I think things are going to change in this election, though. Politics isn’t just about getting votes, but getting sponsors, and Kamala Harris seems to be the darling of the Democratic donors.

I suspect that a lot of the enthusiasm for “diversity” in the Democratic establishment isn’t just a way to motivate minority voters, but also a ploy to diminish the appeal of the mostly white anti-establishment candidates (mainly Sanders and Warren).

Harris seems the best of both worlds. She’s Diverse enough to appeal to the minority voters and centrist/establishment enough to appeal to the donors, while also not being as deeply unpopular with the Sanders/Warren left as Clinton was.

I can see Harris running on a platform of Diversity and Moderate Leftism, like Obama but with more focus on the Tragedy of Racism and Hatred, Open Borders (in a way that pleases corporate Democratic donors) and maybe a whiff of promises about law enforcement reforms and some vague economic center-left points.

Warren will be an easy target because of her Indian shenanigans. Sanders will be tougher to smear, although he can always be #MeToo-ed if it’s convenient.

I can’t see Biden actually winning the nomination, unless Harris accepts to be his running mate.

Socialism is all about transferring money from those who are seen as “oppressors” to the “oppressed”, and that’s based on who earns more than whom. Beyond its complex academic justifications, socialism in practice is really easy to understand: you’re richer than me, so I deserve your money.

The 20th century versions of socialism were all about transferring money from the “capitalist classes” to the “proletariat”. Ultimately it didn’t work out, because the economy isn’t just a matter of transferring money from A to B in a zero-sum game. Instead capitalism raised the quality of life across all social and economic classes, and that’s why it won.

(Yes, of course, I’m simplifying things a lot, but I don’t think I need to go through the specifics).

Socialism is always attractive to relatively poorer people, though. Even if you have a fridge full of food, a roof over your head, a TV, decent health, a cell phone, decent clothes, and even a car, there’s ALWAYS going to be someone richer than you, who has an easier life than you.

And of course some people are going to have food insecurity, or crappy cars, or shitty houses, even in rich countries.

Whites in the US are richer, at least on a statistical level, than Blacks and Hispanics. The 21st century version of socialism (now based on identity rather than class, for a lot of reasons I won’t go into) tells them that this is because whites are “the oppressors” and they are “oppressed”, so it’s only fair that they get what the whites have.

College students are also struggling with student debt, especially if they graduated in useless subjects that don’t allow them to get good jobs. So they’re also pretty easy to convince that they are being “oppressed” by people who have less money issues than them.

Asians and Jews vote more for Democrats in the United States (because of the implicit “white” nature of the Republican Party), but since they make more money than Blacks or Hispanics they’re not so keen about socialism, unless they’re college students burdened by student debt.

As a Republican with Libertarian tendencies who also cares about the European identity of the United States, I think that the shift to the left of the Democratic Party is both inevitable and welcome: it makes the choice much more clear.

As the United States get “browner” they’ll also get “redder”. White people will have to wonder whether they like giving their money to Blacks and Hispanics or not. No more middle ground.

Hell, it’s even possible than Asians and Jews might vote less Democratic if it’ll become clear that they won’t be spared by the “reparations”.

Why male Democrats identify more strongly with the DSA than female Democrats do is a head-scratcher, though.

Not really.

The majority of Democratic women are still white women, and many of them have college degrees and/or are single and/or childless. The DSA platform doesn’t do much for them.

They can get what they want (preservation and extension of abortion rights, generous benefits after a divorce, “Believe the Women” standards for reports of sexual misconduct, etc.) from the “normal” Democrats.

The majority of Democratic men, however, are not white, and the “redistribution” part of the DSA program is very appealing for them.

Your second graph confirms this. Blacks and Hispanics see the DSA more favorably than Jews, Whites or Asians. It’s about “gibsmedat”.

The majority of French and Anglo Carribbean are still very much violent when compared to non-majority black areas. Guadeloupe, one of the richest of the big majority-black Caribbean islands, still has a murder rate of 8.01 per 100,000 inhabitants, while the world rate is of 6.2, and the rate in the US is 5.35.

