« Charles Murray agrees with me | Main | Where are the posts? »

November 26, 2012

Comments

There is a fact, like it or not, that open, aggressive "appeals to white voters" of the sort many in the alt-right scene are always demanding, are actually an incredible turn-off to white voters. Maybe it's because they've been programmed to be self-loathing race traitors or whatever, but it's a reality.

"Republicans are afraid to speak to these issues because they are cowed by the liberal-controlled media"

That's part of it, but why is the media like this?

The US is a plutocracy and more and more and more people is good for capital.

This is the same reason, ultimately, why no one advocates population reduction or ZPG. ZPG changed its name to "The Population Connection".

Mr. Sigma is talking about the National-level/Beltway GOP as if they were anything representative of the GOP outside of that bubble. Not so at all.

In the real world, you have the GOP lionizing the likes of Joe Arpaio, who scares hispanics. You have the GOP primary debate audience booing the gay soldier (not immigration/race related in a direct sense, but bigotry comes in packages and people rationally expect an all-white crowd of gay-bashers to be racists as well). You have Congressional republicans tiptoeing around Birtherism. You have GOP loudmouths trying to play up O's indonesian schooling as some sort of islamist manchurian candidate grooming.

Of course they don't want to open themselves up to direct attack by taking nominally PC positions, but when minorities see the GOP beet red in the face blowing on that dog whistle, they get the picture. And they are smart enough to know that there is no possibility making a separate piece with a party trying to court the votes of ugly bigots (even if they pay insincere lip service to repudiating bigotry).

But see, there are so many whites in this country that calling for an appeal to the "white vote" is an almost meaningless statement. Any GOP candidate can already count on sweeping the votes of Southern/border state whites, presumably the folks most critical of immigration, affirmative action, and pro-HBD.

Young, urban, and blue state whites? Those are the votes the GOP needs and I very much question if explicit pandering to their "racial interests" will win them over. I feel like we sometimes forget who passed immigration reform and affirmative action in the first place.

Politics is about signaling. When you show racial solidarity you signal that your afraid. Afraid that you aren't some ubermensch that is so high status and/or personally strong that can take on the world all on your own.

When you cast aside in group advantages (white racial identity) and actively engage in charity to out groups (immigration, affirmative action) you are signaling that you are so high status these things don't scare you because they won't affect you/you will do just fine anyway.

Puritan universalism is the ultimate peacocking.

The Romney loss assures that Jean Raspail's "Camp of the Saints" will seem ever more prescient.

I.e., Diversity, Inc., retains just enough of a "We come in peace" fig leaf to avoid being drawn into any decisive confrontation at a time not of its choosing.

A Romney victory would have forced Diversity, Inc., to get ugly on a massive, nationwide scale, rather than slowly tranquilizing us, and would have discredited it for a generation.

Remember, police were not proactively positioned to respond to an anti-Romney uprising, since any such deployments on Election Afternoon would have immediately been branded "voter intimidation."

I'm no fan of Ron Paul or libertarian philosophy, but he actually did bring up his opposition to affirmative action during the debates. Romney changed to being against affirmative action and was accused of secretly undermining it as governor. White people are moving to the Republican party but not quickly enough. Maybe my Jewish friends won't agree, but Buchanan was the only one of significance warning about the political impact of immigration before it was too late. If you had the chance, you should have voted for him in 1996.

Republicans don't need to do anything for whites because they speak in code words, such as calling Susan Rice incompetent. That's what liberals would say, anyway.

Jay that was a bad comment, and you should feel bad. It's not like a GOP candidate is going to get on TV with a mullet and scream "WHITE POWER".

The things HS is suggesting are only going to "turn off" the people who are already lost anyway.

I don't think whites are ready for that type of talk yet. Not enough of us are feeling the pain race-onomics, and besides, the elites are the opinion-makers, as you often point out. A white populist movement is a few decades away. Then, maybe things will change.

