The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Finally, a Survey Asks a Relevant Question About Immigration
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments



From the London School of Economics’ blog on British Politics and Policy:

Is tribalism racist? Antiracism norms and immigration

Are ethnically-motivated restrictions on immigration racist? Eric Kaufmann draws on new data from an 18-country survey to explain how people answered this question and how their answer affects their own support for higher or lower immigration levels.

Trump, Brexit and the European populist right herald a new cleavage between globalists and nationalists, in which immigration is a defining issue. What’s more, new survey data suggests this hinges on a fundamental difference of opinion in western societies between highly-educated liberals, who consider the ethno-communal desire to reduce immigration racist, and conservatives, who don’t. This matters greatly because to be racist is, for most people, to be immoral – transgressing the social norms which define good and evil.

New data from an 18-country Ipsos-Mori survey indicates that people’s view of whether immigration should be higher or lower is strongly linked to whether they think it’s racist for a member of the ethnic majority to want less immigration to help maintain their group’s population share.

This relationship between antiracist norms and desired immigration levels holds in virtually all countries but is especially pronounced in Europe and its offshoots. Essentially, this new ‘culture war’ revolves around whether tribal desires for less immigration represent racism or a legitimate – if illiberal – form of group attachment. …

Rigging self-government so that perfectly normal policies are considered morally inconceivable has a huge payoff these days.

New data comes from a question included in an Ipsos-Mori survey fielded (15 March 2017) covering over 14,000 respondents in 18 countries. The question probed people’s views on whether ethnically-motivated restrictions on immigration should be considered racist or not. The debate stems from an article by Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institution in late 2016 in which Hamid contends that white ‘racial self-interest’ should be distinguished from white racism. Some forms of white racial self-interest, such as favouring whites as job applicants, are racist, but for Hamid, others – such as seeking to protect demographic share – are not. Did people in the countries under study agree with Hamid? By and large yes, but there were wide variations by education level and immigration opinion. …

Aggregated to country level, with ‘don’t know’ responses excluded, the first clear finding is that a majority of people do not think it’s racist to want less immigration for ethnocultural reasons. The proportion considering this motivation racist varies, however, from 36% in the US to 13% in South Africa (where Xhosa was listed as the preponderant ethnic group). Divides within countries also matter. In Canada, 37% of English-Canadians say the sentiment is racist – similar to the US – while just 15% of Quebeckers do. In Belgium, 32% of Brussels residents but only 19% of those in Flanders agree. …

Israel wasn’t tested, but Mexico, South Korea, and Japan were, and, not surprisingly, they weren’t all that into Huddled Massesism.

The international data don’t permit us to discern how ideology and voting divide opinion, but two Birkbeck-Policy Exchange-Yougov surveys of around 2600 Americans and 1600 Britons I conducted in December 2016 asking the same question, indicates that partisanship largely maps to this value cleavage.

As figure 3 reveals, among White Clinton voters with postgraduate degrees, support for the idea that it’s racist to want reduced immigration for ethnocultural reasons is almost total, at over 91%. By contrast, only 11.2% of Trump voters agree. Minority voters are slightly more likely to back the ‘racist’ interpretation than whites, 45-36, but this 12-point difference is dwarfed by the 62-point gap within White America between Clinton and Trump voters.

Read the whole thing there.

 
    []
  1. Sweden really seems to be pretty extreme by European standards, it’s almost at US levels regarding the “Is immigration restriction for ethnocultural reasons racist” question (and that’s in a country which was extremely homogenous until a few decades ago, without all the racial baggage the US has always had). Swedes’ reputation as ubercucks seems to be well-deserved.
    Spain is really weird as well, don’t understand what’s going on there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    The Swedish Man's burden is eternal!

    Maybe it's because Sweden looks really large on the cyclindrical projection map or the welfare state is working relatively well, making look problems appear farther away than they really are.

    Spain has probably given up and doesn't care any more, and is also historically close to the Maghreb population.
    , @Erik Sieven
    As I understand the data the Spanish want less immigration on a similar level like Poland, they are actually normal in this regard. They only say that this wish shall be called "racist" more than other European people. This might have linguistic reasons. The term "racist" could have slightly different associations in different countries. Or the Spanish simply know themselves, in terms of understanding they actually care more about culture etc. when opposing immigration. This would make sense when one considers that economic reasons for opposing immigration could play a smaller role in Spain than some northern Europan countries. Spain has a weaker welfare system, thus transfers to immigrants this way are less likely. Also I think to remember, but I am not sure about this, that in Spain the homeowner rate is higher than in Northern Europa. So immigrants are less likely seen as competitors for renting a living space, but rather as new potential tenants. Also the economic model in Spain could to be rather relying on self-employment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/finally-a-survey-asks-a-relevant-question-about-immigration/#comment-1935327
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Is there any other issue on which voters for Clinton vs those for Trump differ so dramatically?

    I doubt it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen numbers like this.

    This question really seems to get at the nearly essential difference in attitudes in the gulf between the two sides.

    On one side you’ve got a huge taboo operating. On the other side, the taboo holds little or no power.

    It really is about what one is allowed to think. What’s in the Catechism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clark Westwood

    Is there any other issue on which voters for Clinton vs those for Trump differ so dramatically?

    I doubt it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen numbers like this.
     
    I had exactly the same reaction. Over 90% of highly educated white Clinton voters--holy hell. I don't know whether it's self-hate or a delusion that they're invincible.
    , @Anonymous

    On one side you’ve got a huge taboo operating. On the other side, the taboo holds little or no power.
     
    Doesn't it still have power? The more educated Trump voters have these We love our legal immigrants! subterfuges while the less educated seem to be saying 'It's not racist', not 'It's racist -- yeah, so?'
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "What’s in the Catechism?"

    Thou shalt not think about one's own tribe, (exceptions exist but its racist to mention it). If one does think about the interests of one's own tribe, or to even ponder that one's own tribe has anything approaching legitimate self-interests, then thou art a racist for doing so.
    , @ben tillman
    Blogger John S. Bolton's observation regarding "freedom for aggression" was trenchant.

    One can characterize the Left as consisting of people who believe that they have a right to commit aggression. White liberals, in turn, can be defined as those who think they deserve to be aggressed upon.

    The survey question is essentially asking whether it's wrong for white nations to resist aggression, which is the fundamental dividing line between white liberals and conservatives, so this degree of correlation should not be surprising.
  3. Achilles says:

    How about turning the question on its head:

    Is it racist to implement mass non-white immigration into the USA for the purpose of reducing the percentage of white gentiles in the American population?

    Read More
    • Agree: Luke Lea, Rob McX, ic1000
    • Replies: @Jack Cade
    Excellent point. If surveys regularly devised an inverted question it could help in assessing the bias of the survey instrument.
    , @Sajmon
    That's a great point.
    , @Unobserved Spectator
    It is.
  4. In a few years that 91% good white ideological bloc will be halved; the whole thing is coming apart. At least 50 years of stringent cultural Marxism and finally a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. All things end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    They were all counting on there being a reward for their deracination involving, at minimum, the privilege of lording it over the non-deracinated. As that looks less and less likely, look for the rats to abandon ship.
  5. @candid_observer
    Is there any other issue on which voters for Clinton vs those for Trump differ so dramatically?

    I doubt it. I don't think I've ever seen numbers like this.

    This question really seems to get at the nearly essential difference in attitudes in the gulf between the two sides.

    On one side you've got a huge taboo operating. On the other side, the taboo holds little or no power.

    It really is about what one is allowed to think. What's in the Catechism?

    Is there any other issue on which voters for Clinton vs those for Trump differ so dramatically?

    I doubt it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen numbers like this.

    I had exactly the same reaction. Over 90% of highly educated white Clinton voters–holy hell. I don’t know whether it’s self-hate or a delusion that they’re invincible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "I had exactly the same reaction. Over 90% of highly educated white Clinton voters–holy hell. I don’t know whether it’s self-hate or a delusion that they’re invincible."

    It's brainwashing. Most people with graduate degrees aren't lawyers or doctors or theoretical physicists. They're in education or social work. They aren't that smart. I've ome across people with graduate degrees who could barely write a coherent sentence.

