November 5, 2013

Throw Whitey Under the Trolley

From my new column in Taki's Magazine:
If a runaway trolley were about to smash into a bus containing 100 trapped members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra, would you push a wholly innocent man named Chip Ellsworth III onto the tracks to stop the accident? What if the bus held 100 members of the New York Philharmonic and the guilt-free man's name is Tyrone Payton? 
Would your politics have any relevance to whether you’d prefer to kill the white man to save the black musicians or to kill the black man to save the white musicians? 
In a fascinating 2009 academic paper by four social psychologists, The Motivated Use of Moral Principles, UC Irvine students who identified as politically conservative were found to be racially evenhanded. When given the scenario about killing Chip to save 100 Harlemites, conservatives were no more or less likely to agree it’s the right thing to do than when told to ponder killing the man with the cornerback’s name to save 100 classical musicians. 
In striking contrast, liberal students displayed greater bloodthirstiness when presented with the scenario that gave them an opportunity to kill the WASP to help the blacks. 

Read the whole thing there.

68 comments:

Anthony said...

Minor point: Chip Ellsworth might possibly be black, but Chip Ellsworth III is not.

Even if he does have more melanin than 80% of the human race.

Titus Didius Tacitus said...

"Antiwhite" has been an English word since 1904, though so rarely in use that spell-checkers, unlike dictionaries, don't believe in it.

As the years go by it becomes more necessary for describing reality.

Dave Pinsen said...

Why not? What about RG3?

Anonymous said...

I think the term most people are used to is 'throw____ under the bus.'

Anonymous said...


Black, like Obama, or white, liberals are narcissists. They enjoy believing they are smart, kind, and powerful. However, they NEED someone to "help" and blacks are oh so in need of help.

Libs get a rush out of doing anything that they think will show the world they are smart, kind, and powerful. Blacks and other minorities are part of their tool kit, and by God, no damn conservatives with ideas of self-reliance is going to ruin a good libs chance for omnipotence.

Truth said...

How do you do this story without mentioning sample size?

Anonymous said...

Conservative loyalties are concentric?
Then why all the crazy worship of Jews and Zionism despite the fact that most Jews support policies harmful to conservatives?

And if liberal sympathies are truly leapfrogging, where is the liberal sympathy for Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, etc?

Frogs choose to leap whereto on their own.
Liberals never make their own leaps. Instead, they are directed-and-thrown-at certain targets.
So, if the media direct-and-toss them at homos, Libs are crazy about homos. If the academia direct-and-toss them at Africans, Libs are crazy about Africans.

Jews and homos are at the center of the urban Liberal core whereas Palestinians, Russians, and Iranians are far removed from it. Yet, do you see white Liberals leap out of their core to side with Iranians, Palestinians, or Russians against Jews and homos?

Why do white Liberals leap for South African blacks but not for Palestinians and Iranians?
Because the media and academia encourage them to worship Jews and homos who are the very core of Liberal power while dehumanizing Iranians and Palestinians.

Liberal whites are part of concentricism too. The difference is they position themselves at the periphery than at the center. At the center are Jews, homos, MLK cult, Obama cult, Oprah cult, etc.
White Liberals revolve around that core.

In contrast, one could argue that conservatives see themselves at the center of the circle. Conservatives have a Ptolemaic view that puts themselves and their interest at the center.
Liberals have a Copernican view that has whites as a mere planet revolving around the true centric radiance of Jews, MLK cult, and homos. But even white Liberals see Russians, Palestinians, and Iranians as outer planets further away from the sun of truth(Jew-homo-MLK) than the white American planet is.

Btw, citizenist is only semi-concentric. While it favors US citizens over foreigners, it means white Americans should favor citizen blacks and Jews over Russians and foreign whites. I would rather side with foreign whites. Blood is thicker than paper.

One thing for sure, American Jews feel closer to other Jews around the world than to gentile Americans--unless they happen to be homo.

DJ said...

Is that a veiled reference to Incognito? Richie's Wonderlic score is too not shabby.

Anonymous said...

Any study of psychology will tell you that there is an absolutely enormous amount of deception and scheming going on amngst human beings at any one time.
Basically it's all a power game, a status game, a pecking-order. Innumerable subtle cues activate the largely unconscious mechanisms that decide who we align with and who we shun and bully, basically it's a herd mentality. Why do you think kids do such a dumb thing as take up smoking even though for the initial first months it gives them no pleasure at all?