Appealing to white voters by saying, "I am appealing to white voters" is an incredible turn-off to white voters. Most white voters will consciously be repelled by any attempt to appeal to their interest in the form of race.

That does not mean, however, that appealing to policies that benefit the productive, stable segment of our society will turn off white voters. It's because the Republican party didn't lay out a plan to appeal to the middle-class value-producing segment of society that they lost the election. They should have said, "We favor higher taxes on rich bankers, movie moguls, and other leeches off of value created by middle-class america. We favor policies that create jobs for lower class americans and help them support themselves, but we won't pay for endless socially-destructive behaviors like out of wedlock mothers or drug addiction."

I remember that Jesse Helms got reëlected after running some ad that showed two white arms crumpling a rejection letter, and the voice over talking about how affirmative action had caused you to lose that job. That was probably in the mid 1980s. Romney just recently only narrowly squeezed by in NC (and McCain lost it last time). However, NC has gotten a lot of northern transplants, particularly in Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham.

Politicians can sort of talk around affirmative action, but can't really address it outright anymore it seems. Although when Helms did it, it was already controversial...

Appeals to white voters are an incredible turn off? That's why virtually every single piece of anti-affirmative action legislation that goes to voters wins resoundingly?

It's not reality. It's just bullshit.

"Polling shows that a very strong majority are against immigration and against affirmative action"

What polls regarding immigration are you referring to? Are you just referring to the white population's attitude toward immigration?

Either way I'd be curious to take a look. Being as how one side of the political spectrum considers anything short of open borders racist, it would surprise me that a plurality of any demographic--white or otherwise--would be willing to take the opposing view.

"Indeed, the Republican party gets called “racist” even though they have pretty much adopted 100% all of the politically correct positions on race."

Racism is implied by the GOP's whiteness. It's a tautology: the GOP is mostly white --> Minorities are turned off by that --> The GOP must be racist because minorities are turned off by it.

Racialism on the part of the majority is considered threatening and dangerous, a genie kept in its bottle at all costs. Racialism on the part of minorities can be tolerated. A few pathetic New Black Panthers want to loiter in front of polling places, in violation of the law? No problem. A pathetic white supremacist collects guns in nowheresville, Idaho, in violation of the law? Feds shoot his wife in the head while she's holding his child: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Weaver#Ruby_Ridge_incident

An interesting question is how this dynamic will change when whites become a minority.

This ought to tell you that the Republicans will not succeed by pandering to Hispanics on immigration. They are ALREADY a pro-immigration party but don't get any public credit for it. Same thing applies to abortion; they are ALREADY a pro-choice party but don't get any public credit for it.

It does not matter much what the Republicans actually do, because their enemies control their public image.

[HS: Where the hell did you get the idea that the Republicans are a pro-choice party? The loudest thing they say is that they are going to put an end to abortion. They are an anti-abortion party and not much else.]

I don't know, Half. White people may think this deep down, but will not publicly agree with it, because it is so much a part of the prevailing structure of taboos, and no one wants to be on the wrong side of that.

I remember back in the 90s, Jesse Helms made affirmative action an issue in his re-election campaign and as I recall, he did just fine.

Here's the ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk

It seems like a winning issue to me. Time and time again, when affirmative action is put to a popular vote, people reject it.

I guess HS is right that it's fear of demonization by the liberal media which stops Republicans from running against affirmative action.

"HS: Where the hell did you get the idea that the Republicans are a pro-choice party? The loudest thing they say is that they are going to put an end to abortion. They are an anti-abortion party and not much else."

What do they actually DO that is anti-abortion? Nothing. They are in favor of the status quo, which is "choice", and therefore they are de facto a pro-choice party.

[HS: Just because they are incompetent at doing something about their #1 issue doesn't mean that they are crypto-pro-choice.]

While this debate rambles on, 11 million Cubans pack their satchels, preparing for a mass escape to the mainland and Puerto Rico gears up to become our 29th most populous state.

Jay,

"Young, urban, and blue state whites?"