    It used to be that I'd try to win people to our side of the immigration argument with statistics, data, and anecdotes. That's pointless. When they call you a racist the only rational response is to show that you don't give a shit. It's a sad truth, but few things change people's minds more than scorn and derision. Don't let them make you feel inferior or defensive. Make them feel inferior and defensive.
    , @anon
    Equal parts delusion and cluelessness. I live adjacent to some of these enclaves and signs declaring "No matter where you're from, we're glad to call you neighbor" (in English, Spanish, and Arabic, no less!) sprouted like mushrooms after the election. As I and my business partner like to say "Well yeah, if you can afford a $900k house of course and don't bring down property values, of course they are happy to call you neighbor." Strangely, not too many Hispanics and Arabs living there (but plenty as nannies and domestic help, natch).

    I live in a neighborhood at the intersection between section 8 housings dominated by Hispanics and Arabs. Strangely, no such signs are in the lawn near me.
    , @SMK
    Paradoxically, the view that "race doesn't exist," i.e., that race beneath the skin is an "artificial social construct," most absurdly and risibly the claim by some leftists that they don't notice the race of people, is explained by their obsession with race and the phantasm of "white racism," "systematic" and "institutional, that they see and imagine everywhere.
  6. syonredux says:

    Always wondered what would happen if a major political figure in the US went on TV and simply asked White Americans if they were OK with non-White immigration reducing them to minority status….

    I mean, we’ve had plenty of political leaders say that Whites becoming a minority is a good thing (Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, etc)….

    But what would happen if someone with power asked Whites their opinion….

    Perhaps if Trump tweeted a question along those lines at 2 AM one night….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unobserved Spectator
    Excellent idea, but you already know the answer,.
    , @Lurker
    Soft power is deployed everywhere in white nations to stop that question ever being asked. If the question is ever formally asked in a way that can be answered in the privacy of the ballot box it's game over for the immigration project.
  7. Israel wasn’t tested, but Mexico, South Korea, and Japan were, and, not surprisingly, they weren’t all that into Huddled Massesism.

    Looks to me that Japan and South Korea are two of only a few that don’t say they want a reduction in immigration. They’re also pretty average on the “racist” question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    Re Japan and South Korea, I had this exchange with Eric Kaufmann:

    Is it reasonable to measure immigration attitude by desired change to CURRENT levels? What if current levels already reflect pop. sentiment?— Aaron Gross (@Rongwrong_) July 10, 2017
     

    Agree this might make a difference. I was given only one question!— Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) July 10, 2017
     

    I.e., questioning this: 'Notice that India, South Korea, Japan, Mexico...fall well outside...sharper value cleavage emerging in the West."— Aaron Gross (@Rongwrong_) July 10, 2017
     

    You're right that intake levels could be key. I can test for this interaction— Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) July 10, 2017
     
  8. El Dato says:
    @German_reader
    Sweden really seems to be pretty extreme by European standards, it's almost at US levels regarding the "Is immigration restriction for ethnocultural reasons racist" question (and that's in a country which was extremely homogenous until a few decades ago, without all the racial baggage the US has always had). Swedes' reputation as ubercucks seems to be well-deserved.
    Spain is really weird as well, don't understand what's going on there.

    The Swedish Man’s burden is eternal!

    Maybe it’s because Sweden looks really large on the cyclindrical projection map or the welfare state is working relatively well, making look problems appear farther away than they really are.

    Spain has probably given up and doesn’t care any more, and is also historically close to the Maghreb population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    It's like central banking in a sense.

    Central Banks and the IMF are hell-bent on morphing everyone's daily chow come retirement age into cat foot while fat cats accrue large swimming pools and cars. Yet no-one cares.

    Pick up that can, peon: IMF wants Germans to retire later, save less & spend more .

    Only in bizarro world being robbed at lawpoint would any organism exhort people to "save less, spend more"
  9. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @candid_observer
    Is there any other issue on which voters for Clinton vs those for Trump differ so dramatically?

    I doubt it. I don't think I've ever seen numbers like this.

    This question really seems to get at the nearly essential difference in attitudes in the gulf between the two sides.

    On one side you've got a huge taboo operating. On the other side, the taboo holds little or no power.

    It really is about what one is allowed to think. What's in the Catechism?

    On one side you’ve got a huge taboo operating. On the other side, the taboo holds little or no power.

    Doesn’t it still have power? The more educated Trump voters have these We love our legal immigrants! subterfuges while the less educated seem to be saying ‘It’s not racist’, not ‘It’s racist — yeah, so?’

    Read More
  10. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The question probed people’s views on whether ethnically-motivated restrictions on immigration should be considered racist or not.

    What about a question on people’s views on whether ethnically-motivated INCREASES on immigration should be considered racist or not? Is wanting to increase immigration of your ethnic group for the purpose of increasing its share of the US population, and thus its influence, racist against other groups?

    If it’s racist for one group to want to reduce immigration to preserve its standing, shouldn’t it be racist of another group who wants to increase it to enlarge their standing?

    Read More
  11. So across the political spectrum, the more crap you’ve sat through at (((The Academy))), the more disposed you’ll be to ethno-masochism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    So across the political spectrum, the more crap you’ve sat through at (((The Academy))), the more disposed you’ll be to ethno-masochism?
     
    Exactly.

    It's a pretty fair demonstration of the utter corruption of the academy, because if it was actually educating students, they would come out with a deep appreciation for "the West", its culture, uniqueness, beauty and incredible achievements, and ideally a bit of realism with regard to gene- culture co-evolution and HBD. Instead it teaches people to treat the greatest civilization the world has seen as something unimportant and trivial if not with outright contempt.
  12. Jack Cade says:
    @Achilles
    How about turning the question on its head:

    Is it racist to implement mass non-white immigration into the USA for the purpose of reducing the percentage of white gentiles in the American population?
     

    Excellent point. If surveys regularly devised an inverted question it could help in assessing the bias of the survey instrument.

    Read More
  13. El Dato says:
    @El Dato
    The Swedish Man's burden is eternal!

    Maybe it's because Sweden looks really large on the cyclindrical projection map or the welfare state is working relatively well, making look problems appear farther away than they really are.

    Spain has probably given up and doesn't care any more, and is also historically close to the Maghreb population.

    It’s like central banking in a sense.

    Central Banks and the IMF are hell-bent on morphing everyone’s daily chow come retirement age into cat foot while fat cats accrue large swimming pools and cars. Yet no-one cares.

    Pick up that can, peon: IMF wants Germans to retire later, save less & spend more .

    Only in bizarro world being robbed at lawpoint would any organism exhort people to “save less, spend more”

    Read More
  14. eah says:

    Relevant maybe, but it will soon be moot because the number of Whites who don’t care if others see opposition to non-white immigration as “racist” is now growing rapidly — like ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf’, the word “racist” has lost a lot of its power, which is why some time ago they moved on to punching Nazis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    I think there is a name for such people: "Confederates."
  15. Sajmon says:
    @Achilles
    How about turning the question on its head:

    Is it racist to implement mass non-white immigration into the USA for the purpose of reducing the percentage of white gentiles in the American population?
     

    That’s a great point.

    Read More
  16. Anonym says:

    Missing option: “racism” is a concept designed to dispossess white people from their lands, wealth, solidarity and culture and thus I reject it entirely.

    Read More
  17. @San Fernando Curt
    In a few years that 91% good white ideological bloc will be halved; the whole thing is coming apart. At least 50 years of stringent cultural Marxism and finally a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. All things end.

    They were all counting on there being a reward for their deracination involving, at minimum, the privilege of lording it over the non-deracinated. As that looks less and less likely, look for the rats to abandon ship.

    Read More
  18. LSE blog:

    … to be racist is, for most people, to be immoral – transgressing the social norms which define good and evil.

    That’s changing; ‘woke’ goes both ways. Kaufmann:

    Trump’s win had altered social norms, making it more respectable to express ethnonationalist anti-immigration attitudes.

    The results of the Ipsos-Mori and Yougov surveys point to value conflict over the legitimate reasons for restricting immigration. Should antiracism norms sideline ethnocultural arguments for reduced immigration, compelling restrictionists to define their interests in material terms (i.e. reducing pressure on jobs or housing)?