The Turk and Caicos Islands, Martinique, and Aruba fare much better, with murder rates respectively of 5.93, 2.78, and 1.93. Martinique and Aruba seem to be especially nice, with murder rates comparable, respectively, to Albania and Belgium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_region

However people in Martinique and Aruba seem to be very mixed in origin, so it’s not clear whether they’re actually majority black. In Aruba 75% of the population is believed to be of mixed European/African/Amerindian heritage, and only 15% black. Among the “mixed” part of the population the predominant origin seem to be Caquetio Indians and Dutch, with African heritage playing a relatively lesser role, along with other European admixtures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Aruba

Michelle Alexander is a racial agit-prop writer, who argues that disparity of incarceration rates are the new version of slavery and segregation, and we won’t ever be truly equal unless races are incarcerated at equal rates.

It’s easy to understand for anyone who’s not a blinkered ideologue that different races simply have different attitudes to crime. No matter how much the Blank Slaters whine about “white supremacy”, black people always turn out to commit much more violent crimes per capita than Europeans or East Asians or Jews in all multiracial environments, from New York to London to Brasilia to Melbourne.

Hell, even in Japan the few black people there commit a disproportionate amount of crimes.

Indeed this is such an easy thing to notice that Singapore has more or less informally restricted the residency permits to all people of African descent to keep crime under control.

Levels of income and cultural differences don’t explain away the differences, so you’re either left with a worldwide conspiracy to keep the black people down, or with the unspeakable, unthinkable, Evil with a capital E hypothesis that different races differ on their average propensity to crime because of biological reasons.

But that’s, of course, insane Nazism.

Black men are the biggest crime threat. How do you like them Lemons?

“I didn’t risk my skin back then to become a third-class citizen,” said Mr. Dehmel, now 57, counting off the perceived hierarchy on his fingers: “First there are western Germans, then there are asylum seekers, then it’s us.”

In the end this is what it’s all about. Rich, worldly, educated elites set up a system that rewards rich, worldly, educated elites. Then they find immigrants to import for cheap labor. The old native working class is left behind, and rich elites do absolutely nothing for them, instead telling them to go eat cakes/”learn to code”. The old working class realize that they’re getting shafted, and rightly blame the rich elites and the cheap labor immigrants.

Cheap labor immigrants are overwhelmingly male and young, and also unruly, violent, often criminal, so clashes happen. The rich elites call the old native working class evil and racist. Eventually a party which represents the old working class emerges, and it’s also called evil and racist.

This is the pattern pretty much everywhere in Europe. In the US this is slightly different, because there’s a black benefit class that is coddled by the rich elite to atone for previous racism, which doesn’t see immigrants as a threat because they’re too busy hating on “wypipo”. But the dynamic is the same for the white working class.

What’s funny is that the educated, worldly, rich elite often produces over-educated morons who think that they’re the real “working people” and “socialists” because their degrees in uselessness lead them to a life of Starbucks work, and who think that bringing in more cheap labor for the rich elites to use is also “socialism”.

For all the ranting and raving about “capitalism” on the left, they’re often the ones who are on the side of the rich elites and the big corporations.

Translated: “likely to work any job for peanuts and to abuse of the welfare system, desperate for sex and with few qualms about sexual assault, and violent”.

Why would unemployed or underemployed poor people be against people who might be reduce their chances of getting jobs, will likely reduce the resources destined to their welfare programs, might assault their wives or girlfriends if they go to work in Western Germany, are mostly fighting age men with scores to settle, and are likely to become part of the criminal underclass when they find out that living in Germany isn’t a free-for-all buffet?

Oh I know. They’re evil, lazy bastards who hate on the saintly, hard-working immigrants. The richer and more worldly part of Germany, can afford to lose them, since they’ll have cheap immigrant labor from the dynamic, driven and determined community, says privileged German woman who studied at Harvard and lives in London.

