imbalanced for whatever, likely benign, reason."<

Super observation.

This equivocal definition of "segregation" is what flipped me out of neocon-ism and into HBD. The libertarians - such as Virginia Postrel and the Reason boys - hit the ceiling over the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond "controversy" in 2002...and used the occasion to blather on about how Thurmond supported "segregation" all his life. "Segregation" meant BOTH

a. Laws against racial integration.

and

b. People voluntarily choosing to be around people like them.

In the libertoons' rhetoric, b. was consistently held to be the same as a. It was "a violation of the non-initiation of force principle" and worse, just plain "backward" and "racist."

It got so bad that ltoons were dogmatically asserting the preposterous falsehood that the Civil Rights Act consisted of the repeal of forced-segregation laws, and nothing else. (!)

Their lil hissy fit opened my eyes to many things....

My first interpretation was that these people had no principles, that they were dumping on Lott only because Lott wouldn't roll over for W, and W had to be supported by libertarians because...well, just because. Because he was Israel's best friend and Norman Rockwell's only bulwark in a world of terrorists or whatever. (Not that Lott wasn't pro-Israel; just "obstructionist.")

Then I realized that these people were behaving like classic KMac caricatures (before I found KMac). Always on the side of the government's pushing blacks anywhere; always holding negrophilia as their highest pride and a top moral imperative.

I wrote them all, reminding them that even Alissa Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand) wrote that the Civil Rights Bill - which they were grossly misrepresenting and championing - is "the worst violation of property rights in America's history" (from The Virtue of Selfishness). Surprisingly enough, they didn't listen to me. It was "dump on Lott" and "smear as a white racist lyncher ANYONE questioning the Civil Rights Act."

So much for their understanding of American history, "freedom" "liberty" "individual rights" "property rights" and the rest of the buzzwords.

Libertoonism, as another commenter opined, is just a more deceitful form of communism, specifically adapted to an American audience. (Anarcho-totalitarianism is a very similar form of it.)

^ Apologies for long rant

keypusher said...

A less useless article

"High-ability whites are less likely to report prejudiced attitudes and more likely to say they support racial integration in principle," said Geoffrey Wodtke, a doctoral candidate in sociology. "But they are no more likely than lower-ability whites to support open housing laws and are less likely to support school busing and affirmative action programs."

He also mentions "open housing laws."

So, it's just another example of defining racism down.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130811005342.htm

Anonymous said...

Steve,

Most "New York City liberals" did not "demand" revoking the 2-term limit for Bloomberg - Bloomberg demanded it, and was able to buy off enough of the city council ("legally," of course, thru private charitable contributions and the usual legislative log-rolling) to prevail. There was considerable opposition to lifting the 2-term limit from the leftwing activist community (which was then already conducting the vendetta against stop-and-frisk), and Bloomberg, after spending massively on the campaign, won his third term with just over 50% of the vote. He won with the support of apolitical and politically moderate and conservative (by NYC standards) voters, not the activist left, which opposed him then and has been pushing the anti-stop-&-frisk jihad for years.

If you're going to make broad statements about NYC politics, you ought to read more about it from reliable sources. You're really off base in thinking that the leftist establishment here has been ignoring stop-and-frisk. Who do you think is behind the expensive, long-running lawsuit that just bore fruit?

Anonymous said...

"He claims to have no problem with the NAM component, just that the schools aren't "good". As if the problem is something in the plumbing or the masonry."

This was public policy in the 1970s, tear down the segregated black school and bus the kids to some targeted white school, as though the educational objective could be achieved for blacks with white physical plant. BTW they also moved the black teachers and the white kids they taught grew up to be doctors and lawyers just like they would have under white teachers. At the time they truly thought the problem was with the physical plant.

Ranse T. said...

"I'm quite sure when the new HUD diversity ball comes rolling down the road, this will be the ploy that liberal whitopias use to maintain their whiteness while the Red State whitopias catch hell."

This HUD decree (really, part of the larger Agenda 21 from the UN) is just another way to break up conservative whites. According to what it claims, communities cannot receive gov't funds unless they comply with a certain level of diversity. Of course, no one is suggesting breaking up minority communitites. Quite the opposite- the Feds are complicit in helping create and maintain unnatural minority communities for the benefits of minorities and the left with nonsense such as gerrymandering (and who gives a damn about the poor loser whiteys who lose the impact of THEIR votes when gerrymandering places them in a minority-majority district).

White communities should stay as they are and protest in large numbers that if they are not eligible to receive federal funds, then they should stop contributing funds to the federal government.

And liberal whites who want to stay in white areas should voice their concern that the new racist HUD laws will disperse vibrant black communities into small pockets within greater communities of evil racist whites, keep them in small groups where they can't achieve community power, etc.