    No. “Antiracist norms” should be mocked and discarded. Not out of malice, but out of love of whites and greater Western Civilization, which are basically synonymous. Pro-native material concerns should continue to be argued.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX

    "Trump’s win had altered social norms, making it more respectable to express ethnonationalist anti-immigration attitudes."
     
    More respectable for whites, that is. Non-whites never hid their "ethnonationalist attitudes".
  19. Busby says:

    Hypothesis: If your vote in 2016 was “Never Trump” you are likely to be in favor of amnesty and be an immigration “wet”.

    Read More
  20. These people are still in complete control of the language though, and that’s the way they want it to stay. Here’s what I’m getting at: The author (and I’m just going by what you, Steve put in here) is making sure we all know that being “racist” is bad, period. That is the premise of the whole idea of phrasing this new question. “Is it racist if you …. [whatever, but in this case "want immigration for ethnocultural reasons"] ?”

    How about another, even more honest phrasing of a question?: “Is it really bad to be racist? Pick 1 through 10 to indicate which of these things it is better to be than a racist:”

    1 – sometimes late for meetings.
    2 – consistently late for meetings and frequent in passing gas at said meetings.
    3 – a man who lives on the dole and dies owing the IRS > $100,000.
    4 – an oriental woman so photo-crazy as to knock down multiple pieces of precious modern-art.
    5 – a blog commenter with 5 hours invested in arguing with a man named Tiny Duck.
    6 – convicted of multiple murders pleaded down to manslaughters
    7 – a serial killer with victim count (confirmed) at 10 or lower.
    8 – a serial killer with victim count (confirmed) at greater than 10 and less than 50 but happily married.
    9 – dead from blows to the head and body from a small group of teenage youths.
    10 – a hated-minority citizen of a country that has undergone recent extreme demographic turmoil.

    If your choice was anything lower than 11, it means you are one hell of a racist for not taking racism seriously enough.

    OK, in all seriousness, the question never brought up is that above, "Is being a racist so bad?" The follow-up, that they also will never ask is "Do you care anymore what names people call you?", cause they sure don't want to hear the answer to that one!

    Read More
    • LOL: ATX Hipster
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    oooh, my logic is wrong:

    should be "worse" at the top, I guess.

    Gotta check my work better.
    , @Joe Stalin
    I once saw a crime drama on television where the killer actually said: "It's not as though I was a racist" when being questioned.

    It must have been an alt-right writer who appreciated reality humor!
    , @Autochthon
    I love the Poontang Dynasty; I'm incorporating that phrase into banter with as many leftist females as possible at my next social gathering.
  21. Kaz says:

    Lol even minority Clinton voters aren’t as bad as the white ones.

    Read More
  22. @Achmed E. Newman
    These people are still in complete control of the language though, and that's the way they want it to stay. Here's what I'm getting at: The author (and I'm just going by what you, Steve put in here) is making sure we all know that being "racist" is bad, period. That is the premise of the whole idea of phrasing this new question. "Is it racist if you .... [whatever, but in this case "want immigration for ethnocultural reasons"] ?"

    How about another, even more honest phrasing of a question?: "Is it really bad to be racist? Pick 1 through 10 to indicate which of these things it is better to be than a racist:"

    1 - sometimes late for meetings.
    2 - consistently late for meetings and frequent in passing gas at said meetings.
    3 - a man who lives on the dole and dies owing the IRS > $100,000.
    4 - an oriental woman so photo-crazy as to knock down multiple pieces of precious modern-art.
    5 - a blog commenter with 5 hours invested in arguing with a man named Tiny Duck.
    6 - convicted of multiple murders pleaded down to manslaughters
    7 - a serial killer with victim count (confirmed) at 10 or lower.
    8 - a serial killer with victim count (confirmed) at greater than 10 and less than 50 but happily married.
    9 - dead from blows to the head and body from a small group of teenage youths.
    10 - a hated-minority citizen of a country that has undergone recent extreme demographic turmoil.

    If your choice was anything lower than 11, it means you are one hell of a racist for not taking racism seriously enough.

    OK, in all seriousness, the question never brought up is that above, "Is being a racist so bad?" The follow-up, that they also will never ask is "Do you care anymore what names people call you?", cause they sure don't want to hear the answer to that one!

    oooh, my logic is wrong:

    should be “worse” at the top, I guess.

    Gotta check my work better.

    Read More
  23. Ivy says:

    Repeating the survey every year may prove instructive. Drill down into the data on some US cities like Portland and San Francisco, and across the pond look more closely at the Rotherhams and Oxfords. Toss in Germany, France, Hungary and Sweden, with Italy coming up on the outside to round out the field. Of course, MENA could have its own outlier and polarity dynamics.

    What if: survey results were reported to Congress similar to how the periodic Fed full employment and low inflation talking points get aired. Ask your Congressional rep and Senators about that.

    Read More
  24. @Achilles
    How about turning the question on its head:

    Is it racist to implement mass non-white immigration into the USA for the purpose of reducing the percentage of white gentiles in the American population?
     

    It is.

    Read More
  25. @syonredux
    Always wondered what would happen if a major political figure in the US went on TV and simply asked White Americans if they were OK with non-White immigration reducing them to minority status....

    I mean, we've had plenty of political leaders say that Whites becoming a minority is a good thing (Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, etc)....


    But what would happen if someone with power asked Whites their opinion....

    Perhaps if Trump tweeted a question along those lines at 2 AM one night....

    Excellent idea, but you already know the answer,.

    Read More
  26. The survey figures reinforce what I’ve seen anecdotally, that the American upper crust – the cognitive elite – are comfortable with Perpetual Immigration because they get to associate with the small upper crust of the immigrants who are the left-to-middle-of-bell-curve, educated foreigners (whose presence here makes them a brain drain on their own native foreign countries). On the other hand we hoi polloi oppose Perpetual Immigration because it forces us to commingle with the much greater mass of imported foreign low-life. The survey figures amount to QED, as they say.

    I’ve friends who are engineers and computer whizzes in the aerospace industry, friends who are university professors or are teachers in upper crust “safe schools” neighborhoods, and all of these cognitive elite friends are pro-Perpetual Immigration because they get to associate with the cream of the imported foreigners – the well-mannered, well-off ones. Meanwhile, unlike those 10% of the American cognitive elite, a lot more ordinary Americans, myself included, have to live where the imported, uneducated, unskilled and semi-skilled foreign low-life welfare leeches, many with large broods of their low-life children, blight my neighborhood and lots of other neighborhoods (and those neighborhoods’ schools, shops, parks, &c.) upon whose American citizens our Dear Rulers force the imported low-life.

    The upper crust get to see only the good side of Perpetual Immigration, while the other 90% of us see its community atomizing, socially destructive, foreigner job-taking, economically debilitating, property value-diminishing, spiritually corrosive side.

    Plus, the Democrat survey numbers reflect the bonanza that liberals enjoy from Perpetual Immigration delivering to them job security in the social and educational programs for incoming foreigners, programs for whose ever-expanding appropriations we 90%-ers are forced to pay – so, no wonder liberals cloak their job security and bureaucratic-commissariat empire building in virtue signalling expressions of internationalist utopian “Imagine”-ism.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Perpetual Refrain: What’s the matter, you bigots can’t compete with immigrants?

    The elite can read the news — or if they’re really elite, the news before it gets to you — the “community atomizing, socially destructive, foreigner job-taking, …” the rest experience. I think it’s a theme around here that when it comes to skin in the game, white liberals know where to live and where to send their kids to school, but, with a bit of legerdemain, say they're avoiding dysfunction in vacuo and absolve themselves of wrongthink — indeed, use that Minority dysfunction as an albatross to hang around the Bigoted Middle’s neck: you can’t compete with them to claw your way out, you assimilate to their mores, and you shirk your white privilege by resisting our equalitarian social justice mission — you’re super-losers!

    It’s Meritocracy Plus: the winners of the cognitive battle also (naturally) identify themselves the winners of the morality stakes, pump up their virtue by deciding whose losers’ bitterness counts, and so pit losers against losers while staying safe — and the impossibility of closing the Gap ensures the game of let’s you and him fight goes on.