So the way for 'trendy' Whites - you know the ones who want to to be accepted by other 'trendy' whites, (particulary 'stylish' loudmouths in the media), do the trandy 'shit-on' ritual on other whites to be accepted into the in-group.
It just shows you how deep and fundamental the need to be 'accepted' is. Basically there is nothing but nothing people will not do in order to be 'accepted' into the power-holding in-group.

Anonymous said...

http://minutemennews.com/2013/08/why-cant-camille-paglia-be-more-like-florence-king/

Anonymous said...

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Former-UK-foreign-secretary-AIPAC-is-the-main-barrier-to-peace-329884

Anonymous said...

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/11/05/saudi-foreign-workers-idINDEE9A409920131105

Saudi authorities rounded up thousands of illegal foreign workers at the start of a nationwide crackdown ultimately aimed at creating more jobs for locals, media reported on Tuesday.

Eliot Taliaferro said...

My guess is that conservative students are bending over backwards and self-censoring in order to tamp down the deep inner fear of being perceived as raciss y'all. They are also naive of course because Leftists aren't satisfied with evenhanded treatment. We must totally abandon caring about what satisfies Leftist scum.

That we still care at all what Leftists think means we have a long, long way to go before we finally realize that we must openly organize as Whites. We have to understand that when Leftist imbeciles scream like weenies on the BBQ and call us racist that they are merely congratulating us on being in touch with reality; reality being kryptonite to the entire Leftist agenda.

And the Leftist students are acting true to form. I work with a crowd of simpleminded, knee-jerk Leftists and they are always loudly talking about how White people are evil, dirty, stupid, uncool, boring, violent, insane, etc. They all feel guilty for having jobs and decent lives.

But all of this guilt, hatred for their own kind, along with the worship of lively, vibrant diverses, makes them feel morally superior. Leftists are living in a coward's paradise.

eah said...

Bizarre.

Anonymous said...

'reverse racism' is typically used in place of 'anti-whitism'

Many/most white guys understand the phenomenon. It's chicks in large coastal cities that are the problem.

Anonymous said...

i bet the scots irish sample would be even more bloodthirsty

Anonymous said...

"...to kill the black man to save the white musicians?"

"...to kill the black man to save the white and asian musicians?"

FIFY

Anonymous said...

"This liberal desire to shove a white man to his death to salvage blacks rather than a black man to salvage whites..."

Whole lotta Talcum X's out there.

FredR said...

Dave Chappelle named his stereotypical white friend Chip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ3dk6KAvQM

Anonymous said...

What's this got to do with George Zimmerman?

Anonymous said...

Well, San Diego is introducing a robot in farming and its doing kiosks in fast food. Right now we are bum out. I read about Universal Services growing in Orange County to 35,000 employees it does security which hires Americans and some immigrants but it also does cleaning which is done by illegals but eventually universal security will be forced to use commercial robots more as their competitors do. In fact by 2018 they may be force to laid off 15,000 people. The next big wave that automation and robots will hurt is the service industries.

Anonymous said...

n contrast, one could argue that conservatives see themselves at the center of the circle. Conservatives have a Ptolemaic view that puts themselves and their interest at the center.

That sound strange. In fact both the left and paleo-conservatives support the Palestinians s while neo-conservatives support Israel. The conservatives are not always pro-white while the left agrees with paleo-conservatives on trade issues, Iran and so forth.
Most American Republican politicians are neo-conservatives which means their not as pro- minority in their speech, Ted Cruz would probably bring in more Asians than Barrack Obama since Cruz is very pro- H1b vista. Both want to use the Mexicans for different reasons. Conservatives think that service jobs are safe from technology and want Mexicans to clean their toilet while the left wants their vote.

Hacienda said...

unconscious mechanisms that decide who we align with and who we shun and bully, basically it's a herd mentality.

--------------------

For some it's not unconscious. There's a transparency to their thoughts about their own thoughts and motivations. They are not part of the herd.

Power of meditation is but one manifest.

Anonymous said...

