NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » politics » The Threat of Increasing Diversity: Why Many White Americans Supported Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election

The Threat of Increasing Diversity: Why Many White Americans Supported Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 125 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

Charles Darwin

Denis Noble

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

3250 words

Tl;dr: White Americans exposed to more diversity are more likely to support Trump, anti-PC speech and anti-immigration policies while showing less support and positivity towards Democratic candidates. In the racial shift group, whites with low racial identity, ethnic replacement didn’t seem to care about ethnic replacement and showed stronger support for Democratic candidates. To wake up more whites to anti-immigration sentiments and white identity politics, you need to show them the effects of diversity in the social context as well as what a demographic replacement will mean in the next two decades.

Why did so many white Americans support Donald Trump’s Presidency? The reasons are numerous, though there are some key reasons why he won. To look at the exact reasons why, we need to look at some evolutionary psychology as well as political psychology. I came across a paper today titled The threat of increasing diversity: Why many White Americans support Trump in the 2016 presidential election, it has many thought provoking things in it and pretty much confirms what the altright says about an increase in white identity occurring. An ‘ethnic awakening’ if you will. The authors state that white Americans high in racial identity will be more likely to derogate out-groups when white Americans realize they are becoming replaced in their own country.

Major, Blojorn and Blascovich (2016) state that reminding white Americans who are ‘high in ethnic identification’ (i.e., a white identitarian, an altrighters) that non-white populations will soon outnumber whites caused them to be more concerned about the future of whites in America, pushing them towards Trump and his anti-immigration policies. This also led to an increase in being politically incorrect. Moreover,  whites low in ethnic identification (say, a progressive leftist) showed no greater chance in voting for Trump nor his anti-immigration policies. This did, however, decrease positivity towards Trump as well as decreased their opposition towards political correctness. The authors write:

The U.S. Census Bureau (2012) projects that the national population of non-White racial groups will exceed that of Whites before the middle of this century. Many White Americans in the US view race relations as “zero-sum,” in which status gains for minorities means status loss for Whites (Wilkins & Kaiser, 2014) and less bias against minorities means more bias against Whites (Norton & Sommers, 2011). The belief that Whites are losing out to ethnic minorities is particularly prevalent among Trump supporters (De Jonge, 2016).

This is noticed, anecdotally speaking and you can follow the citations to get more information. From an evolutionary perspective, this does make sense. Competition for resources between groups trigger evolutionary instincts. More non-whites in America will decrease the white population who has the lowest birth rate by ethnicity in the country and this will trigger more anti-immigration sentiments in whites high in ethnic identification. This ‘zero-sum game’, the ‘if your ethnic group has more than mine has less’ game will start to take hold in America in the next coming years if this paper is any indication of the future. The one particularly interesting point the authors bring up is that if there is “less ‘bias against minorities, there will be more minorities against whites”, and that, in turn, increased anti-immigration sentiments as well as drove people towards Trump and his anti-immigration views.

The more minorities that come into the country, the more whites in America will start to band together for their own ethnic genetic interests, move towards more conservative policies and begin to show more derogation towards the out-group.

The authors use the term ‘group status threat’, which is when one “worries that his group’s status, influence, and position in the hierarchy is under threat.” This threat then predicts out-group derogation. I wonder if oxytocin (a brain peptide that increases out-group derogation) increases when diversity occurs in the social context. I’d like to see that looked into one day.

There is also ‘integrated threat theory’ where increased diversity poses a threat to white Americans’ resources and American values. They also state, using social cognition theory, that increases in diversity will be ‘frightening’ and ‘confusing’ to whites, causing “uncertainty and fear”, which then drove whites towards more conservative anti-immigration policies.

When whites high in ethnic identification were shown a newspaper article stating that whites would be a minority by 2042, it led whites to be more concerned about whites’ social status in the country, leading them towards more conservative views and policies. It’s important to note that their views changed along with their policy recommendations.

In this study, the authors tested experimentally whether reminding white Americans that of the increasing diversity in the US affects their political leanings, whether or not group status is the cause of the political leanings when one hears about ethnic replacements, and whether or not ethnic identification or political alignment moderated the effects. They expected that reminding whites of ethnic replacement will cause them to lean towards conservative views and politicians (Trump, Kasich, Cruz) while decreasing support for Democrats (Clinton and Sanders).

People who experience ‘group status threat’ will be more likely to vote for Trump since he has more anti-immigration, antidiversity views than all politicians who ran for President. This, the researchers hypothesized, would come to fruition in their study. They also predicted that reminding white Americans of ethnic replacement would cause them to support more anti-immigration policies and be more resistant to political correctness, i.e., they would be more likely to be against positive policies for the out-group. They would become intolerant towards the out-group upon exposure to the reality of ethnic replacement in the country.

We also tested ethnic identification and political affiliation as potential moderators of the predicted effect of condition.1 Drawing on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), we expected that reminders of increasing ethnic diversity would be especially threatening to Whites whose race/ethnicity is a central aspect of their identity. Thus we expected them to report greater support for Republican candidates, anti-immigrant policies, and opposition to political correctness in response to reminders of the racial shift compared to Whites low in ethnic identification. In contrast, based on Craig and Richeson’s (2014b) finding that reminders of the racial shift increased support for conservative ideology irrespective of political leanings, we did not expect political affiliation to moderate effects.

Whites whose ‘race/ethnicity is a central aspect of their identity’, i.e. altrighters were predicted to be especially threatened at the reminder of ethnic replacement in their country of birth. However, as expected and what is seen in anecdotal accounts, whites low in ethnic identification, i.e., progressive leftists, antifas, etc, showed the opposite.

The researchers had a sample consisting of 450 white Americans with the following political beliefs: 262 Democrats, 114 Republicans, 50 Independents and 24 ‘other’. After removing the Independents and ‘others’ from the sample they had 376 white American participants (51.1 percent female).

They were given articles and were given two minutes to read them. One was an article talking about the ethnic replacement of whites and whites’ minority status in America that’s projected to occur by 2042 (aptly called ‘racial shift’) while the other article used “similar language to indicate geographic mobility is increasing (control condition).” It’s interesting to note that it seems like the only difference between the two articles is the wording. After reading the articles, they then completed tasks assessing group status threat, support for the current candidates running for office, anti-immigration sentiments, ethnic identification, and opposition to political correctness. After the completion of the tasks, they were then told the reason for the study and compensated their one dollar.