    But how’s that job security going to work out for them once the capable minorities start taking their place in the Coalition in serious numbers, when the criollo and the Red Guard Asians (this Asian librarian flips “hey, this is library!” on its head: https://twitter.com/tttkay/status/885976921904881664) come to dismantle the “white institutions”, their white liberal fiefdoms?

  27. Lurker says:
    @syonredux
    Always wondered what would happen if a major political figure in the US went on TV and simply asked White Americans if they were OK with non-White immigration reducing them to minority status....

    I mean, we've had plenty of political leaders say that Whites becoming a minority is a good thing (Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, etc)....


    But what would happen if someone with power asked Whites their opinion....

    Perhaps if Trump tweeted a question along those lines at 2 AM one night....

    Soft power is deployed everywhere in white nations to stop that question ever being asked. If the question is ever formally asked in a way that can be answered in the privacy of the ballot box it’s game over for the immigration project.

    Read More
  28. @candid_observer
    Is there any other issue on which voters for Clinton vs those for Trump differ so dramatically?

    I doubt it. I don't think I've ever seen numbers like this.

    This question really seems to get at the nearly essential difference in attitudes in the gulf between the two sides.

    On one side you've got a huge taboo operating. On the other side, the taboo holds little or no power.

    It really is about what one is allowed to think. What's in the Catechism?

    “What’s in the Catechism?”

    Thou shalt not think about one’s own tribe, (exceptions exist but its racist to mention it). If one does think about the interests of one’s own tribe, or to even ponder that one’s own tribe has anything approaching legitimate self-interests, then thou art a racist for doing so.

    Read More
  29. Cagey Beast says: • Website

    It’s remarkable how normal human levels of tribalism, clannishness and ethnic favouritism have gone from being something a little declassé to being gross blasphemies … but only for Whites. A Gen X person like myself grew up with my parents and grandparents telling me that Catholics and Protestants, or French and English, used to really keep to themselves a few years ago “but it’s much better now”. This was not told to us as some horror story; it just was the way things were but aren’t now. It was also considered no big deal either that East Indians, Blacks and Whites kept to themselves in Trinidad or the rest of the Caribbean and favoured their own kind in business and politics. This too was just how people are about things. Now being “cool” with such human behaviour is apparently enough to cast one forever into the wilderness. It’s like the 1980s were a century ago. Weird.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Your kind are destined to rule the empire, so it's natural that you should be deracinated so that your rule can be seen as impartial. The others aren't destined to rule, so it's fine if they keep to their own.

    This sort of thinking has been obsolete for a little bit. It's is now being seen more widely among the savvier types to be obsolete. Among the less savvy, not so much.
  30. eD says:

    You have to be pretty stupid to be able to get a post-graduate degree nowadays.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    What the Hell is a post-graduate degree? I have a doctorate; it is both a terminal degree and a graduate degree (my master's degree is also a graduate degree, though not a terminal degree).

    I think you meant to type "graduate degree." Many people engage in post-doctoral studies and research in academia, but these don't lead to any additional degrees.
    , @Anonymous

    You have to be pretty stupid to be able to get a post-graduate degree nowadays.

     

    To quote Marge Simpson: "Bart, don't make fun of grad students. They just made a terrible life choice."

    http://100rsns.blogspot.com/2011/01/43-attitudes-about-graduate-school-are.html

  31. @eD
    You have to be pretty stupid to be able to get a post-graduate degree nowadays.

    What the Hell is a post-graduate degree? I have a doctorate; it is both a terminal degree and a graduate degree (my master’s degree is also a graduate degree, though not a terminal degree).

    I think you meant to type “graduate degree.” Many people engage in post-doctoral studies and research in academia, but these don’t lead to any additional degrees.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    It looks like there is actually some complexity to this:
    https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7469/undergraduate-graduate-or-post-graduate-student-is-that-bachelor-master-phd-o
    https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/undergraduate-graduate-postgraduate.51826/

    Part of this appears to be a US vs. UK difference. From the second link:

    From the Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition:

    undergraduate
    1.A.1 A student in a university who has not yet taken a degree, and thus is still below the academical standing of a graduate.

    graduate
    1.B.1 One who has obtained a degree from a university, college or other authority conferring degrees.

    post-graduate
    B.B n. A student who takes a post-graduate course, or continues his studies after graduation.


    The main difference about British and American terminology is:

    UNDERGRADUATE and POSTGRADUATE studies in the UK versus UNDERGRADUATE and GRADUATE studies in the USA

    * In the UK you hold an undergraduate degree (also "university degree") after you complete your Undergraduate studies and a postgraduate degree after your Postgraduate studies.
     
    On the ground in the US some of the confusion probably has to do with terminology creep (i.e. many people push for whatever terminology sounds most impressive and [arguably] fits their accomplishment, cf. Trump as a "Wharton grad" and the UPenn business undergrad/grad school distinction). I think it is fair to say
    post-graduate > graduate > undergraduate
    in terms of perception.

    You are careful enough with your word usage that I am interested in your response.
    , @AnotherDad
    Don't act like your doctorate is in being at putz.

    "Graduate" in all these contexts means "after you have an undergrad degree"--i.e. post-graduating.

    Yes in the US, at least back in the 70s and 80s, we called what we were doing "grad school". But there are other programs--like med school or law school--that folks wouldn't call "grad school". Referring to all degree programs after your undergrad degree as "post-graduate study" isn't ridiculous. It's at least common enough that I heard it years ago. Even in the US, saying "post-graduate degree" shouldn't throw you into a tizzy. Anyone with any experience in academia with a three digit IQ can immediately figure it out, even if they haven't heard the expression before.

    (Academic work after your doctorate, but not tenure track also has a name--"post-doc". Again it is what it says and everyone understands it. No confusion.)

  32. Rob McX says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    LSE blog:

    … to be racist is, for most people, to be immoral – transgressing the social norms which define good and evil.
     
    That’s changing; 'woke' goes both ways. Kaufmann:

    Trump’s win had altered social norms, making it more respectable to express ethnonationalist anti-immigration attitudes.
     

    The results of the Ipsos-Mori and Yougov surveys point to value conflict over the legitimate reasons for restricting immigration. Should antiracism norms sideline ethnocultural arguments for reduced immigration, compelling restrictionists to define their interests in material terms (i.e. reducing pressure on jobs or housing)?
     
    No. “Antiracist norms” should be mocked and discarded. Not out of malice, but out of love of whites and greater Western Civilization, which are basically synonymous. Pro-native material concerns should continue to be argued.

    “Trump’s win had altered social norms, making it more respectable to express ethnonationalist anti-immigration attitudes.”

    More respectable for whites, that is. Non-whites never hid their “ethnonationalist attitudes”.

    Read More
  33. I think we–nationalists–need to get the idea of “separation” out in “the conversation”.

    Roughly stated, if you want to live in your multicultural utopia, fine. But you have no right to destroy the nation that I–and others like me–have and make me live in your utopia instead.

    As folks here have pointed out to me, separation–in the USA–isn’t easily feasible. The geography is pretty mixed right now. But immediate feasibility isn’t really the point.

    The point is rhetorical, and it’s to advance a few important points:

    1) That this issue is deadly serious to us. It’s not Obamacare or taxes or gay marriage, it’s “tear the nation apart”, Civil War serious.

    2) That they–the globalists–are the aggressors. They are destroying what is and has existed and are demanding something different.

    3) And that they–the globalists/multiculturalist–are the totalitarians as well. They demand that we–normal white people–must live in their multiculti utopia, rather than how we want to live. While we are willing to let them live how they like.

    I think it’s important to get these points out there. We can’t afford to have stale “Is immigration good for the economy?” sort of debates. Nor even nationalists vs. globalists as two equal “who has the best arguments” debates.

    We must rhetorically, continually make clear the essential thuggish nature of the globalists. Much like the communists before them, the globalists demand us, force us, to live in their utopian paradise.

    This exposes the core truth: Globalism is not any sort of neutral idea but a totalitarian ideology. It’s a specific demand that non-whites are entitled to live with whites, in white societies. Or more directly the thuggish demand that whites–specifically white men–*must* be forced to live with non-whites and provide goodies for them. Whites have no right to live in their own societies, are not allowed to secede, to go their own way. Boiled down it is a demand for the destruction of “whiteness”, a demand for white genocide.