Correct. Though one might wonder why the GOP is losing lilly white north-midwest states like Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc.

"[HS: Just because they are incompetent at doing something about their #1 issue doesn't mean that they are crypto-pro-choice.]"

To my knowledge they did not even TRY to overturn Roe v. Wade at any time when they controlled the Executive after 1980, including the times when they controlled the Executive and BOTH Houses of Congress in the early 2000s.

This is not incompetence. This is deliberate policy. They got plenty of things done that were politically "hard", which should tell you that they don't really want to do anything about abortion.

Immigration is much the same way. Whatever rhetoric they mouth about controlling the border, the actual Republican policy is *exactly* the same as the Democrat policy - open borders.

HS,

There has always been a cheap labor portion of the Repulbican Party that always supports open borders, unlimited immigraiton, and high birthrates for minorities.

There are always those Republicans who think they are clever enough to take advatnage of immigrants and minorities while avoiding the costs incurred from high taxes, high insurance, and a high costs of living.

Running against Affirmative Action may work for the Republicans, but not in this recent election, and for a variety of reasons.

Things may change in another 4 years, though.

The good news is that there will probably never been another halfway decent black Presidential candidate again, so that mystique will be over. It's too rare to find an employed, educated, non-criminal black man who can resist the temptation to rhyme in front of cameras and who has the good sense (and strong stomach) to marry a black woman and stay faithful. (In Obama's case we know he only switched away from white women to Michelle for the sole purpose of being able to run for President 18 years later)

"Though one might wonder why the GOP is losing lilly white north-midwest states like Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc."

Because the white working class turnout was too low there. Lots of 30+ white working class voters in the Great Lakes region would never consider voting for Obama but were not enthused enough about Romney to show up at the polls.

"In the real world, you have the GOP lionizing the likes of Joe Arpaio, who scares hispanics."

Name a Republican leader who "lionizes" Arpaio.

You have the GOP primary debate audience booing the gay soldier (not immigration/race related in a direct sense, but bigotry comes in packages and people rationally expect an all-white crowd of gay-bashers to be racists as well).

Two people booed in the whole audience and Santorum - of all people - corrected them.

You have Congressional republicans tiptoeing around Birtherism.

Who? And how is that racist?

"You have GOP loudmouths trying to play up O's indonesian schooling as some sort of islamist manchurian candidate grooming."

Again who? And how is that racist?

"I'm no fan of Ron Paul or libertarian philosophy, but he actually did bring up his opposition to affirmative action during the debates."

He did no such thing. Show where he said this.

"Of course they don't want to open themselves up to direct attack by taking nominally PC positions, but when minorities see the GOP beet red in the face blowing on that dog whistle, they get the picture. And they are smart enough to know that there is no possibility making a separate piece with a party trying to court the votes of ugly bigots (even if they pay insincere lip service to repudiating bigotry)."

By "ugly bigots" you mean white people. But, again, there is no "dog whistle" for whites. If there is, give one example.

The Republicans do "dog whistle" to non-whites by being open borders on legal immigration, making any non-white elected to national office a keynote speaker (like the candidate for mayor of Salt Lake City), pushing for Puerto Rican statehood, running ads in Spanish, speaking (pandering) before the NAACP and various Hispanic groups, refusing to criticize Obama's 20-year relationship with a blatant racist (Jermiah Wright among others) and never once mentioning affirmative action.

And the reward for this? Low IQ buffoons say they are "dog whistling" to whites and turning off all these non-whites just aching to vote for small government and low taxes but for the "ugly bigotry" of the GOP.

"Actually, Jay, I do NOT think this is a reality. Polling shows that a very strong majority are against immigration and against affirmative action."

Over 60% of whites in liberal California voted for Props 187 (barring some handouts to illegals) and 209 (ending quotas).

Same thing in places like Colorado, Michigan and Washington state.

Want to expand the GOP by picking up more votes from Asians, Jews and both working class and professional whites?

Introduce a national Prop 209 to end quotas (all while saying issues like abortion and gay marriage are state issues).

But it won't happen. The GOP will keep opposing abortion and stay silent (or maybe even support) affirmative action.

The republican voters I know are so un-racial in their outlook it is ridiculous. They are the least racial/HBD types you can imagine. They are totally unaware of it and are much more likely to have non-white spouses than "liberals" who are constantly think about race. This is why they are baffled when called "racist." Of course they are nothing of the sort but "liberals" already know this so knowing how dumb republicans are they just call them this in order to power trip.

HS, you have to stop getting your news entirely from Jezebel.com

Abortion is NOT the national gop's main issue. Get a grip.

"When you cast aside in group advantages (white racial identity) and actively engage in charity to out groups (immigration, affirmative action) you are signaling that you are so high status these things don't scare you because they won't affect you/you will do just fine anyway."

It is more that a hostile media elite would rip you to pieces if you tried something like that.

Nobody is screaming White Power. We just want the immigration to stop.

I think Matt Yglesias tweeted that immigration wasn't mentioned in the debates? A shame, because it would have been interesting to see Romney and Obama's responses.

There are several Jays who contribute here. for the record I'm not the "Jay" on this thread. Maybe I should call myself "JayNe".


Young, urban, and blue state whites? Those are the votes the GOP needs and I very much question if explicit pandering to their "racial interests" will win them over. I feel like we sometimes forget who passed immigration reform and affirmative action in the first place.

Posted by: Jay | November 26, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Okay, how did Giuliani get them?

Public safety.

Ooooh they love public safety.

"Safe schools" aka safe for gays

"Safe cities" aka safe for illegals

"Safe drinking water" okay, I agree with that one.

"Gun free zones" which aren't safe at all.

It goes on.

But as the SHTF safety will decrease and become more important like it did in New York and Giuliani capitalized on that.

Kind of like the original Committee for Public Safety.

Hint, these folks aren't liberals no matte how much they claim the label.

"Polling shows that a very strong majority are against immigration and against affirmative action."

A strong majority was very recently against gay marriage, and we saw how that went. If Republicans start emphasizing immigration and (especially) affirmative action, Hollywood and the media will put their brainwashing machine into action. It takes a very strong-willed and intellectually secure person to resist that sort of relentless shaming.

Halfsigma, you're falling into the trap of thinking that you are the country and that maximizing the overall appeal of the republican party is simply a matter of maximizing its appeal to you. Can you name changes that you think the republican party should make but that you personally disagree with?

The Republicans in the Federal House stopped amnesty in 2006.

Also, Ryan/Rand small government libertarianism is white-oriented racialism. Libertarians will twist themselves into a ball to deny this, but ethnic activists know that the successful enactment of the Mises Institute's dreams would mean distinctly less money, power, and children for all non-Asian minorities, and more for whites.

[They should have said, "We favor higher taxes on rich bankers, movie moguls, and other leeches off of value created by middle-class america."]

Romney perhaps would have won the "slippery six" Midwest states with such an appeal. Not gonna happen, though, because

[The US is a plutocracy and more and more and more people is good for capital.]

Exactly. The GOP often acts more in alignment with the desires of the guys who write the big donation checks than the desires of the middle-class taxpayers that they need to win elections.

I imagine that a hypothetical party that did actually appeal to whatever the median opinion of white people who earn $40K-$300K (abortion and gay marriage agnosticism, legal marijuana, stopping crime, affirmative action, and illegal immigration) would have cleaned up any recent election.

[Racism is implied by the GOP's whiteness. It's a tautology: the GOP is mostly white --> Minorities are turned off by that --> The GOP must be racist because minorities are turned off by it.]

Just as you have to few degrees of separation from Obama to get to all sorts of "Kill Whitey" and "Communist revolution now" folks, I'd say you actually don't have to travel too far from many GOP politicians and publications to get to some rather explicit white racialism. Derbyshire wrote for years for the National Review, for example.

"Actually, Jay, I do NOT think this is a reality. Polling shows that a very strong majority are against immigration and against affirmative action."

I just saw an immigration discussion on MSNBC (I know they're super-liberal) which pointed to polling showing 57% of Americans support a "pathway-to-citizenship" for ALL illegals.

Juan wrote: "An interesting question is how this dynamic will change when whites become a minority."

I can tell you. The Left will point out that per-capita whites still out-perform non-whites, so they are "overrepresented in positions of power, and have a disproportionate share of the national wealth." If you think I'm wrong then watch MSNBC. Especially Sharpton and Melissa Harris-Perry because that's what they've been saying since election day.

"Polling shows that a very strong majority are against immigration and against affirmative action"

Perhaps, but are those people "single issue voters" on those points? Because you can bet that many on the other side are single issue voters with respect to those issues.

"open, aggressive "appeals to white voters" ... are actually an incredible turn-off to white voters."

No more Willie Hortons
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/13/opinion/no-more-willie-hortons.html

United States presidential election, 1988
Electoral vote 426 111
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988

I don't really talk politics with Asians, since they're not particularly interested in such things. Even though many Asians are nationalistic and xenophobic (Japanese and Korean people are notorious for distrusting outsiders, and Chinese people are becoming ever more nationalistic and anti-Japanese), they tend to think that politics is something a ruling elite will do, and leave those decisions to them. Asians are also deferential to authority, and so are less inclined to challenge those in charge. In all these respects, Asians are what would be called "conservative" in America.

That said, when I talk to Asian-Americans, they seem to believe what others around them do. I think their lack of interest in politics makes them liberal. I haven't looked at demographics in awhile, but I'd imagine most Asians live on the West Coast, which is exceedingly liberal, with a number of very successful Asians going to the East Coast for schooling in Boston and maybe careers in New York. The East Coast is just as liberal as the West Coast, so Asian immigrants and Asians born in America are usually surrounded by liberals, and since Asians aren't very interested in politics and tend to be conformist, they figure they should vote Democrat.

I'd like to see what Asian voters are like in Texas.

I also believe that since Democrats are the anti-white male party, that Asians vote Democrats if only because that's what they're "supposed" to do, even if Republicans are more in line with Asian-American interests. It's really only a number of Vietnamese and Koreans, who faced the onslaught of communism, who think that white America was great for opposing their enemies.

Unless there are large numbers of Asians in swing states, I don't think their support is particularly vital. They make blue states a little bluer.

@Bernie

do your own homework. with google, it isn't hard.

@Sid

"I don't really talk politics with Asians, since they're not particularly interested in such things."

They are exceedingly interested in politics. But perhaps they are not interested in talking to you about it, possibly because they don't trust you, or don't trust themselves not to offend you.

" they tend to think that politics is something a ruling elite will do, and leave those decisions to them"

I can play the Orientalist in the other direction. Dynastic change in China, for instance, was always driven from the bottom up. Plenty of seditious generals/ministers to take the reins once all the popular conditions for rebellion are in place. In the scholarly class, there are plenty of Boethius and Thomas More types too, accepting execution on principle before bowing to tyranny. But returning to reality: I wouldn't rely too much on the characteristics of Asians to deduce the behavior of Asian Americans. Asians are Asians. AA's are a striving immigrant class who decided in the clearest possible way that their homeland or home culture was not as good as the country's of their choice.

"Asians are also deferential to authority, and so are less inclined to challenge those in charge."

I would say as you do that this is probably the definition of most conventional conservatives anywhere in the Anglo-American Burkean mold.

" Asians aren't very interested in politics and tend to be conformist, "

Bourgeois strivers are apolitical and conformist, Asian or not. Go to Long Island and ask a new money JAP what she thinks of the fiscal cliff.

"Unless there are large numbers of Asians in swing states, I don't think their support is particularly vital."

True, which is why I wonder about all this hubbub about the Asian vote. It is truly irrelevant. Outside of this circle jerk sociological exercise, who really does care?