White Americans exposed to ‘racial shift condition’ reported greater group status threat than those in the control condition. This shows that white Americans who live in a diverse neighborhood will be more likely to be affected by the ‘racial shift condition’, leading them towards anti-immigration sentiment, a strong feeling towards white identity, and be more likely to hold more right-wing views. Whites high in ethnic identification showed greater group status threat than the control (.29) in the racial shift condition while whites low in ethnic identification did not. So, white identitarians showed a greater feeling of threat towards the group than did progressive leftists and antifas. Can’t say I’m too surprised. I did theorize in my article on the rise of the altright that either leftists have less oxytocin and altrighters have more, or that since political beliefs are heritable that high amounts of oxytocin will have one gravitate towards using their altruistic tendencies for the out-group or the in-group. This seems to be some evidence for my theory. For both right-wingers and left-wingers, ethnic identification was positively related to group status threat, but it was stronger in right-wingers. Even more evidence for my oxytocin/political beliefs theory.

White identitarians (whites high in ethnic identification) reported moderately greater positivity towards Trump as well as an even greater chance of voting for him in the racial shift scenario compared to the geographic movement scenario. Conversely, whites low in ethnic identification (progressive leftists, antifas, etc) showed less positivity towards Trump in the racial shift condition than in the geographic movement (control) condition,. However, in the racial shift condition, when one had high ethnic identification it led to increased positivity and a higher chance of voting for Trump. However, in the geographic condition, ethnic identification was unrelated to positivity towards Trump as well as voting for him.

Whites who showed less identification showed somewhat less support towards Sanders, being somewhat less likely to vote for him in the racial shift condition than in the geographic movement condition. In whites low in ethnic identity, neither condition (racial shift or geographic movement) had any effect on voting for Sanders or positivity towards him. Now here’s the good part: in the racial shift condition, whites high in ethnic identity showed somewhat less support and positivity towards Sanders in the racial shift condition compared to the geographic shift condition. Moreover, in the racial shift condition, ethnic identification was negatively correlated with positivity and chance of voting for Sanders, whereas in the control condition ethnic identification showed no effect.

In the racial shift condition, white identitarians were more supportive of anti-immigration policies than progressive leftists, while whites low in ethnic identification showed no difference, regardless of the condition. Ethnic identification was related to anti-immigration policies in both the racial shift and geographic movement conditions, but it was stronger in the racial shift condition.

White identitarians did not differ in outlook on political correctness by condition, while whites who show less ethnic identity reported less opposition to political correctness. Ethnic identification and anti-PC views were positively related in the racial shift condition but unrelated in the geographic shift condition.

Exposure to the racial shift condition vs. the geographic movement condition elicits different responses based on one’s political alignment and ethnic identification. Exposure to the racial shift condition increased group status threat, support for Trump and support for anti-immigration policies while somewhat decreasing support for Sanders, but only among whites high in ethnic identification. Conversely, for whites low in ethnic identification in exposure to the racial shift, there was no effect on group status threat, support for Sanders or anti-immigration sentiments and actually led to a decrease in positivity for Trump. That’s pretty powerful right there.

The support and election of Donald Trump is showing a paradigm shift in this country as ethnies in America start voting on racial lines. As diversity continues to increase and as more white Americans begin to realize the ethnic replacement will begin to impede on how many resources they have access to as well as the ‘racism being flipped on them’ with ‘less bias on minorities being more bias towards whites’, more and more whites will start voting not on party lines, but ethnic lines like all other ethnies in this country do. In the racial shift group, whites high in ethnic identification showed increased support for Trump and anti-immigration policies, increased opposition towards political correctness and decreased Sanders support through group status threat. Conversely, in the racial shift group, reminders of ethnic replacement in whites low in ethnic identification showed decreased Trump support and his policies and did not lead to group status threat. This can be termed ‘ethnic suicide’. Clearly, increased diversity is a threat to some but not all white Americans.

What boggles my mind is that when whites low in ethnic identification were reminded of the projected ethnic replacement by 2042, they decreased support for Trump and increased support for anti-immigration policies and their support for norms that prohibit bias in hate speech, which was not mediated by the group status threat. The authors put forth one theory why this may be the case. They say that whites low in ethnic identification were thinking of the changing racial demographics on the country as a whole, not just on their own ethnic group which may have led them to support a candidate who is tolerant of diversity and antibias norms. Reminding Americans high in racial identity of ethnic replacement increasingly shifted support to Trump and away from Sanders. Though this effect was not seen in relation to other candidates, the authors attributed this to Trump’s stance on immigration and political correctness relative to the other Republican candidates. To those white Americans with a high racial identity who experience group status threat, they would be drawn to Trump and his anti-immigration, anti-PC speech. The authors state:

Of all of the candidates, Trump has been most vocal in his opposition to “outsiders” such as Muslims and illegal immigrants from Latin America, and most openly critical of “political correctness” in both his rhetoric and his behavior. Trump’s rhetoric and policies thus appear to hold special appeal for White Americans highly in racial/ethnic identification who are concerned about the declining position of Whites in American society and who often perceive reverse discrimination as prevalent. In contrast, Sanders may have been perceived as the most inclusive candidate and thus most likely to exacerbate threats to White’s status as a group.

This sums up the 2016 election in one paragraph. White Americans high in racial identity showed a greater chance to vote for Trump, greater opposition to political correctness and were more likely to espouse anti-immigration sentiments.

Political leaning affiliation had a large and expected effect on candidate choice as well as policy preferences. Compared to Dems, Republicans reported much stronger support for Republican candidates than Democratic candidates while being more supportive of anti-immigration and “more un-PC attitudes”. However, when reminded of ethnic replacement, both Democrats and Republicans who showed high racial identification were more likely to lean right and vote Trump. This study shows important implications about group identity and intergroup process to voting preferences. In whites high in racial identity, increased racial diversity affects voting preferences amongst whites, with the strength of the racial/ethnic identity moderating the effect. I.e., the stronger a racial identity one has the more likely they are to support Trump and anti-immigration policies, irrespective of political leaning. Due to this study, psychologists and political scientists need to begin to pay attention to the increasing concerns of whites high in racial identification, while traditionally thinking that white Americans’ politics weren’t driven by white identity, deeming them to be unimportant to whites’ political outlooks. For example, one study showed that “racial identification, perceptions of discrimination, and linked fate were only weak predictors of White Americans’ attitudes on policies related to race and immigration. This led them to conclude that “Whites’ whiteness is usually likely to be no more noteworthy to them than is breathing the air around them” (Sears and Savelli, 2006, p. 901).