    Read More
  34. Impolitic says:

    Fascinating. I was surprised to see the “racist” interpretation top out at 36%, in the United States.

    Read More
  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Auntie Analogue
    The survey figures reinforce what I've seen anecdotally, that the American upper crust - the cognitive elite - are comfortable with Perpetual Immigration because they get to associate with the small upper crust of the immigrants who are the left-to-middle-of-bell-curve, educated foreigners (whose presence here makes them a brain drain on their own native foreign countries). On the other hand we hoi polloi oppose Perpetual Immigration because it forces us to commingle with the much greater mass of imported foreign low-life. The survey figures amount to QED, as they say.

    I've friends who are engineers and computer whizzes in the aerospace industry, friends who are university professors or are teachers in upper crust "safe schools" neighborhoods, and all of these cognitive elite friends are pro-Perpetual Immigration because they get to associate with the cream of the imported foreigners - the well-mannered, well-off ones. Meanwhile, unlike those 10% of the American cognitive elite, a lot more ordinary Americans, myself included, have to live where the imported, uneducated, unskilled and semi-skilled foreign low-life welfare leeches, many with large broods of their low-life children, blight my neighborhood and lots of other neighborhoods (and those neighborhoods' schools, shops, parks, &c.) upon whose American citizens our Dear Rulers force the imported low-life.

    The upper crust get to see only the good side of Perpetual Immigration, while the other 90% of us see its community atomizing, socially destructive, foreigner job-taking, economically debilitating, property value-diminishing, spiritually corrosive side.

    Plus, the Democrat survey numbers reflect the bonanza that liberals enjoy from Perpetual Immigration delivering to them job security in the social and educational programs for incoming foreigners, programs for whose ever-expanding appropriations we 90%-ers are forced to pay - so, no wonder liberals cloak their job security and bureaucratic-commissariat empire building in virtue signalling expressions of internationalist utopian "Imagine"-ism.

    The Perpetual Refrain: What’s the matter, you bigots can’t compete with immigrants?

    The elite can read the news — or if they’re really elite, the news before it gets to you — the “community atomizing, socially destructive, foreigner job-taking, …” the rest experience. I think it’s a theme around here that when it comes to skin in the game, white liberals know where to live and where to send their kids to school, but, with a bit of legerdemain, say they’re avoiding dysfunction in vacuo and absolve themselves of wrongthink — indeed, use that Minority dysfunction as an albatross to hang around the Bigoted Middle’s neck: you can’t compete with them to claw your way out, you assimilate to their mores, and you shirk your white privilege by resisting our equalitarian social justice mission — you’re super-losers!

    It’s Meritocracy Plus: the winners of the cognitive battle also (naturally) identify themselves the winners of the morality stakes, pump up their virtue by deciding whose losers’ bitterness counts, and so pit losers against losers while staying safe — and the impossibility of closing the Gap ensures the game of let’s you and him fight goes on.

    But how’s that job security going to work out for them once the capable minorities start taking their place in the Coalition in serious numbers, when the criollo and the Red Guard Asians (this Asian librarian flips “hey, this is library!” on its head: https://twitter.com/tttkay/status/885976921904881664) come to dismantle the “white institutions”, their white liberal fiefdoms?

    Read More
  36. @Cagey Beast
    It's remarkable how normal human levels of tribalism, clannishness and ethnic favouritism have gone from being something a little declassé to being gross blasphemies ... but only for Whites. A Gen X person like myself grew up with my parents and grandparents telling me that Catholics and Protestants, or French and English, used to really keep to themselves a few years ago "but it's much better now". This was not told to us as some horror story; it just was the way things were but aren't now. It was also considered no big deal either that East Indians, Blacks and Whites kept to themselves in Trinidad or the rest of the Caribbean and favoured their own kind in business and politics. This too was just how people are about things. Now being "cool" with such human behaviour is apparently enough to cast one forever into the wilderness. It's like the 1980s were a century ago. Weird.

    Your kind are destined to rule the empire, so it’s natural that you should be deracinated so that your rule can be seen as impartial. The others aren’t destined to rule, so it’s fine if they keep to their own.

    This sort of thinking has been obsolete for a little bit. It’s is now being seen more widely among the savvier types to be obsolete. Among the less savvy, not so much.

    Read More
  37. Correction to my earlier comment (No. 16):

    The original (erratum in italics):

    “[T]he American upper crust – the cognitive elite – are comfortable with Perpetual Immigration because they get to associate with the small upper crust of the immigrants who are the left-to-middle-of-bell-curve, educated foreigners….”

    The correction (in italics):

    [T]he American upper crust – the cognitive elite – are comfortable with Perpetual Immigration because they get to associate with the small upper crust of the immigrants who are the middle-to-right-of-bell-curve, educated foreigners….”

    Read More
  38. @German_reader
    Sweden really seems to be pretty extreme by European standards, it's almost at US levels regarding the "Is immigration restriction for ethnocultural reasons racist" question (and that's in a country which was extremely homogenous until a few decades ago, without all the racial baggage the US has always had). Swedes' reputation as ubercucks seems to be well-deserved.
    Spain is really weird as well, don't understand what's going on there.

    As I understand the data the Spanish want less immigration on a similar level like Poland, they are actually normal in this regard. They only say that this wish shall be called “racist” more than other European people. This might have linguistic reasons. The term “racist” could have slightly different associations in different countries. Or the Spanish simply know themselves, in terms of understanding they actually care more about culture etc. when opposing immigration. This would make sense when one considers that economic reasons for opposing immigration could play a smaller role in Spain than some northern Europan countries. Spain has a weaker welfare system, thus transfers to immigrants this way are less likely. Also I think to remember, but I am not sure about this, that in Spain the homeowner rate is higher than in Northern Europa. So immigrants are less likely seen as competitors for renting a living space, but rather as new potential tenants. Also the economic model in Spain could to be rather relying on self-employment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Could be that having parts of their country turned into British enclaves in the name of the economy (and genuinely so -- not some chimerical refugee economic miracle) has predisposed them to see immigration as an ethno-cultural issue in a safe way (i.e. versus other Europeans).
    , @German_reader

    in terms of understanding they actually care more about culture etc. when opposing immigration.
     
    I'm not sure that works as an explanation, if I understand correctly the survey asked about both culture and race. But of course it would make some sense for Spaniards to be more accepting of immigration from Latin America than from Islamic countries.
    Just very strange, but then I don't get Spain anyway, the political scene there seems very different from central Europe.
  39. Jason Liu says:

    In other words, the study confirms my suspicion that white, college educated urbanites are the most extreme left-wingers of all, even more so than the non-whites they sympathize with, both in their country and around the world. Minorities tend to acknowledge white tribalism, even if they don’t like it, because they know tribalism is the norm for themselves as well.

    It is now crystal clear that baizuo/hipster/SJW culture is very far removed from the rest of humanity in general, and their values represent a very narrow urban cult. Their values and moral beliefs need to be normalized, starting with their children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @aceofspades
    Well,I hope you are right, although the pozz from th west could spread of other parts of the world. I've seen some mainland Chinese adopt silly social justice beliefs after spending sometime in the west, or consuming an exessive amount of western media...
  40. Wilkey says:
    @Clark Westwood

    Is there any other issue on which voters for Clinton vs those for Trump differ so dramatically?

    I doubt it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen numbers like this.
     
    I had exactly the same reaction. Over 90% of highly educated white Clinton voters--holy hell. I don't know whether it's self-hate or a delusion that they're invincible.

    “I had exactly the same reaction. Over 90% of highly educated white Clinton voters–holy hell. I don’t know whether it’s self-hate or a delusion that they’re invincible.”

    It’s brainwashing. Most people with graduate degrees aren’t lawyers or doctors or theoretical physicists. They’re in education or social work. They aren’t that smart. I’ve ome across people with graduate degrees who could barely write a coherent sentence.

    It used to be that I’d try to win people to our side of the immigration argument with statistics, data, and anecdotes. That’s pointless. When they call you a racist the only rational response is to show that you don’t give a shit. It’s a sad truth, but few things change people’s minds more than scorn and derision. Don’t let them make you feel inferior or defensive. Make them feel inferior and defensive.

    Read More
  41. Moses says:

    “Israel wasn’t tested.”