"Also, Ryan/Rand small government libertarianism is white-oriented racialism. Libertarians will twist themselves into a ball to deny this, but ethnic activists know that the successful enactment of the Mises Institute's dreams would mean distinctly less money, power, and children for all non-Asian minorities, and more for whites."

100% true and the day that libertarians realize it will be a major turning point for white racial conscious in this country. Libertarianism and free market economics always have been and will be the White, Northern European man's system of government and economics, respectively.

This is precisely why HBD enthusiasts should expend massive effort on "converting" libertarians/free market types and bringing them into the fold. Once stripped of their libertarian universalism, you could not ask for better allies.

"Nobody is screaming White Power. We just want the immigration to stop."

In the worldview of many liberals, the two are basically equivalent.

"But as the SHTF safety will decrease and become more important like it did in New York and Giuliani capitalized on that."

Maybe. One can hope. After all, the saying is that "a conservative is a liberal with a daughter in high school."

The way racism has become institutionalized against whites is so simple yet Machiavellian it boggles the mind. If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd think that at some point, the elite felt threatened by a rising, mostly white middle class. In order to destroy that middle class they destroy the family via feminism (divorce, women forced into the workforce, emasculated men who no longer know how to lead a family, etc.). Destroy the white birthrate via environmentalism and overpopulation scare tactics-- ideas that appeal to high IQ whites, who stop reproducing while the rest of the world breeds out of control. I don't know about you, but I would gladly live in a world overrun with middle class whites as opposed to religious wackos and low IQ individuals. Overpopulation was never an issue for whites anyway, but they are the only ones to have responded to the idea of it.

Destroy middle class schools via forced integration (I'm talking about forced busing here, not Little Rock), idiot teacher unions and constantly dumbed down curriculum that caters to the "special needs" (i.e. low IQ) students. Destroy the work opportunities of non-elite whites via rampant illegal immigration and diversity obsessed affirmative action. And suffocate those who do manage to obtain a middle class lifestyle with taxes that provide the rest of the population with entitlements.

And, to top it all off-- any white person who complains against any of this, IS RACIST (which is why the GOP won't touch these issues). It's really brilliant how they've pulled this one off.

(Of course, I would only believe any of this, if I were a conspiracy theorist.)

"Libertarians will twist themselves into a ball to deny this, but ethnic activists know that the successful enactment of the Mises Institute's dreams would mean distinctly less money, power, and children for all non-Asian minorities, and more for whites."

Murray Rothbard actually wrote a review of The Bell Curve in which he concluded by basically admitting this, and actually appeared to look forward to it:

"If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and 'discriminatory' and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors."

OT: George Zimmerman part II:

http://globalgrind.com/news/michael-dunn-shot-killed-jordan-davis-plea-self-defense-florida-stand-your-ground-law

Dunn, a 45-year-old software developer from Florida, shot and killed 17-year-old Jordan Davis in a parking lot on Saturday after he asked him to turn down his music. The two exchanged words before Dunn pulled out a gun and fired eight to nine shots at Davis, who was sitting in the back seat of a parked vehicle. Dunn left the crime scene and checked into a hotel before cops found him and took him into custody.

"Polling shows that a very strong majority are against immigration and against affirmative action. Republicans are afraid to speak to these issues because they are cowed by the liberal-controlled media, or maybe just because they’ve internalized the politically correct views not held by the majority of voters."

Big business wants cheap labor. Liberal immigration policies help keep labor costs down. Big business and their owners are the major contributors to both parties.

Why is this so hard to understand?

"This is precisely why HBD enthusiasts should expend massive effort on "converting" libertarians/free market types and bringing them into the fold."

All we have to do to make them happy is have 100% open borders.

Election on November 6, 2012:
Libertarian 0.99%

Maybe we should put off converting them until they can round out a whole percentage point.

"Libertarian 0.99% - Maybe we should put off converting them until they can round out a whole percentage point."