However, the current political climate shows that this no longer is the case. As more non-whites immigrate into America, whites who have high racial identity, irrespective of political leaning, will become more open to supporting Trump (or people like him) as well as anti-immigration policies. As the white majority in America shrinks, more and more white Americans will be open to white identity politics to get back their rightful resources in the country as well as the demographic majority. Eventually, with more and more unchecked immigration, white identity will start to become a central part in white American politics and voting blocks. White Americans who regard their identity as ‘white’ and an important part of their identity, future white American political preferences will be molded by group status threat as well as opposition to diversity. Trump has ‘tapped into’ the demographic of white Americans who feel looked down on in their own home country from mass immigration from the South (and soon from MENA countries). White Americans who feel that their numerical advantage is threatened are more likely to vote for Trump and support anti-immigration policies that will begin to benefit American whites.

It is, however, important to note that Trump may not be who he says he is (like most politicians). On election night last month I blogged on Donald Trump and Ethnic Genetic Interests. I showed that contrary to the average perception of him, his interests lie with Israel, not with his own racial group (due to his children marrying Jews). Moreover, he has already reneged on his wall, deporting illegals and his supposed moratorium on Muslim immigration into the US from threat countries. If anything, Trump is just a stepping stone towards more nationalistic attitudes in the US for whites. With the increased diversity, whites will start to see that they are becoming replaced by other ethnies and in whites with high racial identity, it will trigger nationalistic attitudes and responses to the impending threat on their unique genetic code. This will help to foster the awakening of more whites to identity politics, voting in their own ethnic interests and not for the interest of other ethnies.

I personally hope this leads to a renaissance of race-realism in America, but I may be aiming the bar too high. The conclusion of this study is hopeful for the status of whites in America, however. The more whites that get exposed to diversity AND have high racial identity will then lean more towards Trumpian policies. As whites decrease in number in the US, more and more whites will begin to vote for themselves and, in my opinion, once these nationalistic attitudes appear in the white consciousness in America, this demographic replacement can begin to be reversed. If it were not for the increased immigration, however, this would not have happened. The increased immigration is a main driver of these feelings towards political correctness and anti-immigration. The more anti-white sentiment that is heard in America, the more whites high in racial identity will move towards the right while leftists will continue to commit ‘ethnic suicide’.

The takeaway from this paper is this: Whites exposed to the racial shift high in racial identity were more likely to support Trump, anti-immigration policies and be anti-PC. Whites in the racial shift condition who showed low racial identity showed the opposite and were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates. This paper shows good news in the future for whites in America and voting in their interests. Whites in America are beginning to vote for their ethnic genetic interests and this is largely due to genetic similarity theory as immigration from MENA countries and South of the border increase into America. Moreover, with Trump’s allegiance to Israel, Trump is just a man to awaken more people to the realities of immigration. So Trump himself won’t do anything, but his anti-immigration rhetoric is having people notice the realities of immigration and ethnic replacement in America.

Advertisements

48 Comments

  1. Chinedu says:

    Trump got a lower percentage of the white vote than Romney. Clinton lost because she was a weak and lazy candidate.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Trumps win, first and foremost, should consider political psychology. A better predictor of whether or not a man would vote for Trump is proneness to authoritarianism—a desire for and defference to authority and dominant leadership.

      If only men would have voted, he would have won in a landslide.

      Whites were actually a big reason why Trump won. So what I said about EGIs and GST shows in how whites voted for President. White women were also a big help since they “sold out of the system” to vote for Trump.

      Hillary lost because of the grey rain clouds over her and the shady things she got into.

      But it’s clear: white people elected Donald Trump:

      Whites vs. nonwhite voters

      Whites made up 70 percent of voters

      58 percent of all whites voted for Trump

      21 percent of nonwhites voted for Trump

      White men

      White men made up 34 percent of voters

      63 percent of them voted Trump

      31 percent voted Clinton

      White women

      White women made up 37 percent of voters

      53 percent of them voted Trump

      43 percent voted Clinton

      Young whites (ages 18-29)

      Young white people made up 12 percent of voters

      48 percent of them voted Trump

      43 percent voted Clinton

      In comparison, 9 percent of young blacks and 24 percent of young Latinos voted for Trump.

      College-educated whites

      White college graduates made up 37 percent of voters

      49 percent of them voted for Trump, while 45 percent voted for Clinton.

      54 percent of college-educated white men voted Trump.

      45 percent of college-educated white women chose Trump, while 51 percent chose Clinton. This is the only white demographic tracked by the exit poll that Trump didn’t win.

      Non-college-educated whites

      Whites without a college degree made up 34 percent of voters

      67 percent of them voted for Trump

      Of the women in this group, 62 percent voted for Trump

      And men voted 72 percent for Trump

      Like

  2. Chinedu says:

    Yeah, whites were a big reason Trump won. Whites were also a big reason Obama won. Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate who was running simply to be president. But despite all her weaknesses, she would have won if she hadn’t taken her victory for granted.

    Threat of increasing diversity? Diversity can’t be stopped in the modern world. It doesn’t matter who the president is. The country will become more diverse with each passing year. Whites will become a majority minority within 50 years. It’s inevitable. Europe will become increasingly diverse. That’s also inevitable.

    And lack of diversity didn’t stop Europe from cutting itself to pieces for thousands of years. When Europe was all white, they killed 100 million of themselves in the 20th century alone. In this country, lack of diversity meant people were being lynched and burned alive over the color of their skin. So there is no “golden age” when lack of diversity meant better lives for everyone.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Yeah, whites were a big reason Trump won. Whites were also a big reason Obama won. Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate who was running simply to be president. But despite all her weaknesses, she would have won if she hadn’t taken her victory for granted.

      I believe that Trump was running ‘just to be “President”‘ as well. How did she take her victory for granted? Tons of damaging information came out about Hillary a month before the election.

      Threat of increasing diversity? Diversity can’t be stopped in the modern world. It doesn’t matter who the president is. The country will become more diverse with each passing year. Whites will become a majority minority within 50 years. It’s inevitable. Europe will become increasingly diverse. That’s also inevitable.