    “Kaufmann”

    I’ve got a niggling feeling there’s a relationship between these two bits, but I can’t figure out what.

    Read More
  42. Moses says:

    For what it’s worth, the government of Singapore openly calls for and makes official policy of keeping ethnic Chinese the majority of the Singapore population. They call it “ethnic stability” or some such.

    Yet no one calls them “racists.”

    Weird.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jason Liu
    Not true. There's a lot of bitching about "Chinese privilege in Singapore" lately.

    And to wit, no Chinese brother has stood up and said majorities deserved to be more privileged, yet. SMH.
  43. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Erik Sieven
    As I understand the data the Spanish want less immigration on a similar level like Poland, they are actually normal in this regard. They only say that this wish shall be called "racist" more than other European people. This might have linguistic reasons. The term "racist" could have slightly different associations in different countries. Or the Spanish simply know themselves, in terms of understanding they actually care more about culture etc. when opposing immigration. This would make sense when one considers that economic reasons for opposing immigration could play a smaller role in Spain than some northern Europan countries. Spain has a weaker welfare system, thus transfers to immigrants this way are less likely. Also I think to remember, but I am not sure about this, that in Spain the homeowner rate is higher than in Northern Europa. So immigrants are less likely seen as competitors for renting a living space, but rather as new potential tenants. Also the economic model in Spain could to be rather relying on self-employment.

    Could be that having parts of their country turned into British enclaves in the name of the economy (and genuinely so — not some chimerical refugee economic miracle) has predisposed them to see immigration as an ethno-cultural issue in a safe way (i.e. versus other Europeans).

    Read More
  44. Aaron Gross says: • Website
    @Jeremy Cooper

    Israel wasn’t tested, but Mexico, South Korea, and Japan were, and, not surprisingly, they weren’t all that into Huddled Massesism.
     
    Looks to me that Japan and South Korea are two of only a few that don't say they want a reduction in immigration. They're also pretty average on the "racist" question.

    Re Japan and South Korea, I had this exchange with Eric Kaufmann:

    Is it reasonable to measure immigration attitude by desired change to CURRENT levels? What if current levels already reflect pop. sentiment?— Aaron Gross (@Rongwrong_) July 10, 2017

    Agree this might make a difference. I was given only one question!— Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) July 10, 2017

    I.e., questioning this: 'Notice that India, South Korea, Japan, Mexico…fall well outside…sharper value cleavage emerging in the West."— Aaron Gross (@Rongwrong_) July 10, 2017

    You're right that intake levels could be key. I can test for this interaction— Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) July 10, 2017

    Read More
  45. @Jason Liu
    In other words, the study confirms my suspicion that white, college educated urbanites are the most extreme left-wingers of all, even more so than the non-whites they sympathize with, both in their country and around the world. Minorities tend to acknowledge white tribalism, even if they don't like it, because they know tribalism is the norm for themselves as well.

    It is now crystal clear that baizuo/hipster/SJW culture is very far removed from the rest of humanity in general, and their values represent a very narrow urban cult. Their values and moral beliefs need to be normalized, starting with their children.

    Well,I hope you are right, although the pozz from th west could spread of other parts of the world. I’ve seen some mainland Chinese adopt silly social justice beliefs after spending sometime in the west, or consuming an exessive amount of western media…

    Read More
  46. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Clark Westwood

    Is there any other issue on which voters for Clinton vs those for Trump differ so dramatically?

    I doubt it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen numbers like this.
     
    I had exactly the same reaction. Over 90% of highly educated white Clinton voters--holy hell. I don't know whether it's self-hate or a delusion that they're invincible.

    Equal parts delusion and cluelessness. I live adjacent to some of these enclaves and signs declaring “No matter where you’re from, we’re glad to call you neighbor” (in English, Spanish, and Arabic, no less!) sprouted like mushrooms after the election. As I and my business partner like to say “Well yeah, if you can afford a $900k house of course and don’t bring down property values, of course they are happy to call you neighbor.” Strangely, not too many Hispanics and Arabs living there (but plenty as nannies and domestic help, natch).

    I live in a neighborhood at the intersection between section 8 housings dominated by Hispanics and Arabs. Strangely, no such signs are in the lawn near me.

    Read More
  47. jim jones says:

    Malaysia is a racist country, the Bumiputera get special treatment, but you never hear anything like the abuse that South Africa got.

    Read More
  48. @Erik Sieven
    As I understand the data the Spanish want less immigration on a similar level like Poland, they are actually normal in this regard. They only say that this wish shall be called "racist" more than other European people. This might have linguistic reasons. The term "racist" could have slightly different associations in different countries. Or the Spanish simply know themselves, in terms of understanding they actually care more about culture etc. when opposing immigration. This would make sense when one considers that economic reasons for opposing immigration could play a smaller role in Spain than some northern Europan countries. Spain has a weaker welfare system, thus transfers to immigrants this way are less likely. Also I think to remember, but I am not sure about this, that in Spain the homeowner rate is higher than in Northern Europa. So immigrants are less likely seen as competitors for renting a living space, but rather as new potential tenants. Also the economic model in Spain could to be rather relying on self-employment.

    in terms of understanding they actually care more about culture etc. when opposing immigration.

    I’m not sure that works as an explanation, if I understand correctly the survey asked about both culture and race. But of course it would make some sense for Spaniards to be more accepting of immigration from Latin America than from Islamic countries.
    Just very strange, but then I don’t get Spain anyway, the political scene there seems very different from central Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    I don´t get the political scene in Central Europe, too. Probably the only political scene I would be able to understand would be some third world country with a party backed by land-owners and other people with money and some kind of leftwing populist party. But politics in developed countries are strange.
  49. Roger says:

    The questioner seems to assume that “racist is, for most people, to be immoral”. Why not just ask directly if “ethnically-motivated restrictions on immigration” are immoral?

    Yes, of course it is racist to make racial distinctions in immigration or any other policy. Except for open borders, it is hard to imagine any immigration policy that is not racist, either directly or indirectly.

    I am surprised that there were not more Trump voters who said that the restrictions were literally racist, but good policy anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Immigration is NOT a right, only a privilege. Withholding privileges is not the same as denying rights. So it is not "racism" since there is no inherent right to immigrate.
  50. @eah
    Relevant maybe, but it will soon be moot because the number of Whites who don't care if others see opposition to non-white immigration as "racist" is now growing rapidly -- like 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf', the word "racist" has lost a lot of its power, which is why some time ago they moved on to punching Nazis.

    https://twitter.com/Brannon1776/status/643149471639957504

    I think there is a name for such people: “Confederates.”

    Read More
  51. @Achmed E. Newman
    These people are still in complete control of the language though, and that's the way they want it to stay. Here's what I'm getting at: The author (and I'm just going by what you, Steve put in here) is making sure we all know that being "racist" is bad, period. That is the premise of the whole idea of phrasing this new question. "Is it racist if you .... [whatever, but in this case "want immigration for ethnocultural reasons"] ?"

    How about another, even more honest phrasing of a question?: "Is it really bad to be racist? Pick 1 through 10 to indicate which of these things it is better to be than a racist:"

    1 - sometimes late for meetings.
    2 - consistently late for meetings and frequent in passing gas at said meetings.
    3 - a man who lives on the dole and dies owing the IRS > $100,000.
    4 - an oriental woman so photo-crazy as to knock down multiple pieces of precious modern-art.
    5 - a blog commenter with 5 hours invested in arguing with a man named Tiny Duck.
    6 - convicted of multiple murders pleaded down to manslaughters
    7 - a serial killer with victim count (confirmed) at 10 or lower.
    8 - a serial killer with victim count (confirmed) at greater than 10 and less than 50 but happily married.
    9 - dead from blows to the head and body from a small group of teenage youths.
    10 - a hated-minority citizen of a country that has undergone recent extreme demographic turmoil.

    If your choice was anything lower than 11, it means you are one hell of a racist for not taking racism seriously enough.

    OK, in all seriousness, the question never brought up is that above, "Is being a racist so bad?" The follow-up, that they also will never ask is "Do you care anymore what names people call you?", cause they sure don't want to hear the answer to that one!

    I once saw a crime drama on television where the killer actually said: “It’s not as though I was a racist” when being questioned.