Silver said...

Personally, I support both voluntary and involuntary segregation. "Involuntary" segregation gives most people what they want anyway, dwarfing the number of people who'd be inconvenienced by it.

For non-blacks, keeping blacks out of one's society is essentially all upside and no downside. I think virtually everyone grasps the fundamental truth of this - except white leftists.

White leftists are the only people to associate extreme pain - mental anguish - with thinking uncomplimentary thoughts about blacks. (Even as they themselves do all they can to put distance between themselves and blacks - that distance itself being an essential component of the ability to manifest white leftist thought patterns at all.)

For everyone else, mental anguish has little to do with avoiding uncomplimentary thoughts about blacks; for everyone else, it's just a matter of not rocking the boat.

White leftists are culturally and politically influential, so what they think matters. But should there come a day when white leftists lose their cultural and political influence, I will no longer even pretend to care about what white leftists think. With white leftists out of the way America is openly up for grabs. And there I can see a mutual understanding among disparate and even hostile groups rapidly coalescing that we're all better off by keeping blacks out. White leftists won't like it, but it will no longer matter.

Dumbo said...

Yeah, just take a look at this liberal who "believes in public education" but sends his son to a private school. And then writes an article because she feels "guilty".

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/09/my_private_school_guilt/

Screw them all.

Dykeward said...

It may be a sensitive name to drop around here but is this not a clear outline of the mechanisms discussed in the classic essay "Psychology & White Ethnocentrism" by Kevin MacDonald?

It discusses the psychological gap between explicit and implicit processing. How white (and we must presume many others) show ethnocentric tendencies on tests, through personal networks, in living arrangements and many other examples, yet at the same time will strongly assert pro-integration beliefs and not necessarily consciously see the disconnect. Conscientiousness is the key and cultural signals inhibit the expression of socially frowned upon attitudes. Those who have been more highly educated obviously have to some degree experienced higher levels of social conditioning. I won't link the essay under the assumption the comment may not see the light of day, but it is very interesting nonetheless, Google it.

Anonymous said...

Matthew said... "At the end of four years they’d hand them a diploma and send them on their way."

This is why we need honors diplomas. Do any states do this now? At least give the kids who make an honest effort a chance to differentiate themselves from the kids like the ones you describe."

I think the people that cared whether the diplomas were real or not (i.e. colleges) could tell the difference just by looking at the transcripts - did you take Algebra in 8th and 9th grade or did you take "Intro to Math" in 12th grade?

Not that even that would matter, none of the kids in The Zoo were applying to college. Over the years I've run into a few Zoo inhabitants. One of the white guys was driving a tow truck. One of the black guys worked for the county doing road work, mowing median strips, etc. Another one of the black guys was murdered in a drug deal. Quite sad actually as, although not very bright, he was nice to everybody and didn't cause any trouble at school.

Chancellor Bing said...

"Another one of the black guys was murdered in a drug deal. Quite sad actually as, although not very bright, he was nice to everybody and didn't cause any trouble at school."

-One thing that's been more and more on my mind recently is how the payoffs are different for so many of these things for poor vs rich, low IQ vs high IQ, etc.

A guy who makes a 20K salary and has little chance for improvement is going to feel very different about the lottery, crime, etc than would a guy making 100k a year on the fast track to the big desk. The payoff and cost ratios are completely different.

I think these things are underappreciated in discussions about the stupidity of the poor to buy lottery tickets, etc.

Silver said...

" yet at the same time will strongly assert pro-integration beliefs and not necessarily consciously see the disconnect"

I would just point out that you can't assume that they do not see the "disconnect." Many, I'm certain, can see it all too clearly. They just don't care. To them lying through their teeth is a price worth paying for individual advancement. They may even harbor beliefs that they're "getting away with murder." That their behavior, successful as it is on a personal, short-term level, in the long-run dooms their kind is a distant consideration. Humans are complex creatures so I bet there are times where some hate themselves for their lies, but ah, how sweet it is to cement another white's status beneath you by slamming him with "racist!"

Anonymous said...

For c. 50 years the war against white people has been mainly waged against the bluecollar white population. During this time the media propaganda line on racism was that it was related to class, intelligence and education - so divide and rule basically.

Now the war against the bluecollar part of the white population is mostly complete - at least in the big cities - it's time to switch to the whitecollar part of the white population hence HUD and section 8.

That's in the States - most other places are still only halfway through getting rid of the bluecollar population.

Dykeward said...

The British left-wing broadsheet The Guardian has just covered this study and others:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2013/aug/15/racist-sexist-you-are-more