      Maybe, maybe not. The Japanese are doing pretty well as is Eastern Europe and Southern Europe is pretty nationalistic as well. I’m almost positive that a lot of Western and Northern Europe will be lost and Southern and Eastern Europe will still exist, but that’s just my opinion based on a map of individualistic/collectivistic attitudes for European countries.

      Diversity can be stopped with sensible policies that put the nation and people first over people who want to emigrate to the country.

      And lack of diversity didn’t stop Europe from cutting itself to pieces for thousands of years. When Europe was all white, they killed 100 million of themselves in the 20th century alone. In this country, lack of diversity meant people were being lynched and burned alive over the color of their skin. So there is no “golden age” when lack of diversity meant better lives for everyone.

      I never said it did. Richard Spencer talks about a ‘Pan-Europe’ saying that Europe ‘has always been united’, but that’s bullshit looking back at history.

      Diversity, no diversity, it doesn’t matter, we’ll still be violent animals as that’s what we pretty much are, just trying to get our genes to the next generation. But I think people would like to be violent animals with people who look like themselves then who don’t look like themselves, and white American attitudes towards increasing diversity and un-PC speech is a testament to that.

      Like

  3. Chinedu says:

    Nope. Like him or not Trump had a vision of what he wanted to do. He had core beliefs and a coherent program. Hillary didn’t.

    Regarding Japan, it has a blood-soaked history. So ethnic homogeneity certainly did nothing for them. In fact throughout the world the most common type of wars are civil wars, people of the same ethnicity cutting each other to pieces.

    Also keep in mind that in Europe resistance to diversity is directed primarily against other Europeans. British nationalists are upset about the influx of Poles and other Eastern and Southern Europeans. In Asia, anti-diversity is directed against other Asians. In Africa it’s directed against other African tribes. And in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in this country there were movements to restrict and even deny the immigration of Italians, Greeks and other “ethnic whites.” So the idea, among some people, of maintaining cultural and ethnic purity transcends the white vs. minorities paradigm of American white supremacists.

    Diversity actually promotes peace and comity as it sensitizes people to other traditions and humanizes the “other,” making conflict less likely. There have been countless examples of warring factions finally getting to know each other thus becoming loathe to continue fighting. It even works at the level of street gangs.

    Diversity cannot be stopped. That ship has sailed. People are going to move around if given the opportunity. That’s what humans do. What do you care what the world looks like long after you’re gone? Don’t presume that future generations will share your values. If Europe or Africa or Asia are going to be remade in the distant future, it’s none of your business. We can’t presume to know what the world will look like hundreds of years from now in terms of the ethnic make-up of various countries and regions. Nor should we care.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I never said that homogenous countries are ‘peaceful’. We’re a violent species that won’t be stopped. But a lot of people—especially the Japanese and other East Asians—want to be around their co-ethnics. It all stems back to genetic similarity theory and ethnic genetic interests.

      To not be hypocritical, people should also speak about, as you brought up, Polish immigration to the UK. It’s not just about increased crime, it’s about culture. But I care about America, first and foremost and we need to close our borders and put America first.

      Diversity cannot be stopped. That ship has sailed. People are going to move around if given the opportunity. That’s what humans do. What do you care what the world looks like long after you’re gone? Don’t presume that future generations will share your values. If Europe or Africa or Asia are going to be remade in the distant future, it’s none of your business. We can’t presume to know what the world will look like hundreds of years from now in terms of the ethnic make-up of various countries and regions. Nor should we care.

      I care about the future of the earth and the grand diversity of life made by evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and migration. And I want to see that grand diversity persist—in all forms as it exists today—for as long as possible.

      Diversity does not “promote peace”, it promotes instability in a neighborhood bringing negative effects along with it. It also decreases trust among co-ethnics and makes them ‘hunker down’, meaning they spend more time indoors, not socializing with their neighbors.

      Diversity in the social context is negative to the ‘native’ people in that area. It does bring some positive effects, but it’s largely a net negative on the populace.

      Like

  4. Chinedu says:

    Also, if you’re looking for white immigrants to the United States, forget it. America is no longer attractive to Europeans, most of whom believe they can live better in their home countries. So the vast majority of immigrants to this country will be non-white. Western Europeans in particular are virtually guaranteed immigration slots via the diversity lottery, but they’re not interested. Only people from developing or third world countries are going to want to drop everything and go through the hell of immigrating to the United States. And it is literally hell. They don’t make it easy by any stretch of the imagination.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Also, if you’re looking for white immigrants to the United States, forget it. America is no longer attractive to Europeans, most of whom believe they can live better in their home countries. So the vast majority of immigrants to this country will be non-white.

      I don’t want any immigration. I want the illegals who are here to leave and to close the border and to focus on our problems as a country first. I want to see a focus on the American people, not on outsiders. That’s not ‘wrong’.

      Only people from developing or third world countries are going to want to drop everything and go through the hell of immigrating to the United States. And it is literally hell. They don’t make it easy by any stretch of the imagination.

      Almost as if society is a racial construct and the ethnic makeup of the immigrant dictates what occurs to the place that was emigrated to….

      Like

  5. iffen says:

    There are some speed bumps on your road to the Great White Awakening.
    One would be The Great Migration which began before WWI. The Rust Belt white-working class people who voted for Trump did not do so because they saw their first Negro in 2016.

    Trump was elected by white working class people who voted for Obama twice, but then refused to vote for Clinton.

    Read that again, voted for Obama twice; hardly the core of a new NSDAP.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Read that again, voted for Obama twice; hardly the core of a new NSDAP.

      I wasn’t implying that there would be a new NSDAP. What I was implying, irrespective of political leaning, whites high in racial/ethnic identification exposed to more diversity will lean towards Trumpian policies as well as anti-immigration sentiments. As we all know already anecdotally speaking, whites low in racial/ethnic identification basically don’t care about the impending ethnic replacement. They still supported Democrats like Clinton and Sanders. They, clearly, are a lost cause. The whites irrespective of political leaning exposed to more diversity will be the ones to, hopefully, lead us out of the trend we’re in in America. I hope. This study makes me have hope for the future but I won’t hold my breath.

      Like

  6. iffen says:

    “I personally hope this leads to a renaissance of race-realism in America”

    Would you explain exactly what you mean by this? I am under the impression that you are hoping for some sort of white nationalist political movement in the US.