    It must have been an alt-right writer who appreciated reality humor!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, I guess he was about on # 7 or 8 on my options - they were kind of sporadic, weren't they?

    As far as the writer, per Captain Quint (or whatever) in Jaws, re that big-ass shark:

    "He must be really really smart or really really dumb."

    Hopefully it was the way you interpreted it.
  52. res says:
    @Autochthon
    What the Hell is a post-graduate degree? I have a doctorate; it is both a terminal degree and a graduate degree (my master's degree is also a graduate degree, though not a terminal degree).

    I think you meant to type "graduate degree." Many people engage in post-doctoral studies and research in academia, but these don't lead to any additional degrees.

    It looks like there is actually some complexity to this:

    https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7469/undergraduate-graduate-or-post-graduate-student-is-that-bachelor-master-phd-o

    https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/undergraduate-graduate-postgraduate.51826/

    Part of this appears to be a US vs. UK difference. From the second link:

    From the Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition:

    undergraduate
    1.A.1 A student in a university who has not yet taken a degree, and thus is still below the academical standing of a graduate.

    graduate
    1.B.1 One who has obtained a degree from a university, college or other authority conferring degrees.

    post-graduate
    B.B n. A student who takes a post-graduate course, or continues his studies after graduation.

    The main difference about British and American terminology is:

    UNDERGRADUATE and POSTGRADUATE studies in the UK versus UNDERGRADUATE and GRADUATE studies in the USA

    * In the UK you hold an undergraduate degree (also “university degree”) after you complete your Undergraduate studies and a postgraduate degree after your Postgraduate studies.

    On the ground in the US some of the confusion probably has to do with terminology creep (i.e. many people push for whatever terminology sounds most impressive and [arguably] fits their accomplishment, cf. Trump as a “Wharton grad” and the UPenn business undergrad/grad school distinction). I think it is fair to say
    post-graduate > graduate > undergraduate
    in terms of perception.

    You are careful enough with your word usage that I am interested in your response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    AnotherDad is smarter than me; he has it all sorted out, so you're better off asking him his opinion.
  53. That graph seems to show that more and more these days (and in my best Jed Clampett voice) “a first-class education ain’t worth shucks!”

    Read More
  54. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I have to laugh at people who call so-called “right-wing radio talk-shows and preface their remarks with “I’m not a racist BUT…” (emphasis mine). Talk about Wanting It Both Ways! Apropos of nothing much, but I wonder sometimes how many people in the groups referred to in the survey–from Clinton supporters with post-grad degrees to Trump supporters with less than a high school diploma– really thought thru the subject. Given that the Clinton and Trump supporters have nothing to say to each other anyway–think of the late New York Magazine movie critic Pauline Kael’s comment “I don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon”–it says here that the likelihood is that they probably engaged in reflexive GroupThink–and with predictable results.

    Read More
  55. Jason Liu says:
    @Moses
    For what it's worth, the government of Singapore openly calls for and makes official policy of keeping ethnic Chinese the majority of the Singapore population. They call it "ethnic stability" or some such.

    Yet no one calls them "racists."

    Weird.

    Not true. There’s a lot of bitching about “Chinese privilege in Singapore” lately.

    And to wit, no Chinese brother has stood up and said majorities deserved to be more privileged, yet. SMH.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moses
    Chinese privilege indeed. Dirty, evil, terrible racists, those Chinese ethnics in Singapore. I always knew they were Chinese supremacists for wanting to remain a majority.

    Singapore needs a healthy injection of African vibrancy for its own good.
  56. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @eD
    You have to be pretty stupid to be able to get a post-graduate degree nowadays.

    You have to be pretty stupid to be able to get a post-graduate degree nowadays.

    To quote Marge Simpson: “Bart, don’t make fun of grad students. They just made a terrible life choice.”

    http://100rsns.blogspot.com/2011/01/43-attitudes-about-graduate-school-are.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Are you the author of that blog? It has been a favourite old chestnut of mine for years. The thing about post-secondary education (at any level) is that no one cannbe dissuaded from it; it is a mistake which must be made in order for it's lesson to be learned. Warning people away from graduate school (or even undergraduate degrees, equally pointless anymore) is like telling teenagers not to try marihuana: ill advised though it be, they are going to do it, and regret it later (though sometimes it is possible to emerge unscathed, providing the anamolous examples which the determined will cite smugly to the man warning them...).
  57. SMK says: • Website
    @Clark Westwood

    Is there any other issue on which voters for Clinton vs those for Trump differ so dramatically?

    I doubt it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen numbers like this.
     
    I had exactly the same reaction. Over 90% of highly educated white Clinton voters--holy hell. I don't know whether it's self-hate or a delusion that they're invincible.

    Paradoxically, the view that “race doesn’t exist,” i.e., that race beneath the skin is an “artificial social construct,” most absurdly and risibly the claim by some leftists that they don’t notice the race of people, is explained by their obsession with race and the phantasm of “white racism,” “systematic” and “institutional, that they see and imagine everywhere.

    Read More
  58. @Autochthon
    What the Hell is a post-graduate degree? I have a doctorate; it is both a terminal degree and a graduate degree (my master's degree is also a graduate degree, though not a terminal degree).

    I think you meant to type "graduate degree." Many people engage in post-doctoral studies and research in academia, but these don't lead to any additional degrees.

    Don’t act like your doctorate is in being at putz.

    “Graduate” in all these contexts means “after you have an undergrad degree”–i.e. post-graduating.

    Yes in the US, at least back in the 70s and 80s, we called what we were doing “grad school”. But there are other programs–like med school or law school–that folks wouldn’t call “grad school”. Referring to all degree programs after your undergrad degree as “post-graduate study” isn’t ridiculous. It’s at least common enough that I heard it years ago. Even in the US, saying “post-graduate degree” shouldn’t throw you into a tizzy. Anyone with any experience in academia with a three digit IQ can immediately figure it out, even if they haven’t heard the expression before.

    (Academic work after your doctorate, but not tenure track also has a name–”post-doc”. Again it is what it says and everyone understands it. No confusion.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    It's okay; the vapours have passed. Thanks for schooling me on my unexpressed emotions and reassuring everyone that your assumptions and inferred connotations dictate English usage.
  59. @German_reader

    in terms of understanding they actually care more about culture etc. when opposing immigration.
     
    I'm not sure that works as an explanation, if I understand correctly the survey asked about both culture and race. But of course it would make some sense for Spaniards to be more accepting of immigration from Latin America than from Islamic countries.
    Just very strange, but then I don't get Spain anyway, the political scene there seems very different from central Europe.

    I don´t get the political scene in Central Europe, too. Probably the only political scene I would be able to understand would be some third world country with a party backed by land-owners and other people with money and some kind of leftwing populist party. But politics in developed countries are strange.

    Read More
  60. Moses says:
    @Jason Liu
    Not true. There's a lot of bitching about "Chinese privilege in Singapore" lately.

    And to wit, no Chinese brother has stood up and said majorities deserved to be more privileged, yet. SMH.

    Chinese privilege indeed. Dirty, evil, terrible racists, those Chinese ethnics in Singapore. I always knew they were Chinese supremacists for wanting to remain a majority.

    Singapore needs a healthy injection of African vibrancy for its own good.

    Read More
  61. @Joe Stalin
    I once saw a crime drama on television where the killer actually said: "It's not as though I was a racist" when being questioned.

    It must have been an alt-right writer who appreciated reality humor!

    Yeah, I guess he was about on # 7 or 8 on my options – they were kind of sporadic, weren’t they?

    As far as the writer, per Captain Quint (or whatever) in Jaws, re that big-ass shark:

    “He must be really really smart or really really dumb.”

    Hopefully it was the way you interpreted it.

    Read More
  62. @AnotherDad
    Don't act like your doctorate is in being at putz.

    "Graduate" in all these contexts means "after you have an undergrad degree"--i.e. post-graduating.

    Yes in the US, at least back in the 70s and 80s, we called what we were doing "grad school". But there are other programs--like med school or law school--that folks wouldn't call "grad school". Referring to all degree programs after your undergrad degree as "post-graduate study" isn't ridiculous. It's at least common enough that I heard it years ago. Even in the US, saying "post-graduate degree" shouldn't throw you into a tizzy. Anyone with any experience in academia with a three digit IQ can immediately figure it out, even if they haven't heard the expression before.