Funny how this is spinned as a feminist perspective when it’s actually about women having to support themselves because of absent fathers.

The polarization of the American left has FAR deeper roots than Django Unchained. It has started with the college culture of spreading of Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory.

CT and CRT are postmodern “deconstructions” of society and law according to the program of “strong objectivity”, i.e. rejecting ACTUAL objectivity in favor of “lived experiences” and narratives, all based on the idea of “standpoint theory”, i.e. the idea that oppression gives you a special kind of knowledge that is not accessible to the Oppressors. The memes of “white privilege” or “microaggression” or “rape culture” have originated in CT/CRT.

“Intersectionality” is another postmodern project that became dominant in American universities. The theory of intersectionality is that there’s a hierarchy of oppression that comes from being “marginalized” by the fact of not being part of the majority, and the idea that oppression can be fought through “minoritarian awareness”, which today is talked about is terms of “wokeness”.

Basically, leaving aside all the postmodern jargon and obfuscation, CRT and intersectionality are based on the idea that a) ALL differences in income, job opportunities, incarceration rates, etc. between social groups are ONLY due to bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. etc.), either explicit or implicit B) white male are the Oppressors, everyone else is the Oppressed, although those who are more distant from whiteness and maleness are more oppressed C) all data or arguments that conflict with your narrative of oppression are simply falsehoods created by white supremacy; D) becoming “aware” of falsehoods and of the oppression, and forcing anyone who disagrees out of power, are what will finally create the Truly Egalitarian future and E) an explicit focus on race, gender, sexuality and reparations/”positive discrimination” are the way to create the egalitarian changes, and all “race/gender/sexuality-neutral” positions are only white male supremacy (“the Patriarchy”) in disguise.

These ideas are the core of movements like #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, and all the other “woke” madness that have now become mainstream in the American left.

The catalysts for the spreading of the “woke” narrative have been: A) the failure of “identity-netural” leftist movements like Occupy Wall Street in bringing forth the Scandinavian social democratic paradise that was the mainstream position of the “identity-neutral” left and B) Barack Obama’s second term, when he, unlike previous leftist leaders, instead of having a “Sister Souljah” moment instead gave legitimacy to CRT and intersectionality by supporting explicit postmodern identity political movements like Black Lives Matter.

Pop culture is a mirror of deeper cultural and social changes. Django Unchained came after decades of pop culture and leftist media excusing and exalting violence if it’s done against Oppression, after decades of feminist and postmodernist re-interpretations of society, law, science, and everything else, all according to identity and power.

OT:

Who would have suspected that the racial identity politics propagated by the likes of Vox and Ezra Klein, would come back to bite them.#WokeOlympics pic.twitter.com/tyzRtYoBPj

— Damo (@concretemilk) October 16, 2018

Ezra Klein, who smeared Charles Murray and Sam Harris as “racist” for daring to discuss the effects of different IQ averages across different racial groups, is now smeared as “racist”, along with Bill Gates, for daring to point out that Africa has an obvious over-population problem.

The “woke/anti-racists” will always eat their own. Their positions aren’t based on evidence or reasoned arguments, but on the dogmatic faith of anti-racism, the idea that all human beings MUST be equal in cognitive power and behavior, and that all differences in results MUST be due to the Oppression of Evil Whites.

Anyone who even slightly disagrees with the dogmas is to be smeared as a “racist”, which is apparently the Mark of Cain, the anathema that can never be forgiven.

As evidence piles up to show that races are real, that average differences between races are also real, and that they have concrete effects on differential rates of income, of incarceration, of academic achievements, etc., the “anti-racists” attack indiscriminately anyone who even seems to suggest that the world isn’t going to become the Perfectly Equal Utopia.

It won’t happen.

As Lee Kuan Yew said in a multicultural society people vote for their race and religion, not for political policies.

All racial and religious groups other than whites already vote according to their ethnic origin in the US. And Evangelical and Mormons already vote according to their religion.

Only liberal and independent whites vote against the interests of their social group, and that’s because they’re still convinced that some policies of the party which is increasingly characterizing itself as the anti-white party will benefit them.

This isn’t going to change, unless we’re talking about more whites becoming “red pilled” and voting according to their racial interests.

The US no longer have a clear white majority. The racially homogeneous days are over. Policies will matter less and less when compared to identity.

The article argues that white women having children with white men is part of a “blood pact” and presumably something that needs to be fought against in order to bring forth the Liberal Utopia.

Imagine if anyone said this about any other racial group. Anyone would say that it’s genocidal rhetoric.

For Zakaria, diversity means that he’s able to live as a successful public intellectual in the prosperous and largely peaceful United States, instead of struggling in the caste systems of India as an Indian muslim, in a socio-economic landscape torn between a backward muslim society and aggressive Hindu nationalism.

Also he gets to live in a place with sewers and clean streets. If I were him I’d find that remarkable too.

The origin of the rise of populism is immigration of people from backwards, violent, nepotistic, tribal and intolerant cultures into more high trust, low crime, socially open countries. That’s it. Nothing more and nothing less. It’s not hard to understand once you accept reality.

People like Zakaria and Fukuyama instead think that deep down everyone is equal or at least equally likely to thrive and succeed in a meritocratic liberal democracy, so they’re baffled by why some people don’t, and why instead they isolate in ghettos, have incredibly high levels of crime and unemployment, cling to their ethnic origin, and reject liberal democratic values altogether.

They’re also baffled by why natives don’t simply get along with the newcomers, and conclude that it must be a matter of wounded pride, of honor, of irrational and self-centered beliefs.

They don’t understand that it’s a matter of conflicting cultures fighting for social dominance, for state benefits, for the right to write laws and enforce norms, and that the natives are simply defending their culture and their values from those of the newcomers.

There’s nothing irrational or sentimental about wanting to preserve the high social trust, low crime, highly ordered, socially open and functional society where you live from turning into a tribal, violent, low trust and dysfunctional set of ethnic ghettos squabbling for benefits and to impose their views onto society at large.

As crime statistics and terrorist attacks show, sometimes it’s a literal matter of life and death. Other times it’s a matter of preserving your culture for your posterity. Neither motivation is selfish, or irrational, or due to wounded pride or dignity.

The problem with intellectuals like Zakaria or Fukuyama isn’t that they’re not clever or well-educated, but that their premise about cognitive and value equality between groups of people is completely false, so it’s garbage in, garbage out.

There is plenty of evidence that shows that people aren’t equal in terms of behaviors and values, and that the role of socio-economic differences is not preponderant in shaping behaviors and values, either.

You can’t turn the Middle East or Sub-Saharan Africa into economic and social paradises just by teaching people how to adopt liberal democratic values. You can’t turn the values of Nigerian or Syrian culture into those of the cultures of Britain or Sweden just by having Nigerians or Syrians live in London or Malmö.

This is because the Nigerians or Syrians are different people from the native Britons or Swedes in many ways, many of which can be measured, and socio-economic pressure is not magically turning everyone into the same Homo liberalis democraticus.

People are who they are. That’s the real meaning of “diversity”. Liberals assume that diversity is only about superficial aspects, like skin color, or language, or clothes, or cuisines, and that deep down a Nigerian is just a Brit waiting to happen, at least when it comes to adhering to the norms of British work ethic, respecting British laws and customs, and thriving in the liberal and open British society.

“Diversity”, for liberal thinkers, is just a thin veneer, a splash of color, a whiff of the exotic, and that when it comes to things that really matter everyone is equal. Mestizo immigrants are just Iowans with better food, Syrian or Nigerian immigrants are just British people who don’t eat pork.

This “diversity” isn’t real diversity, it’s the diversity of a TV ad. Human biodiversity is much more vast and important. But since studying human biodiversity produces evidence that the global liberal democratic rise is just an Euro-centric myth it has become taboo, verboten to talk about the diversity that really matters.