At one point, you compare Google hits for "anti-whiteism" and "anti-whitism" against hits for "anti-Semitism" and find ratio of about 1:1500. In fact, people like avoid "anti-whiteism" because it is aclumsy word. If you compare "anti-white" to "anti-Semitic" you get a ratio of 1:43, which proves your general point, but only to a degree.

Chicago said...

A student, when given this question, should just immediately grab the moral high ground by saying that they would jump in front of the trolley themselves and thus save everyone else. Just lie. It'll never happen anyway.

Dahinda said...

Thank you! I now have that damn "Clang, clang, clang, goes the trolley" song playing in my head over and over!

Anonymous said...

http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1496

Same old song.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the subjects in this experiment knew that "Chip Ellsworth" was supposed to be a WASP. You rarely encounter whites with WASPy names outside of the South these days. Outside of the South, someone with a WASPy name is more likely to be black than WASP. And in the South itself, lots of blacks themselves have WASPy sounding names.

Anonymous said...

Pollan links cheap bad food to the obesity ‘epidemic.’ The problem? That ‘bad’ food (like corn, potatoes, and wheat) is subsidized, making it cheaper, and people are eating too much of it, which has led to a rise in obesity. The solution? Stop subsidizing, and educate people to “vote with their fork” by buying locally and organically.

It turns out that this line of reasoning is totally false. It is also elitist, classist, racist, and fat-phobic. But before debunking Pollan, I want to put the discussion of food and health in a different context.
...
In this work, she directly sees how food activism and racism can intersect. “If you want to start changing people’s health,” says Pringle, “you might want to be aware how that might be a racist act.”

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2013/10/the-racism-in-healthy-food/

pat said...

There a quantitative solution to this hypostatical exercise. Let's consider the case of the lions.

A couple decades ago there were two incidents involving lions in the zoo that are revealing. In the first one an African Lion somehow got into a Tiger's cage (or vice versa) and engaged in a what looked to be a death struggle. The zoo keepers immediately shot the lion. Why?

First of all lions always beat tigers because that's what they do. Lions live in prides where the males fight for dominance routinely. Tigers are solitary. The only thing they dominate are deer.

But the real reason is because lions are cheap and tigers are expensive.

The second incident was when a homeless man got drunk and broke into the lion's cage. The drunk taunted the lion and made him attack. Again the zookeepers shot the lion. This time because the life of a human trumps the life of a lion intrinsically. I have never met anyone who thinks this was a fair and wise decision - an inevitable decision perhaps but hardly fair.

So it is clear that real life people make these kind of difficult decisions every day. The solution depends on intrinsic values and economic values.

So assuming for the sake of argument that we choose to consider the intrinsic value of the white man and the black man to be equal, there is still the question of economics.

Blacks have roughly double the unemployment rate of whites and no more than 15% of the accumulated wealth. So obviously we should kill the black guy since the economic loss to society would be less.

How can this be a difficult problem? By any measure blacks are simply worth less than whites. It isn't really close.

Some readers will think this analysis makes me a bigot but any other analysis makes you innumerate. Which is worse?

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

I might even throw myself under the trolley to save two brothers or eight cousins.

That was called patriotism back before our Western countries became great big melting pots.

Power Child said...

Common white American male names that start with D that aren't more popular as names for black people:

Dave/Davey/David
Doug/Douglas
Dean
Dylan/Dillon
Dale
Dan/Danny/Daniel
Darren
Dick
Damon
Damien
Don/Donnie/Donald
Dennis/Denny
Derrek/alternative spellings
Devin/Devon
Dexter
Dom/Dominic
Drew
Duncan
Dustin

Less common, but not unheard of:

Dallas
Dana
Dash
Davis
Dawson
Deacon
Dilbert
Drake
Dewey
Dirk

Names that might be close in popularity between whites and blacks:

Dwight
Darryl/alternative spellings
Dwayne

Now, I'll grant you that the apostrophe allows way more consonant combinations up front, so the list of black male names starting with a D can be much longer than this.

Bert said...

"Saudi authorities rounded up thousands of illegal foreign workers at the start of a nationwide crackdown ultimately aimed at creating more jobs for locals, media reported on Tuesday."

I suppose living in a repressive and decadent monarchy does have some advantages.

Anonymous said...

In particular, political liberals tended to be more likely to endorse a consequentialist justification for sacrificing an innocent White man compared to sacrificing an innocent Black man.