    My idea of race-realism is based upon recent empirical science in the field of genetics.

    There can’t be a renaissance of something based upon recent findings in the field of genetics.

    If you get a “renaissance” it will have to be based upon the faulty reasoning of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Would you explain exactly what you mean by this

      People accepting race realism in the general public.

      I am under the impression that you are hoping for some sort of white nationalist political movement in the US.

      No. I personally don’t think it’s viable the US. What I mean is I see in the future the public accepting race realism as they look for the answers to why certain things occur that they’re exposed to. Especially whites high in ethnic identity irrespective of political leaning.

      My idea of race-realism is based upon recent empirical science in the field of genetics.

      There can’t be a renaissance of something based upon recent findings in the field of genetics.

      You know I agree with you. I meant an awakening to the truth of human nature on a national level. That’s what I mean by renaissance.

      If you get a “renaissance” it will have to be based upon the faulty reasoning of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

      I don’t want pseudoscience. I want sensible immigration policy based on solid science. Even then, we shouldn’t need science to enact immigration policy. But in this crazy world we live in today, we need a lot of things that we wouldn’t need in a sensible world.

      Trump isn’t “the guy” for America, he’s just the guy to get whites to start caring about their ethnic genetic interests and to see the huge problems in the country, as well as the establishment not caring about whites (which Trump is too, he just pretends to care).

      I see good things in the next four years and I’m not even talking about Trump doing anything. I mean an awakening to race-realism for the average person in America as our country gets more diverse and Obama begins to “diversify” majority white areas.

      Like

  7. Chinedu says:

    But a lot of people—especially the Japanese and other East Asians—want to be around their co-ethnics. It all stems back to genetic similarity theory and ethnic genetic interests.

    The facts don’t support what you’re saying. Tens of millions of East Asians have been killed by other East Asians. People are always going to find reasons to fight and to be in conflict with each other. Even families can be at each other’s throats.

    To not be hypocritical, people should also speak about, as you brought up, Polish immigration to the UK. It’s not just about increased crime, it’s about culture. But I care about America, first and foremost and we need to close our borders and put America first.

    This sounds exactly like the rhetoric used to promote immigration restrictions on Southern and Eastern Europeans. What’s your ethnic background? If your heritage can be traced to Southern or Eastern Europe, aren’t you now a hypocrite?

    I care about the future of the earth and the grand diversity of life made by evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and migration. And I want to see that grand diversity persist—in all forms as it exists today—for as long as possible.

    Then stop wasting your time worrying about humans, who are not in anyway threatened. How about working to save endangered animal species instead? The only thing that genuinely threatens human diversity is YOU. That is to say, the diversity of culture and language is threatened by westernization. Traditional cultural practices are being subsumed by the onslaught. Languages are going extinct. You are focusing on non-existing problems while ignoring real problems.

    Diversity does not “promote peace”, it promotes instability in a neighborhood bringing negative effects along with it.

    Diversity does promote peace. It was not uncommon for people to be lynched for no reason in non-diverse America. That doesn’t happen today in a more diverse America. There was even an incident in which 9 Italians were lynched. They were lynched because they appeared to be completely alien to their attackers. Do you think they would’ve lynched those Italians if they had known Italians, if they had interacted with Italians, if they had married into Italian families, etc? Of course not. Once again, diversity promotes peace.

    Like

    • iffen says:

      “This sounds exactly like the rhetoric used to promote immigration restrictions on Southern and Eastern Europeans. What’s your ethnic background? If your heritage can be traced to Southern or Eastern Europe, aren’t you now a hypocrite?”

      Taking a position against further immigration into the US in 2016 is not the same thing as being okay with the fact that we have had prior immigration into the US.

      “… the diversity of culture and language is threatened by westernization. Traditional cultural practices are being subsumed by the onslaught. Languages are going extinct.”

      If this is true and one thinks of it as a bad thing, one should be opposed to immigration from less-developed countries. One should worry that our (the US) immigration policies are negatively impacting the immigrants’ home societies by drawing off capable people who could help keep the language, culture, etc. going.

      “Once again, diversity promotes peace.”

      Diversity does not promote peace. Diversity provides more fault lines for conflict.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      The facts don’t support what you’re saying. Tens of millions of East Asians have been killed by other East Asians. People are always going to find reasons to fight and to be in conflict with each other. Even families can be at each other’s throats.

      I don’t disagree. But ethnic diversity makes things worse as seen in Putnam’s research.

      This sounds exactly like the rhetoric used to promote immigration restrictions on Southern and Eastern Europeans. What’s your ethnic background? If your heritage can be traced to Southern or Eastern Europe, aren’t you now a hypocrite?

      My family emigrated from Italy in the 1900s. Even then, Southern Europeans acclimate to American culture. I’m not a hypocrite. My family came to America for a better life and got that better life and acclimated into American culture. Can’t say the same for other immigrant groups who stay in their ethnic enclaves amongst themselves and never acclimate to the native culture of the country.

      Then stop wasting your time worrying about humans, who are not in anyway threatened. How about working to save endangered animal species instead? The only thing that genuinely threatens human diversity is YOU. That is to say, the diversity of culture and language is threatened by westernization. Traditional cultural practices are being subsumed by the onslaught. Languages are going extinct. You are focusing on non-existing problems while ignoring real problems.

      I’m a huge proponent of pulling our Westernized way of life out of the rest of the world. We don’t need to force our way of life on others, since if our way of life were good to them then they would have picked it up independently. However, institutions of a country are partly genetic in nature and come down to ancestral evolution.

      As I said previously, I believe we should protect all diversity of life on earth. From humans to non-intelligent animals. That’s what makes earth so great, our diversity and it’d be dad to see it go.

      Diversity does promote peace. It was not uncommon for people to be lynched for no reason in non-diverse America. That doesn’t happen today in a more diverse America. There was even an incident in which 9 Italians were lynched. They were lynched because they appeared to be completely alien to their attackers. Do you think they would’ve lynched those Italians if they had known Italians, if they had interacted with Italians, if they had married into Italian families, etc? Of course not. Once again, diversity promotes peace.

      This is a common misconception about that incident. They were lynched because they killed a police officer, not because they were of a “different race”. They were acquitted of the killing and got dragged out of the jail and lynched.