So you get stupid articles like this. And you don’t get any practical solution to the issues caused by diversity, because you’re too busy praising how many different cuisines you can savor in a London or New York neighborhood.

Differences of traits across different populations of humans are real, closely related to ancestry, and associate to form some pretty well-defined clusters (with some degree of overlapping of course). You can call those clusters “sqwyjiia” instead of “races” if you want, but you cannot deny their existence.

I see that in the Atlantic article, in one of the parts not quoted by Sailer, you can find this paragraph on sickle-cell disease:

Some students would receive a text that, following the conventions of many biology textbooks today, simply stated that sickle cell is more common among African Americans. Donovan would give the other group a similar passage, but with a crucial difference: This text would explain, accurately, that sickle cell is more common in people with ancestors from historically malarial areas, including sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and southern Europe. But it would leave out explicit mention of racial categories.

This is yet another example of indocrination, in this case indoctrination by omission.

Sickle-cell anemia isn’t AS common in South Asia and Southern Europe as it is in Sub-Saharan African.

Of course the allele that codify for sickle-cell disease are not associated one-to-one with the alleles that codify for dark skin (they’re not the same alleles!) and they’re closely associated with malarial areas, since sickle-cell disease confers a degree of resistance to malaria which makes it adaptive. That much is true. But 80% of cases of sickle-cell diseases occur in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Sickle-cell disease is MORE common among African-American than among, say, Southern Italians: 8% of African Americans are affected, compared to 2% in Sicily (more in some areas of Sicily than others). DIFFERENCES between races are what can be compared, not just the presence or absence of a trait.

Furthermore not all forms of sickle cell disease are caused by the same genetic sequences across races: Hemoglobin SB+ (beta) thalassemia is relatively common among Sicilians, much less common among people of Sub-Saharan ancestry, while the opposite is true for sickle-cell anemia.

Studies have also shown that African-American with sickle-cell disease are less genetically admixed than other African-Americans: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3116635/ so when talking SPECIFICALLY about the prevalence of sickle-cell disease in African Americans saying that it’s a genetic disease inherited from racial origins is pretty accurate.

Sickle-cell disease shows that while admixture exists, and lots of traits are NOT EXCLUSIVE of a race, or not associated one-to-one with a race. However it also shows that traits ARE inherited and shared along racial lines, that races are not just pseudo-science or a product of folklore.

Strictly speaking races are “constructs”, but only in the same sense that the laws of gravity or of evolution by natural selection are a “construct”. They’re SCIENTIFIC CONSTRUCTS, namely useful models to understand reality, make predictions, explain phenomena.

More evidence can lead to revisions to the models: genetic evidence shows that Sub-Saharan Africans and Aboriginal Australians are different races, while the first observations classified them as the same race. Similarly the Newtonian paradigm has been surpassed by the Einstenian paradigm for gravity, and genetics has improved and redefined some aspects of evolution by natural selection. This is common and normal, it’s how science marches on.

What this means isn’t that “there are no races” or “there are no differences in traits between races”, but that there’s no Platonic ideals of a race, there’s no “spiritual racial bond” or “collective racial guilt”, regardless of what SJWs (or, admittedly, some of the less scientifically inclined among the alt-right) think. What is real are differences in traits between races, which are measurable and comparable.

To put it in simple terms: human biodiversity explains WHY blacks ON AVERAGE achieve much less and have much more problems with the justice system (in the US) than whites. It doesn’t say that all blacks are criminal underachievers, or that all whites are successful and squeaky-clean, or that all whites are “privileged” and all black are “oppressed”.

SJWs are projecting their own Platonic standards about “racism” onto biology. Their theory requires them to see “whiteness” as a pervasive, omnipotent Satan that corrupts everything, so they assume that their critics are all equally worshiping “whiteness” as an omnipotent God that creates anything good and holy.