...

A more likely explanation is that antipathy toward anti-Black prejudice played a greater role in liberals’ judgments.


And these are the people in control of our immigration policy, educational system, media, and increasingly every institution including the military. It would be easier if you could just assume they were all democrats. But unfortunately the ruling elite of the GOP share their religion.

Speaking of religion, I find it odd that practicing Catholics considered for the Supreme Court must be vetted to ensure they don't share their religion's view on abortion, but practitioners of the multicult, who share the views quoted above, never have to do the same despite the obvious "axe to grind" at the heart of their religion.

So much for equality.

Silver said...

Btw, citizenist is only semi-concentric. While it favors US citizens over foreigners, it means white Americans should favor citizen blacks and Jews over Russians and foreign whites. I would rather side with foreign whites. Blood is thicker than paper.

Or, as I like to say, "blood is thicker than borders." Good slogan for a globalizing age.

Alas, blood isn't always all that thick , not of itself. It needs to be worked on. It requires a coating of cultural identity to really create sparks. I consider myself a racialist so think it's a fine ideal, and one worth striving for, but you have to be realistic about it. In some cases it really can be true that your interests are more aligned with those of a fellow other-race citizen (ie someone who lives down the street) rather than with a coracial who may live half a world away.

Evil Sandmich said...

You're talking about people who spend their lives justifying gulags in communist countries; they would kill the dude just out of spite.

Anonymous said...

Here we see the degrading of intellectual Christian Western culture, we see that personal biological traits determines ethical outcomes.

In our universities truth seeking intellectualism is being trumpeted by biological based victimization groups. We see that gender, sexual orientation, skin color, and tribe - rule ethical decisions and actual teaching.

In Christian Western philosophy, all life is sacred - right and wrong regarding human life is determined by an ethical intellectual system of truth that disregards biological traits.

Clearly America’s best and brightest are being taught the false notion that “two wrongs can make a right.” That notion is totally antithetical to Christian Western philosophy and culture.

Who is pushing these victimization screeds on America - who is killing our culture?

d..... said...

A hearty welcome to NYC's new first lady:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirlane_McCray

Phun Phact:

McCray enrolled at Wellesley College in 1972 and became a member of the Combahee River Collective. After graduating, she moved to New York City to work for Redbook. She published an essay in Essence Magazine in 1979, entitled "I Am a Lesbian",[2]


"The Combahee River Collective was a Black feminist Lesbian organization active in Boston from 1974 to 1980.[1][2] They are perhaps best known for developing the Combahee River Collective Statement,[3] a key document in the history of contemporary Black feminism and the development of the concepts of identity as used among political organizers and social theorists.

Yawn.

I am suffering from homofatigue, but that Chirlaine's hubs is now mayor is no laughing matter.

Or is it?

d..... said...

Omigod. A white guy was elected mayor of Detroit. And I don't think he had a black wife!

Power Child said...

They can keep Madonna, Barbara Streisand, and Bette Middler, but I was always annoyed by popular gay culture's appropriation of Judy Garland.

I happen to really love Garland's singing. In fact, I think one of the reasons I like Fiona Apple so much is that Apple's voice kinda sounds like Garland's and she may even be channeling her (especially in songs like "I'll Know" and "Better Than Fine").

Anonymous said...

Btw, citizenist is only semi-concentric. While it favors US citizens over foreigners, it means white Americans should favor citizen blacks and Jews over Russians and foreign whites. I would rather side with foreign whites. Blood is thicker than paper.

It also means favor citizen whites over foreign whites who might be more related.

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

Conservatism means two things.

One, that existing institutions (norms, customs, etc) should be given the benefit of the doubt in terms of efficacy. The obvious example here are the nuclear family and traditional marriage laws. Whether Sailer's idea of "concentric loyalties" is a result of that, I leave to the reader as an exercise.

Second, while having ideas is important, most ideas start out as bad ones. They should not be implemented from the top down, but rather should be proven on the ground and work their way up into society. Free people should not be forced to be unwilling participants in some large experimental test of an idea. Common sense is the residue of ideas which have withstood the test of time.

vinteuil said...

@Power Child "I was always annoyed by popular gay culture's appropriation of Judy Garland."

What do you mean, "appropriation?"