    (Academic work after your doctorate, but not tenure track also has a name--"post-doc". Again it is what it says and everyone understands it. No confusion.)

    It’s okay; the vapours have passed. Thanks for schooling me on my unexpressed emotions and reassuring everyone that your assumptions and inferred connotations dictate English usage.

    Read More
  63. @Roderick Spode
    So across the political spectrum, the more crap you've sat through at (((The Academy))), the more disposed you'll be to ethno-masochism?

    So across the political spectrum, the more crap you’ve sat through at (((The Academy))), the more disposed you’ll be to ethno-masochism?

    Exactly.

    It’s a pretty fair demonstration of the utter corruption of the academy, because if it was actually educating students, they would come out with a deep appreciation for “the West”, its culture, uniqueness, beauty and incredible achievements, and ideally a bit of realism with regard to gene- culture co-evolution and HBD. Instead it teaches people to treat the greatest civilization the world has seen as something unimportant and trivial if not with outright contempt.

    Read More
  64. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Immigration is only a privilege, not a right. Nor is preference the same as prejudice. Whites should naturally prefer their own kind and oppose their dispossession.

    Read More
  65. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Roger
    The questioner seems to assume that "racist is, for most people, to be immoral". Why not just ask directly if "ethnically-motivated restrictions on immigration" are immoral?

    Yes, of course it is racist to make racial distinctions in immigration or any other policy. Except for open borders, it is hard to imagine any immigration policy that is not racist, either directly or indirectly.

    I am surprised that there were not more Trump voters who said that the restrictions were literally racist, but good policy anyway.

    Immigration is NOT a right, only a privilege. Withholding privileges is not the same as denying rights. So it is not “racism” since there is no inherent right to immigrate.

    Read More
  66. @res
    It looks like there is actually some complexity to this:
    https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7469/undergraduate-graduate-or-post-graduate-student-is-that-bachelor-master-phd-o
    https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/undergraduate-graduate-postgraduate.51826/

    Part of this appears to be a US vs. UK difference. From the second link:

    From the Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition:

    undergraduate
    1.A.1 A student in a university who has not yet taken a degree, and thus is still below the academical standing of a graduate.

    graduate
    1.B.1 One who has obtained a degree from a university, college or other authority conferring degrees.

    post-graduate
    B.B n. A student who takes a post-graduate course, or continues his studies after graduation.


    The main difference about British and American terminology is:

    UNDERGRADUATE and POSTGRADUATE studies in the UK versus UNDERGRADUATE and GRADUATE studies in the USA

    * In the UK you hold an undergraduate degree (also "university degree") after you complete your Undergraduate studies and a postgraduate degree after your Postgraduate studies.
     
    On the ground in the US some of the confusion probably has to do with terminology creep (i.e. many people push for whatever terminology sounds most impressive and [arguably] fits their accomplishment, cf. Trump as a "Wharton grad" and the UPenn business undergrad/grad school distinction). I think it is fair to say
    post-graduate > graduate > undergraduate
    in terms of perception.

    You are careful enough with your word usage that I am interested in your response.

    AnotherDad is smarter than me; he has it all sorted out, so you’re better off asking him his opinion.

    Read More
  67. @Achmed E. Newman
    These people are still in complete control of the language though, and that's the way they want it to stay. Here's what I'm getting at: The author (and I'm just going by what you, Steve put in here) is making sure we all know that being "racist" is bad, period. That is the premise of the whole idea of phrasing this new question. "Is it racist if you .... [whatever, but in this case "want immigration for ethnocultural reasons"] ?"

    How about another, even more honest phrasing of a question?: "Is it really bad to be racist? Pick 1 through 10 to indicate which of these things it is better to be than a racist:"

    1 - sometimes late for meetings.
    2 - consistently late for meetings and frequent in passing gas at said meetings.
    3 - a man who lives on the dole and dies owing the IRS > $100,000.
    4 - an oriental woman so photo-crazy as to knock down multiple pieces of precious modern-art.
    5 - a blog commenter with 5 hours invested in arguing with a man named Tiny Duck.
    6 - convicted of multiple murders pleaded down to manslaughters
    7 - a serial killer with victim count (confirmed) at 10 or lower.
    8 - a serial killer with victim count (confirmed) at greater than 10 and less than 50 but happily married.
    9 - dead from blows to the head and body from a small group of teenage youths.
    10 - a hated-minority citizen of a country that has undergone recent extreme demographic turmoil.

    If your choice was anything lower than 11, it means you are one hell of a racist for not taking racism seriously enough.

    OK, in all seriousness, the question never brought up is that above, "Is being a racist so bad?" The follow-up, that they also will never ask is "Do you care anymore what names people call you?", cause they sure don't want to hear the answer to that one!

    I love the Poontang Dynasty; I’m incorporating that phrase into banter with as many leftist females as possible at my next social gathering.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Just for you, my friend, no charge. Yes, that WOULD be entertaining - let me know how it goes, but please, please, buy a tube of neosporin first, for the scratches and all. We wanna see you back on here.

    BTW, if you talk to a cute Oriental girl, she probably would take no offense due to a) not knowing that particular slang (courtesy of The Nuge, I believe) and b) not likely knowing that Chinese history anyway. Win win, ... if she's cute.
  68. @Anonymous

    You have to be pretty stupid to be able to get a post-graduate degree nowadays.

     

    To quote Marge Simpson: "Bart, don't make fun of grad students. They just made a terrible life choice."

    http://100rsns.blogspot.com/2011/01/43-attitudes-about-graduate-school-are.html

    Are you the author of that blog? It has been a favourite old chestnut of mine for years. The thing about post-secondary education (at any level) is that no one cannbe dissuaded from it; it is a mistake which must be made in order for it’s lesson to be learned. Warning people away from graduate school (or even undergraduate degrees, equally pointless anymore) is like telling teenagers not to try marihuana: ill advised though it be, they are going to do it, and regret it later (though sometimes it is possible to emerge unscathed, providing the anamolous examples which the determined will cite smugly to the man warning them…).

    Read More
  69. conatus says:

    Is Diversity our strength? i don’t think Robert Putnam would agree.
    Add to that endlessly repeated catechism the daffy idea that we should encourage multiculturalism in a Diverse society and you have the recipe for balkanized civil war(in the good ol’USA).
    Multiculturalism completely negates the idea of Assimilation which is the only way a country can stay a country with a large population of immigrants and 1.5 million arriving every year.
    It might work with an overwhelming number of one ethnicity to which the others would be forced to conform to their rituals but once the critical mass is reached, say a third, a third, a fifth and a fifth then you can count on voting on racial lines and perhaps civil disturbances degenerating into chaotic civil war.
    Former prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew said,
    “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”
    Good luck with that Kids.

    Read More
  70. @Autochthon
    I love the Poontang Dynasty; I'm incorporating that phrase into banter with as many leftist females as possible at my next social gathering.

    Just for you, my friend, no charge. Yes, that WOULD be entertaining – let me know how it goes, but please, please, buy a tube of neosporin first, for the scratches and all. We wanna see you back on here.

    BTW, if you talk to a cute Oriental girl, she probably would take no offense due to a) not knowing that particular slang (courtesy of The Nuge, I believe) and b) not likely knowing that Chinese history anyway. Win win, … if she’s cute.

    Read More
  71. @candid_observer
    Is there any other issue on which voters for Clinton vs those for Trump differ so dramatically?

    I doubt it. I don't think I've ever seen numbers like this.

    This question really seems to get at the nearly essential difference in attitudes in the gulf between the two sides.

    On one side you've got a huge taboo operating. On the other side, the taboo holds little or no power.

    It really is about what one is allowed to think. What's in the Catechism?

    Blogger John S. Bolton’s observation regarding “freedom for aggression” was trenchant.

    One can characterize the Left as consisting of people who believe that they have a right to commit aggression. White liberals, in turn, can be defined as those who think they deserve to be aggressed upon.

    The survey question is essentially asking whether it’s wrong for white nations to resist aggression, which is the fundamental dividing line between white liberals and conservatives, so this degree of correlation should not be surprising.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored