Diversity kills.
Occidentalist has updated his survey of surveys. Despite radical social changes and a wide variety of testing regimes, American black IQ always tests out one standard deviation below American white IQ. Similar differences in character and criminal propensities are obvious.
How big is one standard deviation?
If you take a random black, and a random white, it means that someone’s race does not tell you a whole lot about which one is smarter, but, in practice, one seldom meets a random black and a random white.
If you have additional information, this is apt to make race more informative, more important, rather than less.
Suppose blacks are affirmative actioned into a diverse elite group, police, academia, etc. Then, because IQ variance between academics is lot less than IQ variance between random whites, almost every black academic will be markedly and strikingly dumber than almost every white academic, meaning that few black academics (in a non elite university no black academics whatever) will be capable of doing the kind of academic things that academics traditionally do. Similarly, in a police force, all or almost all black cops will be markedly more criminal than all or almost all white cops.
This leads to the one rotten apple problem. In a diverse police force, being honest is racist and disloyal to you fellow cops. In diverse academia, doing stuff that requires or demonstrates intelligence and ability is racist, anti scientific, anti intellectual, and so on and so forth.
Supposedly by ending all that horrible discrimination, we have a smarter elite. In practice, the opposite is happening, and no one is allowed to notice, because noticing requires horrible racist assumptions and leads to horrible racist conclusions.
We see a similar result when women are affirmative actioned into jobs requiring upper body physical strength: We get the no lift rule. People, both males and females, are forbidden to use upper body strength. In hospitals, when you need a sick patient lifted up, you cannot call a male nurse, because that would be discrimination. This sometimes results in patients dying. Computer science courses are dumbed down so that females can pass them. The removal of certain aspects of computer science on which men tend to perform very differently to women makes both male students and female students ignorant, makes them both worse off. Not only the males, but also the females would be better off covering those areas, even though the women would perform poorly relative to the males.
In general, whenever you mingle two groups, you get a leveling down to the worst characteristics of both groups, so that the diverse group is worse in important ways to at least one of the unmingled groups, and usually worse in important ways to both of the unmingled groups, partly because there are few groups so uniformly bad that they do not have at least some virtues, and partly because differences in virtues leads to those virtues being deprecated: The no lift rule denies both men and women the use of their upper body strength, making women effectively weaker than they already are. Similarly, in diverse communities, blacks tend to be more criminal than they already are. If we had all female universities, their computer science classes could do those aspects of computer science that are hard for girls without causing embarrassment.
Notoriously, differences, even innocent differences that really do not constitute being better or worse, reduce trust and cooperation, hence heighten the already alarming tendency to criminality of certain races.
Putnam (Bowling Alone) found that diversity not only made whites distrust everyone, it also made blacks distrust everyone, and made blacks behave worse, perhaps everyone behave worse. (Needless to say, he phrased his findings more piously and evasively than that, but the actual meaning of his findings is impious) Not only is interracial trust lower, not only are people more “racist”, but trust and cooperation even within racial groups is also markedly reduced.
It has long been obvious, though strangely unexamined, that the death rate is far higher for whites that live in diverse suburbs. This could, however, be due to factors other than the presence of blacks. Wealthy whites tend to live in suburbs free from diversity. People with dangerous lifestyles are more likely to choose to live in diverse suburbs.
But a recent study reveals that diversity not only kills whites: Diversity may be fatal, says new government health study
Blacks died younger in suburbs where they were a minority, than in suburbs where they were a majority. Similarly for Mestizos. For a given age group, the death rate from cardiovascular disease and so forth was about double. Now one might rationalize this away as a wealth effect. Perhaps more affluent blacks eat more than less affluent blacks, and so die sooner – but then one must argue that in the same suburb, poverty causes the higher death rate among the whites, and affluence the higher death rate among the blacks.
Race segregation is not only good for whites. It is also good for blacks. Gender segregation is not only good for boys, it is good for girls.
I notice that actual busing has been fading away, replaced by teaching students how wonderful busing was and what a gigantic step forward in humanity and civilization it was. It is time for desegregation to get the same treatment. In my own experience, black software engineers educated at traditionally black universities are better than black software engineers educated at white universities.
The Caliphate organized government not by geographic zone, but primarily by race, culture and religion, so that Christians governed Christians, and operated under Christian law, Jews governed Jews, and operated under Jewish law. Homogeneity is efficient, and less stressful to everyone involved.
As I write this, I have just eaten a pineapple I purchased at unmanned stand in the middle of the wilderness. There were pineapples and such on the stand, and a box with a slit in it. I grabbed six pineapples, and put the appropriate amount of money in the box. This is possible, because this is a rural area that is overwhelmingly white, and what few nonwhites are around are Vietnamese or Thai. It is a lot less stressful here. It really is more comfortable and less stressful to not to be around dangerous outgroups. And those that say they are just fine being around dangerous outgroups nonetheless, strangely, have a markedly higher death rate, not only from violence, but from diseases that are arguably stress related.
The left libertarian position is that admission to various select groups should be race and gender blind, based only on test results.
The realist libertarian position is that admission to various select groups should take all evidence into account in a Bayesian manner, considering race, gender, and parental performance as well as test results, since test results do not in fact correlate all that well with performance. A white with the same test results as a black will nonetheless usually perform better at the kind of activities that whites perform better than blacks.
Even the realist libertarian position, however, overlooks the fact that community is an important source of well being and effective performance. If we took the realist libertarian or left libertarian position on sporting activities, there would be few sporting activities for girls. The left which normally totally rejects all segregation, makes an unprincipled exception for girls’ sports.