Were gay guys supposed to disguise their admiration for & identification with Judy Garland, just so a few straight guys would feel more comfortable admitting that they liked her singing?

vinteuil said...

Anyway, PC, you're behind the times. So far as I can determine, gay men these days generally neither know nor care any more about Judy Garland than they do about Maria Callas or Renata Tebaldi. As they get normalized, they get dumbed down.

panjoomby said...

@vinteuil: your lengthy question is like a zen koan AND the sound of one hand clapping at the same time! nice!

Power Child said...

@vinteuil:

Lots of gay guys like ice cream, yet somehow eating ice cream isn't commonly associated with popular gay culture. Something else had to happen for Judy Garland to get this association.

Cultural appropriation happens in a lot of ways and is a complex process I don't claim to know much about. I don't know exactly how Judy Garland wound up being appropriated, but one way or another she became a gay icon (despite not being gay herself). There's even a Wikipedia page with that name.

If you read the reasons why she became such an icon, it becomes clear that they could have picked just about anyone. Kurt Cobain, for instance, was a tragic figure, a camp figure, a cross-dresser, and a vocal advocate of gay rights issues. Yet gay people don't refer to each other as "friends of Kurt." (Thank God.) Then why choose Judy Garland? (or Cher, or Janet Jackson, or ...?) It's very puzzling.

I also wonder if whether, as a straight male, the apparent randomness and lack of logic behind this whole "gay icon" stuff also adds to my frustration. My instinct is for things to be orderly and make sense: gay icons should be people who are gay, or at least explicitly advocated on gays' behalf.

Ichabod Crane said...

There was a guy at the country club in Winnetka, Il named Odd Anderson. I really looked up to him as a kid because of the story about him from World War II: he and his commanding officer were alone and surrounded by a large group of Germans, and he walked over to them (as the Germans thought) to surrender. In a surprise move, he demanded that they surrender, and claimed they were outnumbered. When a german officer laughed, Odd jammed the butt of his gun onto on the German man's foot as hard as he could. This persuaded the Germans that they were outmatched, and they surrendered. Odd went on to be in charge of entertainment for a big company in Chicago -- he was the guy in charge of planning evenings of debauchery for executives and clients. Apparently this used to be a coveted job with lots of prestige.

Anonymous said...

Clearly America’s best and brightest are being taught the false notion that “two wrongs can make a right.” That notion is totally antithetical to Christian Western philosophy and culture.

Is it?

Anonymous said...

Conservatism means two things.

One, that existing institutions (norms, customs, etc) should be given the benefit of the doubt in terms of efficacy.

Most "conservatives" are reactionaries. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a reactionary. It is just an unpopular term that takes some honesty to accept. Paleo-cons come the closest to such admission.

The obvious example here are the nuclear family and traditional marriage laws.

Problem is, that conservatives cherry-pick which ancient wisdoms they want to conserve. Most modern "conservatives" are Victorian reactionaries who would be shocked if someone suggests to "go back" to Renaissance Europe much less classical Greece and Rome. Fine, but they could at least be more open and honest about their specific values and judgements.

Liberals are similarly selective about the exciting new ideas they would like to adopt.

Second, while having ideas is important, most ideas start out as bad ones. They should not be implemented from the top down, but rather should be proven on the ground and work their way up into society.

Which means, government and other institutions of power should not artificially restrict unproven ideas, but permit the people to experiment. (Within reason, of course.)

Free people should not be forced to be unwilling participants in some large experimental test of an idea. Common sense is the residue of ideas which have withstood the test of time.

No, free people need to have the freedom to experiment on their own. Government has no more right to arbitrarily restrict than to force unwilling participants.

Power Child said...

My interpretation of the concentric loyalties idea includes the following:

1. It is partly about whether people's expressed loyalties are aligned with their revealed ones. Most people are naturally most loyal to their kin, but conservatives are more likely to admit it.

2. The rings may have different weights, so even though the ring for fellow citizens may be outside the ring for members of my race, nationalism may be a darker ring, causing me to make up my mind about an issue at the "fellow Americans" level rather than allowing my opinion about the issue to be decided at the racial level. (In any case, there is always going to be tension between whether race or nationality should take precedence for white people, since white people are not allowed to have their own nation.)

Another thing worth defining at this point is "historical American nation". To me, this comprises mostly white people, but also some blacks, American Indians, Hispanics, and Jews. There was diversity before Diversity, after all.

George Stanley Whiteman said...

"Tyrone" seems almost quaint and olde-worlde now. Memories of Bill Cosby and Will Smith and their unthreatening comedy shows.

I think Steve himself came up with the none-more-white name Kensington Vanderbilt (III) a while ago - no real chance of this being either a) a Scots-Irishman or b) a Vibrant-American. Multi-syllabic Anglo-Saxon locational names are fairly safe bets too - Haythornthwaite, Cavendish, Heseltine, Featherstone, Etherington, Walmsley. Actually, any "-ington" name?

First names: Nicholas, Nigel, Henry, Bruce, Gavin, Philip, Robert, Clive, Hugh.

Will think about women's names but I reckon they're easier still: Charlotte, Hannah, Jane, Elizabeth, Anne. All they need to do to be readily identifiable as "white" is be spelled normally, really.

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

Most "conservatives" are reactionaries. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a reactionary

Exactly, being reactionary is a good thing and precisely what I mean. It's a deference to existing norms, customs, institutions. It's the practical, learned, wise reaction to someone coming along to try to eff sh-t up.

Problem is, that conservatives cherry-pick which ancient wisdoms they want to conserve. Most modern "conservatives" are Victorian reactionaries who would be shocked if someone suggests to "go back" to Renaissance Europe much less classical Greece and Rome.

Nonsense. You should only want to go back to those good things that came about because they were better.

But, then I read the rest of what you wrote and you seem to have a problem with basic logic. Forcing people to try out new ideas is in no way in conflict with allowing them to try things out on their own.

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

Anonymous, sorry, I may have read some of your comments as being in opposition to, rather than supportive of, my comments. If so, i'm sorry about that.

Anonymous said...

Another thing worth defining at this point is "historical American nation". To me, this comprises mostly white people, but also some blacks, American Indians, Hispanics, and Jews. There was diversity before Diversity, after all.

"Historical American nation" is a political term. 100 years ago, something like "historical American nation" would have meant WASPs or northern European Protestants. Today, it's used to mean white Americans in general, regardless of ethnicity or family immigration history. When the term is used at VDare, for example, obviously they're not using it to exclude someone like Peter Brimelow, who is a 1st generation immigrant, and to include Hispanics.

Anonymous said...

"Tyrone" seems almost quaint and olde-worlde now. Memories of Bill Cosby and Will Smith and their unthreatening comedy shows.

In some place it was always, and still is, an Irish name with no connection to blacks.

agnostic said...

Everyone has concentric loyalties, and liberals' support falls off more steeply as you go farther away from Ego.

Elite lib support for blacks is cheap talk; in reality, they keep blacks farther away than they do middle-class WASPs.

Elite libs also spout lots of cheap talk about their cosmopolitanism and Blue State solidarity. In reality, they're not only convinced of their own city's superiority, but try as often as possible to rub it in the face of the jealous wannabes in other lib havens nearby (especially Boston / New York / DC, and San Francisco / Portland / Seattle).

Conservatives don't argue over whether Phoenix is more authentically conservative than Dallas, or Vegas, or wherever. BFD.

Libs didn't go to Central America during the civil wars we inflamed there during the '80s, while conservative church ladies did, in order to be human shields for brown peasants.

Haidt's work keeps showing that libs don't care as much about community values as conservatives do, so none of this should be surprising. Narcissism is the libs' defining trait, and hospitality the conservatives'.

agnostic said...

How would Jews on the Upper West Side respond if the question asked about shoving Max Goldenstein onto the tracks to save the Harlem Hip Hop Dance Squad, vs. shoving Darnell Jackson to save the Upper West Side Klezmer Orchestra?

This sweetens the deal by offering them a chance to sacrifice one of their own for the benefit of folks who are lower-status on three separate pyramids -- race/ethnicity, class, and neighborhood.

Tweak it some more, and you can make it so that a male Jew is sacrificed for black women -- the All-Harlem Twerk Team -- vs. a black woman sacrificed for Jewish men -- whatever an all-male Jewish musical/dance group is.

We don't have to run that experiment to know the qualitative results. But it would be neat to estimate just how much more concentrically biased the liberal elite is compared to, say, charismatic conservatives.