Most self-identified libertarians vote Republican. Near as I can tell, many of them are explicitly anti-HBD/anti-white racialism (they want cheap labor and to fit in with liberals), while being implicitly pro-white racialism (lower taxes, meritocracy, end the welfare state).

Look, this isn't really hard to do. The media will call the Republicans "racist" no matter what they do. They will call the Republicans "sexist" no matter what they do. This is what liberals do - the shame, mock and harass their oppponents. That's how they win.

How we win is not to submit to the libs like the weaklings we usually are. It is to reframe, fight, and dominate. It is to use the media's tactics against them. When they say "why are you racist towards illegals" we say "why are you willing to put the interests of foreigners over the interests of working class white and black americans". When they say "why aren't you for women getting free birth control" we say "why are you against the 1st Amendment and religious freedom". The media and left is aggressive and ruthless. We need to be as well.

Republicans, above all, need to STOP being defensive about their conservative values, and need to start putting the liberals on the defense, on every issue. Never be defensive. Always be on the attack. Point to a potentially unpopular leftist flank and hammer it til the liberals cry for mercy.

By aligning politically with elite liberal whites, Asian-Americans are abetting the one group in American society determined to keep Asians down.

There was a time when WASP elites intentionally kept the number of Jewish students in the Ivy League lower than their academic achievements would warrant, but today's elites are working even harder to hold down the number of Asian students at elite universities. It is a serious and concerted effort, because the Asian-American population is rising so fast.

Ron Unz just published a long article on this. He writes:

"Princeton sociologist Thomas J. Espenshade and his colleagues have demonstrated that among undergraduates at highly selective schools such as the Ivy League, white students have mean scores 310 points higher on the 1600 SAT scale than their black classmates, but Asian students average 140 points above whites. The former gap is an automatic consequence of officially acknowledged affirmative action policies, while the latter appears somewhat mysterious...

The largely constant Asian numbers at these elite colleges are particularly strange when we consider that the underlying population of Asians in America has been anything but static, instead growing at the fastest pace of any American racial group, having increased by almost 50 percent during the last decade, and more than doubling since 1993...

...the percentage of college-age Asian-Americans attending Harvard peaked around 1993, and has since dropped by over 50 percent, a decline somewhat larger than the fall in Jewish enrollment which followed the imposition of secret quotas in 1925. And we have noted the parallel trends in the other Ivy League schools, which also replicates the historical pattern."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

As Unz (and Half Sigma) note, it's difficult to exaggerate the importance of the elite colleges as pathways to success in modern America. Right now, there is a systematic effort to keep Asians off of those pathways, and it's being orchestrated by the most liberal institutions in America.

If Asian Americans are abandoning the Republican Party for reasons (at least in part) based on racial resentment, then they're directing their resentment at the wrong people.

"Dunn, a 45-year-old software developer from Florida, shot and killed 17-year-old Jordan Davis in a parking lot on Saturday after he asked him to turn down his music."

One less problem. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.

Well remember private colleges are private, and it makes sense for them in many ways to underadmit asians:

- Asians donate less
- Elite whites don't like to go to schools full of asians
- Asian graduates hit the "bamboo ceiling" and don't hit the highest levels of success at the same rate as the white graduates

Perhaps its not "fair," but its the intelligent thing to do from the elite institutions point of view. An "elite" institution dominated by asians will eventually find itself no longer "elite".

@realist,

You could use the exact same logic to argue that colleges should underadmit blacks: blacks donate less, elite whites don't like to go to schools full of blacks, and black graduates don't achieve the highest levels of success at the same rate as whites.

[HS: Elite universities admit blacks for SWPL reasons: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/21/14-having-black-friends/ ]

You cannot appeal on the basis of stopping immigration for immigration's sake to self-hating type whites. You have to emphasize the sustainability of the environment, the likeliness of better schooling, and job prospects - especially for non-whites.

But as other people have commented. The Chamber of Commerce Republicans have always been behind every cheap labor policy as they hate the white working class more than blacks do.

The comments to this entry are closed.