Let us have, as we had before 1950, a black middle class educated at traditionally black universities to rule the black suburbs, black businessmen protected from white competition by segregation and from the black underclass by black police and black judges backed by white police and white judges, and whites protected from black crime. Segregation worked. Desegregation has been immensely hurtful for everyone, and hurtful most of all for the most able blacks, who instead of getting protected jobs running their fellow blacks, jobs protected from white competition, but nonetheless real jobs producing real value, get affirmative action jobs filling a racial quota while white males do the actual work, which jobs are merely well paid welfare, and have the destructive effects that welfare always does.
The protection of black middle class jobs by segregation produced an important externality. Back in the days of segregation the black middle class kept the black underclass in line. In this, black middle class people were doing a job that white middle class people could not do as effectively. The black universities propagated white values, white discipline, white skills white knowledge into black society via a white created black middle class which intermediated between the white community and the black community.
Maintaining community is hard. Maintaining a mixed race or mixed culture community is considerably harder. Community is a source of value that is hard to incorporate into a strictly individualistic analysis. The left are big fans of communitarianism, but if one wants community, one needs homogeneity. If it takes a village to raise a child, this does not imply that fathers are dispensable and should be ordered out of their homes, which is the conclusion the left expects you to deduce. It implies that everyone in the village should be related, that blood matters, which is the opposite of the meaning that leftists would like. Indeed, if it takes a village to raise a child this has implications so horribly right wing that the likelihood of feuding and genocide worries even me. Perhaps even if it does take a village to raise a child, we should be politically correct and pretend otherwise. Strictly nuclear families are less likely to get people killed.
Statistics are off on blacks, IQs in general and economics. . no counter on any points, only Klan Members and Aryan nation members point of views.
[…] The damage caused by diversity « Jim’s Blog […]
The academic and economic performance disparity between black-, or otherwise race-based- (i.e. “minority”), community(-ies), and that of whites, can be explained without appealing to race.
As a culture, they are raised on Marxist economics (welfare, anti-trust, etc.), and they are told that the relative poverty which results from this is the fault of whitey.
The government interventions which provide them what they think they need are actually responsible for their relative poverty.
For example, the minimum wage causes unemployment by making it cost-prohibitive to hire unskilled labor.
Thus, the plight of non-whites (who view themselves as belonging to a class that’s based on color) is recursive: Their Marxist worldview causes them to have a lower standard of living, and as a result they have a harder lifestyle and are more willing to commit crimes.
Not completely.
Leftist brainwashing certainly makes things a lot worse for blacks and without it they’d be a lot better off, but they still wouldn’t be as rich as whites.
1. The inferiority of blacks and assorted other group differences long predates Marxism
2. Most blacks would not know Marx from a dog that bit them.
3. Darwinism predicts that race is more than skin deep. We would not expect different kinds to be equal.
4. Do you think that black superiority in Olympic running sports and the snatchpurse run is also cultural?
I notice that feminists tend to claim that all areas where women are inferior to men, it is because of oppression, whereas in areas where women are superior to men, it is because women are just naturally superior.
Are you going to argue that blacks really do have a superior sense of smell, but do not have inferior brains?
You don’t have to know who Marx is in order to adopt Marxist economic beliefs.
For example, you yourself have claimed something to the effect that hard work is where prosperity comes from. But this ignores the wealth that can be created by serving the free market’s time preference needs through loans.
(I should quickly add that the damage to the economy that bankers, today, cause, is a result of fiat money and Cantillon Effects, and not banking or loaning, per se.)
Now, part of your view is based on the Labor Theory of Value, where a job isn’t legitimate unless it involves hard work. As well, you seem to agree, from what I have been able to gather, that all money is fiat, or contrived, in the sense it doesn’t really matter what the money is, so long as people agree to it.
Both of these views are Marxian. I don’t consider you anywhere near being a Marxist, by the way.
Of course, Marxist thinking didn’t start with Marx. People have believed these kinds of things before he was born.
This is why it’s not necessarily conclusive to point to pre-Marx blacks and assorted other group differences to rule out economic beliefs as a cause of their relative poverty (and associated behaviors) to the point of adopting the belief that genes are the main factor.
Also there is something amiss in saying that genes can cause us to behave or believe in certain ways, as if there is no free agency involved in behavior; as if scientific determinism can account for such things.
Must we only ever do and believe that which is a consequence of our physical genes? If so, then everything is moot since we are, in a sense, predestined to do and believe this or that on a schedule.
Wrapping up this comment, I’d like to share an article, from a black professor, about the meaningless of “diversity”:
Stubborn Ignorance by Walter E. Williams
http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams134.html
There are frequent large changes in economic beliefs: The education system is primarily an indoctrination system, primarily targeted at the smartest people. Over history and over various nations there have been radical changes in the education system, without radical changes in relative black performance.
Leftist beliefs tend to cause dysfunctional behavior, as, for example, the dysfunction on display at “Occupy Wall Street”, and Haiti under the rule of the “NGOs”, but large changes in belief system have not resulted in large changes in the difference between black and white behavior.
Does belief in marxism cause the average brain of a black person to have 80 fewer cubic centimeters of volume than the average white person?
What he describes fits large areas of Oregon outside Portland.
I too am a big proponent of segregation. It simply sucks less than any realistic alternative.
Great post; so where do you live? I want to move there.
This post approaches the aphorism density of an essay by Chesterton.