      Like

  8. Chinedu says:

    I personally hope this leads to a renaissance of race-realism in America

    I think the term you’re looking for is cultural realism or socio-economic realism. The vast majority of white working class Trump voters would not be welcome in the same circles that Trump himself travels in. Most upper class and upper middle-class whites are going to be more welcoming of non-whites that are part of their class over white hillbillies and rednecks. In the same way, successful blacks are not welcoming of low-class, ghettoized blacks.

    Like

    • iffen says:

      I think that you are correct with regard to your comments about class differences.

      RR seems to think that “giving up the Blank Slate” will automatically supercharge certain ethnocentric and race-centric political feelings that will overwhelm all other political inclinations.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      @Chinedu

      I think the term you’re looking for is cultural realism or socio-economic realism.

      Thanks for the correction.

      The vast majority of white working class Trump voters would not be welcome in the same circles that Trump himself travels in. Most upper class and upper middle-class whites are going to be more welcoming of non-whites that are part of their class over white hillbillies and rednecks. In the same way, successful blacks are not welcoming of low-class, ghettoized blacks.

      I agree with you. There is still phenotypic matching going on there as people still match by IQ, a heritable trait.

      My point being, whites that are racially aware will come to race-realism. It seems that normal every day Joes and Janes would be more likely to support their interests in the face of more diversity, but the richer people, even if they’re high in ethnic identification themselves will live nestled away from the grand diversity in America. Only once exposed to it in a grand scale will the few who are low in ethnic identification (remember, in the study whites low on ethnic identification still supported Democratic policies and still supported immigration while being more likely to not vote for Trump).

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      @iffen

      RR seems to think that “giving up the Blank Slate” will automatically supercharge certain ethnocentric and race-centric political feelings that will overwhelm all other political inclinations.

      I think that giving up the Blank Slate will have us accept sensible immigration policy as a whole, maybe IQ tests for immigration and numerous background checks for one. I’m not saying that race will overrun class loyalty, but I believe that whites will, somewhat, start to vote as a racial group for white interests in America eventually, especially now that immigration from MENA countries will increase here soon.

      Like

  9. Chinedu says:

    I don’t disagree. But ethnic diversity makes things worse as seen in Putnam’s research.

    No it doesn’t. It can’t get much worse than the brutal bloodletting that has characterized the history of East Asia. The point I’m trying to make to you is that there’s no genetic buffer that prevents people of the same ethnicity from wreaking violence on each other. If you have a situation of genetic uniformity people will simply find other reasons to fight. You don’t have to take my word for it, simply look at the historical record.

    My family emigrated from Italy in the 1900s. Even then, Southern Europeans acclimate to American culture. I’m not a hypocrite.

    Italians haven’t assimilated any more or any less than other ethnic group. There is still a very strong Italian identity among today’s Italian-Americans. They have a distinct sub-culture. There are still Italian pressure groups in existence and some Italians are demanding Affirmative Action and protected group status even to this day.

    And, by the way, it’s not so much that Italians assimilated but that American society became more accepting and inclusive. Part of that was because of the black American civil rights struggle which tended to help all non-WASP people. So again, the diversity you are decrying has redounded to your benefit. You are indeed a hypocrite. You want to shut down immigration after your own people were let through. And as soon as your group had finally received social acceptance you want to deny the same acceptance to others that are currently struggling.

    Can’t say the same for other immigrant groups who stay in their ethnic enclaves amongst themselves and never acclimate to the native culture of the country.

    Which groups would that be? I know of no immigrant community that hasn’t Americanized after one or two generations. If you know of any, cite them. Immigrants congregate among their own as a matter of survival. Norwegians are the whitest people on earth, yet they congregated among their own in Minnesota and the Dakotas. If whiter than white people did it, why would you expect anything less from non-white immigrants? Also bear in mind that lack of social acceptance is what promotes ghettoization. That’s precisely what happened with Italians until bearers against them began to come down.

    I’m a huge proponent of pulling our Westernized way of life out of the rest of the world. We don’t need to force our way of life on others, since if our way of life were good to them then they would have picked it up independently.

    This is naive. Even the French complain about American culture displacing their own. It’s not a question of choice. For example, at this point in history everyone needs to learn English in order to function. So it’s not a choice, it’s a mandate.

    However, institutions of a country are partly genetic in nature and come down to ancestral evolution.

    How so? And can you provide evidence to support this that is not pseudoscience?

    As I said previously, I believe we should protect all diversity of life on earth. From humans to non-intelligent animals.

    Humans are not threatened. Human cultures and languages are threatened. If a black kid is born in Italy and speaks Italian and acts Italian, to me he’s Italian. Italian culture and language will endure via that black kid. But if Italians go to Africa, set up their own enclaves, never assimilate, never learn local languages and instead attempt to force their own culture, language and lifestyle on the locals, therein lies a problem. This has pretty much been the European methodology in Africa and elsewhere. And it’s why Europeans have been the greatest destroyers of human diversity on the planet.

    This is a common misconception about that incident. They were lynched because they killed a police officer, not because they were of a “different race”. They were acquitted of the killing and got dragged out of the jail and lynched

    But it wouldn’t have happened to a bunch of Englishmen, would it?

    Like

    • iffen says:

      “Italians haven’t assimilated any more or any less than other ethnic group.”

      This is incorrect. Immigrant groups vary in the intensity and completeness of their assimilation.

      “However, institutions of a country are partly genetic in nature and come down to ancestral evolution.”

      “How so? And can you provide evidence to support this”

      Haiti. Detroit.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      No it doesn’t.

      Read Putnam’s paper, E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture

      The point I’m trying to make to you is that there’s no genetic buffer that prevents people of the same ethnicity from wreaking violence on each other. If you have a situation of genetic uniformity people will simply find other reasons to fight. You don’t have to take my word for it, simply look at the historical record.

      I believe you. Of course there is no ‘genetic buffer’. However, psychologists Daly and Wilson discovered that the offender and victim are genetically related in only 1.8 percent of all homicides. Therefore, 98 percent of all murders are killings of people who do not share the killer’s genes. This is for America, and this shows that unrelated people kill each other more than related people. This will increase with more diversity.

      There is still a very strong Italian identity among today’s Italian-Americans. They have a distinct sub-culture.

      Right. But there are stark differences when comparing Italian immigrants to other immigrants to America. Even then, Italians still assimilate.