Storied past said...

Libs have been throwing white men under the bus for at least a half century, what is so surprising about finding out they would happily chuck them under a trolley?

Anonymous said...

How about this Ellsworth?

Steve Sailer said...

There you go: Ellsworth Huntington.

Anonymous said...

'Kensington Vanderbilt'

This may work for actual people.

But for law firms or financial planning, real estate or property development companies, a cheesy WASP name has become a tell of oriental ownership.

After all, "Hastagiglios, Katzen, Farrar & Kumar" just doesn't have the same ring.

Gilbert P.

Power Child said...

My favorite Ellsworth at the moment is Stan Ellsworth, of the very enjoyable and (un?)surprisingly well-produced BYU TV show "American Ride."

My first association with the name "Ellsworth," though, is the antagonist from Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead," Ellsworth Toohey. But that might be a holdover from my libertarian days.

~~~

My interpretation of "Historic American nation" is quasi-literal: in our nation's early history, who comprised the nation? It was mostly WASPS but also a few free blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and American Indians. Diversity before diversity.

Of course, one might extend history forward so that significant populations of German, Irish, and Italian descent might be included. So where should we end this extension? The natural place to me seems to be in 1965 just before the passage of the immigration bill. At that time, whites were 89%.

~~~

I once was ADing a feature film and I had to call a bunch of actors to make sure they'd be on set the next day. One of the actors was named Cyril Jackson, which had to be one of the blackest names I'd ever seen. I was surprised to find out the next day that he was not only not black, but incredibly white.

A Google image search for his name mostly turned up some black skateboarder, but it also turned up this guy, who doesn't look like the Cyril Jackson I remember but does approximate him in whiteness.

Anonymous said...

Conservatives don't argue over whether Phoenix is more authentically conservative than Dallas, or Vegas, or wherever. BFD.
Yes, they do, Phoenix was tougher on illegal immirgants than Dallas or Vegas but I hear republicans scream that almost anywhere but the south or Texas are Rino Places. In fact even liberal states like Dallas better than Huntington Beach Ca because it has a conservative white repute while Dallas doesn't. Libs like Dallas, Houston and Austin over Huntington Beach or San Diego. They would say HB and SD don't have enough minorities and SD needs to be more liberal, not that its that conservative.

Anonymous said...

Basically I hate both Leftist and Right wingers.

Anonymous said...

My interpretation of "Historic American nation" is quasi-literal: in our nation's early history, who comprised the nation? It was mostly WASPS but also a few free blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and American Indians. Diversity before diversity.

Of course, one might extend history forward so that significant populations of German, Irish, and Italian descent might be included. So where should we end this extension? The natural place to me seems to be in 1965 just before the passage of the immigration bill. At that time, whites were 89%.


That's not a quasi-literal interpretation of "nation", since "nation" doesn't simply connote a territory's residents or occupants or citizens.

"Historic American nation" is a political term. It's used as a euphemism for racialist or ethnonationalist connotations. It's not used to exclude someone like Peter Brimelow and to include blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and American Indians.

Anonymous said...

Concentrism can be created in many ways.

White and black workers might unite together against the bosses.

White and black teammates on a sports team will feel as one.

White and black navy guys might unite to fight white and black Marine guys.

Anonymous said...

Meta-morality?

How about moreality or morality based on reality?

Even 'reason' is pointless without good understanding of the facts of reality.

Simian Mike said...

I think you are still missing a critical part of this, Steve. Liberals don't jump over other whites for loyalty to Rwandan goat farmers, they jump over them to pretend to be more loyal to Rwandan goat farmers.

They do it because they benefit from it. With minorities, that's blatantly obvious, but scratch the surface of a white male liberal (who are only a minority of the white male population), and you find things like a teen/young adult desperately trying to parrot nonsense he feels will make him 'cool', or get a girlfriend, or a union worker, an academian, a gov't employee, a gay, or some other category who benefits in some way from the lie.


They reveal their true beliefs in many ways- who they are willing to live around, who they are willing to send their kids to school with, etc. And by their policies, which blatantly assume that blacks are retarded monkeys who need a white chaperone and which only appear to help blacks. Liberal policies have destroyed black families.

There have also been studies that show that people speaking political correctness show the same brain activity as someone telling a blatant lie.