Thursday, October 08, 2009

The country's choice: individualism or racialism

This graph shows that support among whites for laws against black-white marriages has dropped from 40% in the early 70s to around 10% in this decade (N = 24,739).

If we focus on young adults (ages 19-29) you can see that the number has dropped to 3% (N = 5,511).

The notion that whites can organize and get laws passed that explicitly advance their collective interests seems completely unrealistic. Over the past four decades, whites have become more libertarian in a non-economic sense, and they have become less racial.

Whites have interests just like everyone else, but the strategy that makes sense is to make use of historical trends. Two imporant trends for whites have been individualism over racialism and a keener sense of fairness. Fine, but these principles should be expected of non-whites too. If white organizations are illegitimate, then so are black and Hispanic organizations. If laws that favor whites are unacceptable, then so are laws that favor non-whites--affirmative action, enhanced penalties for hate crimes, etc.

If liberals push the idea that white racism justifies a double standard, we demonstrate that NAMs do poorly because of factors internal to their communities, and we demonstrate that poor non-whites benefit from our presence while we suffer from theirs.

This same line of argument can be used against mass immigration, legal and illegal. The country has two options: if it aims for minimal racialism and maximal individualism, then it needs to maintain a large white majority, and the borders need to be shut. The second option is a country with no majority group, which is a recipe for a racialist system. The country has to decide what kind of white people it wants. You can't get rid of them. The choice is a between a country with nice white people or a country with not nice white people.

Elites are clearly not historians. They look an ordinary white man and see some squishy wuss in Dockers who is only too happy to give his child's spot in college to some stranger just off the boat; who welcomes the daily trashing of his friends, relatives, and ancestors; who applauds while his town is turned into the New Guadalajara. For forty years, regular white guys have been treated as the playground pussy who will take anything that bullies care to dish out. "Want my lunch money? Fine. Here's my allowance too." But history shows what kids and grown-ups do when they get pushed around.


  1. You're making it sound as though whites are systematically being hunted down, curfewed and denied service.
    And I know working in a heavily NAM college is a source of stress for you, but that demographic where you teach does not represent a typical university population.
    Also, this has been a "country of not nice white people" for a long time. Longer than when white people have been "pushed around". You know that very well.

  2. Whites have not become more libertarian. Whites have become more "vectorist": Promoting the evolution of virulence via horizontal transmission of memetic and genetic pathogens. That the word "libertarian" was captured by vectorists during the 20th century is par for the course.

    True libertarians support assortative environments: Environments formed by mutually consenting adults, forming controlled experiments in human ecology, increasing freedom and discovering the truth of causal laws in the social sciences.

  3. I should add that promoting assortative environments is more fundamental to libertarianism than "property rights" or "the axiom of nonaggression". The former conflates natural property rights (those obtained under natural law) and artificial law (those obtained under some agreement between men). "The axiom of nonviolence" is simply a way of not discussing the cost of establishing artificial property rights, and the fact that it entails the equivalent of net asset taxation for artificial property rights. Talking about that makes vectorist "libertarians" go berserk and is a surefire test of whether you've found one.

  4. Anonymous11:53 PM

    "Also, this has been a "country of not nice white people" for a long time. Longer than when white people have been "pushed around". You know that very well."

    Really makes you wonder why so many want to come here. Such a mystery.

  5. Anonymous11:58 PM

    No Jews - Just Right.

  6. Anon @ 11:53:

    I did not say this IS a country of "not nice white people", but that it WAS for a long time. The post displayed the improvement in racial attitudes, and that's great. What irks me is that people here all but say whites are cornered second-class citizens, and imply that we should go back to a more parochial past. Draconian measures will be required if the Steveosphere wants to see the country "re-whiten", but I don't see that happening.

  7. Luis, you want to know what is going to get a race war going? Hell, even Carol Swain understands that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have got to go. I'm rather cynical that it can happen with things still going on like Obama taking places like Iowa. With guys like you running around promoting race war, the best I can hope to accomplish is to get the guys lusting for blood to look not at the person's race, but at whether they deny freedom of association.


New study: High rate of underweight black newborns due to genes, not racism

A new study finds that several gene variants in African-Americans help explains why they have underweight newborns twice as often as whites...