      There are still Italian pressure groups in existence and some Italians are demanding Affirmative Action and protected group status even to this day.

      Source?

      And, by the way, it’s not so much that Italians assimilated but that American society became more accepting and inclusive. Part of that was because of the black American civil rights struggle which tended to help all non-WASP people. So again, the diversity you are decrying has redounded to your benefit. You are indeed a hypocrite. You want to shut down immigration after your own people were let through. And as soon as your group had finally received social acceptance you want to deny the same acceptance to others that are currently struggling.

      I believe all Americans (re: Americans, not illegals) should have all of the same rights. I want to ‘shut down’ immigration into the country because 1) it’d be better for us as a country since we could then begin to (hopefully) put our country first and 2) the human capital leaving the third-world countries won’t contribute to the brain drain of those lands and the average intelligence won’t fall, further bringing them into turmoil.

      Which groups would that be? I know of no immigrant community that hasn’t Americanized after one or two generations. If you know of any, cite them. Immigrants congregate among their own as a matter of survival. Norwegians are the whitest people on earth, yet they congregated among their own in Minnesota and the Dakotas. If whiter than white people did it, why would you expect anything less from non-white immigrants?

      Mexicans and Muslims, for one.

      Your other points prove a basis for genetic similarity theory, that people want to congregate with phenotypically similar others because they have a higher chance of being genetically similar.

      Also bear in mind that lack of social acceptance is what promotes ghettoization. That’s precisely what happened with Italians until bearers against them began to come down.

      Lack of social acceptance in what way?

      This is naive. Even the French complain about American culture displacing their own. It’s not a question of choice. For example, at this point in history everyone needs to learn English in order to function. So it’s not a choice, it’s a mandate.

      I said that I agree with you. I think America should pull out of MENA countries, stop giving aid to Israel and stop pushing our culture on others around the world and become isolationist.

      How so? And can you provide evidence to support this that is not pseudoscience?

      Check out Nicholas Wade on Francis Fukuyama’s work.

      Also to get an idea of Fukuyama, read The Decay of American Political Institutions.

      And if you have time give this a watch.

      Human cultures and languages are threatened.

      Language has a small to 0 correlation with genetic structure. However, culture, though it has a large Lamarckian aspect, is largely genetic in nature.

      If a black kid is born in Italy and speaks Italian and acts Italian, to me he’s Italian. Italian culture and language will endure via that black kid.

      I mean, yea the culture and way of life would endure, but that child will not be an ‘Italian’, as Italians have distinct genomes from other European ethnies. He’d be an African living in Italy who’s only ‘Italian’ because he was born there.

      But if Italians go to Africa, set up their own enclaves, never assimilate, never learn local languages and instead attempt to force their own culture, language and lifestyle on the locals, therein lies a problem. This has pretty much been the European methodology in Africa and elsewhere.

      I think that’s wrong. I call this out with my own country. Refer back to my points on the US and MENA countries. We should leave every country and culture ‘as is’ and not meddle in them. I love the diversity of earth and I don’t want to see any of it go away (if we can help it).

      But it wouldn’t have happened to a bunch of Englishmen, would it?

      I don’t think so. But it wasn’t because the Italians were not looked at as ‘white’. It’s because even though they were acquitted, the townspeople took matters into their own hands.

      Like

  10. Chinedu says:

    I agree with you. There is still phenotypic matching going on there as people still match by IQ, a heritable trait.

    So according to that theory high IQ blacks and high IQ whites are genetically convergent. If indeed you are not a racist and given your fixation on IQ why don’t you support social groupings based exclusively on IQ, regardless of race? Why are you constantly in the weeds searching for pseudoscientific claptrap that supports separation based on race?

    My point being, whites that are racially aware will come to race-realism.

    No they won’t. Race realism is pseudoscience that is easily rebutted and refuted. You’ll need alot more than cherrypicked correlations and confirmation biases to convince even semi-intelligent whites to embrace race realism. You seem to believe that your views are somehow settled science when in fact any 8 year old could pick your theories apart.

    Look, you’re like a dinosaur swimming against the tide. With each passing day the world becomes more diverse and more accepting of other traditions. Trump isn’t going to change that. And, by the way, Trump is neither a white nationalist nor a white supremacist nor a race realist.

    Like

    • iffen says:

      “Race realism is pseudoscience that is easily rebutted and refuted.”

      This is incorrect, that little chart at the top of RR’s page showing black American and white American IQ distribution is a settled scientific fact.

      Like

  11. Chinedu says:

    This is incorrect. Immigrant groups vary in the intensity and completeness of their assimilation.

    Give me examples. Whose assimilation has been less intense and less complete than Italians? Mexicans? Not so. I know of no second generation Mexican Americans that speak fluent Spanish, even though it would be in their interest to do so. Who else? Arabs? Nope. Chinese? Nope. Africans? That’s my heritage and I can tell you those Africans born here are as American as anyone else.

    Haiti. Detroit.

    You have no evidence that the problems in Haiti and Detroit are caused by genetics. There are historical and societal reasons that offer a more plausible explanation. Moreover, why are you cherrypicking Haiti and Detroit? There are other black countries in the Caribbean that are doing quite well. And there are other majority black communities in the United States that are doing quite well.

    This is what I mean by race realism theories being easily disproved.

    Like

  12. Chinedu says:

    This is incorrect, that little chart at the top of RR’s page showing black American and white American IQ distribution is a settled scientific fact.

    Now show me the scientific consensus that IQ disparities between groups evidences innate intellectual hierarchies. What is settled is that there are IQ differences between various groups (including white/white groups). What is definitely not settled is the idea that that means that one group is genetically smarter than the other. Again, there are more plausible explanations to consider before you make a beeline to genetics, which is actually the least plausible explanation.

    Like

    • iffen says:

      “What is definitely not settled is the idea that that means that one group is genetically smarter than the other.”

      It is definitely settled that higher IQ individuals have better life outcomes in complex modern society.

      Yes, there is a place called West Virginia and a place called Boston, MA.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Now show me the scientific consensus that IQ disparities between groups evidences innate intellectual hierarchies.

      What Do IQ Researchers Think About Race and Intelligence?

      Genetic differences are the least plausible explanation? Are you saying that there are absolutely no genetic differences between the races? If so, that makes you pretty extreme in your views. Culture-only hypothesis is not viable, at all.

      Who says that culture-only is viable?

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      Yeah, there is a genetic component to intelligence. So what?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      And of that genetic component to intelligence, would you say some of that involves racial gaps in intelligence or do you hold that evolution stopped from the neck up 50 kya?

      Like

  13. iffen says:

    “There are historical and societal reasons that offer a more plausible explanation. ”

    Oh, that’s right. I forgot that France insisted that Haiti pay compensation which set the economic development of Haiti back something like a 1000 years.

    Like

    • Chinedu says:

      Oh, that’s right. I forgot that France insisted that Haiti pay compensation which set the economic development of Haiti back something like a 1000 years.

      That’s one reason. But it wasn’t just France. Black slaves conducted the most successful slave revolt in history and defeated the three strongest European powers in the process. That guaranteed that they would be marked for destruction, particularly by the United States. Although the US should have been grateful since Haiti was responsible for Napoleon fleeing this hemisphere and virtually gifting 1/3 of US territory to the United States.

      But I’m still struck by the fact that you are cheerypicking Haiti while pretending that the more successful black Caribbean countries don’t exist. This kind of cheerypicking is at the heart of why race realism is a joke and a fraud.

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      And of that genetic component to intelligence, would you say some of that involves racial gaps in intelligence or do you hold that evolution stopped from the neck up 50 kya

      THERE ARE NO RACIAL GAPS IN INTELLIGENCE. If such gaps truly existed you wouldn’t have to waste your life trying to convince the world of its existence, because it would be self-evident. There are gaps in group IQ averages. Those gaps don’t necessarily track with race. For example, there is a more than one standard deviation difference between the highest and lowest scoring European countries. There are also group IQ disparities between Northern and Southern white Americans. To say there is a hard, immutable IQ gap between races or between any groups is the height of stupidity. Once someone acculturates to what the IQ test is looking for, scores inevitably rise. Motivation alone can raise scores by more than one standard deviation.

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427171638.htm

      Incentives will also increase scores among low scorers.

      http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/04/iq-and-incentives

      Why would something that is a genetic absolute as you claim, be so wildly susceptible to motivation and incentives? Why do individual and group IQ scores rise if indeed there is a fixed genetic quantity for IQ?

      Like

  14. Chinedu says:

    It is definitely settled that higher IQ individuals have better life outcomes in complex modern society.

    Now you’re backtracking. So you lied about science agreeing with you that IQ equals intelligence. Typical.

    I have no doubt that IQ measures acculturation to certain westernized norms and westernized modernity. But it can be learned and assimilated regardless of race, which means that it is not a measure of the genetic potential for intelligence. If it were, IQ’s would be set in stone for all eternity and would never rise.

    Like

    • iffen says:

      “Now you’re backtracking. So you lied about science agreeing with you that IQ equals intelligence. Typical.”

      If you don’t want an intelligent exchange of ideas and opinions that is okay with me. You made some interesting comments, some of which I thought were on target and some not and decided to engage in conversation. Suit yourself.

      Like

    • iffen says:

      Why would I lie to you. I would have to care what you think before it would be worth my time to lie to you.

      Everyone lies to themselves; it’s part of what makes us human.

      Like

  15. iffen says:

    “pretending that the more successful black Caribbean countries don’t exist. ”

    Okay, I will stop ignoring those modern economic miracles: Cuba and Puerto Rico.

    Like

  16. Chinedu says:

    Okay, I will stop ignoring those modern economic miracles: Cuba and Puerto Rico.

    Cuba and Puerto Rico are not black Caribbean countries. Maybe you’re too dumb for this discussion? Kind of ironic, isn’t it?

    Like

    • iffen says:

      Whether you are “smarter” than me doesn’t have an effect on group differences. Do you not grasp the concept of group differences?

      Like

  17. iffen says:

    From Wiki:

    Physiographically, the Caribbean region is mainly a chain of islands surrounding the Caribbean Sea. To the north, the region is bordered by the Gulf of Mexico, the Straits of Florida and the Northern Atlantic Ocean, which lies to the east and northeast. To the south lies the coastline of the continent of South America.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      He meant majority black Caribbean countries, but they have sizeable African-descended populations and we see the same things in these countries, along with exactly the same in the rest of the Caribbean and the African Diaspora as a whole.

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      He meant majority black Caribbean countries, but they have sizeable African-descended populations and we see the same things in these countries, along with exactly the same in the rest of the Caribbean and the African Diaspora as a whole

      You’re lying again. Countries such as Bahamas , Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Bermuda, etc. are nothing like Haiti. Bermuda, for example, has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, #5 according to the CIA. That’s much higher than the United States and higher than every European country with the exception of Luxembourg and Liechtenstein.

      I don’t know if you lie intentionally to deceive or if you’re so invested in your ridiculous ideology that you’re lying even to yourself.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      The countries you listed are pretty low in GDP.

      And Bermuda is 31 percent white. Point me to a country run by Africans that is successful.

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      And Bermuda is 31 percent white. Point me to a country run by Africans that is successful.

      Typical. When you get debunked you start trolling and talking nonsense.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Bermuda has extremely high levels of tourism. Is that wrong? Moreover, the percentage of whites there means something.

      Can you point me to one modern-day African-run country that is successful?

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      Bermuda has extremely high levels of tourism.

      So does Hong Kong, London and Paris. So what?

      Moreover, the percentage of whites there means something.

      So how come the percentage of whites doesn’t mean much in Albania and Moldova? How come the percentage of whites didn’t mean much when Middle Ages Europe was a barbaric cesspit?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      So does Hong Kong, London and Paris. So what?

      They have more than just their tourism for their economy. The tourist industry accounts for 28 percent of their GDP.

      So how come the percentage of whites doesn’t mean much in Albania and Moldova? How come the percentage of whites didn’t mean much when Middle Ages Europe was a barbaric cesspit?

      I never said that inter-ethnic variation doesn’t exist. Also, civilizations rise and fall. Things stagnate. What about it?

      Africa does look promising, especially if the disease, parasitic load, and malnutrition rate declines.

      Like

  18. […] Source: The Threat of Increasing Diversity: Why Many White Americans Supported Trump in the 2016 Presidentia… […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Jean Baptiste Lamarck

Eva Jablonka

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 268,757 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com
%d bloggers like this: