The Final Solution
August 18th, 2004, 12:10 PM
Two-Headed Coins or Kandinskys: Whites’ Notions of Identity and Community
Cara Wong & Grace Cho
University of Michigan Center for Political Studies
http://www.polisci.umn.edu/polipsyc/about/events/papers2/wong_cho.pdf
These days it seems only Asians can get away with discussing Race as other than a social construct. This study, albeit very PC, offers some provocative findings of potential significance for WN:
--About half of Whites identify as such. Identification is defined as minimally as I've ever seen: closeness and similarity. Thus half of Whites do not even feel they are similar to other Whites.
--10% of Whites sympathize with negros. negro sympathy is defined similary to White identification. The vast majority of negro sympathizers are also White identifiers. Thus, White identity is largely consistent with closeness and even perceived similarity to negros. Indeed, the degree of warmth toward fellow Whites predicts even warmer feelings toward negros.
--White identity is strongest in the young, well-educated and affluent.
--negro sympathy is strongest among poor Whites and (separately) the well-educated.
--White identity per se predicts only a small negative effect on support for government aid for minorities and views of the snivel rights movement.
--negro sympathy, by contrast, predicts a large pro-negro effect on the same Racial political views, even among the bulk of negro symathizers with White identity. Another study is cited to the effect that Whites do not perceive even affirmative action as a conflict of interest.
--The authors are a bit concerned that the "ephemeral" nature of White identity could be radicalized by "demagogues" in order to do harm to non-Whites (like the authors!), but as a whole they are gratified by the fact that negro sympathy is a much more salient force than White identity.
What I find most fascinating is the finding that Racial politics is perceived as non-conflictual, which belief, except in the case of affirmative action (which sucks for Asians), the authors themselves seem to share. After all, the answer to the question of who pays for government aid to minorities should be as obvious as who loses admissions and jobs due to affirmative action. Especially in the case of the well-educated negro sympathizers, this paradox does great violence to various dogmas surrounding human rationality and the pursuit of self, let alone group interests.
These types of anomalies tend to result from some systematic cognitive biases now well-documented in behavioral economics. Without getting technical, it seems to me that when a White man is supporting aid to minorities and affirmative action, he is thinking of himself as a fair, non-hating, non-Racist, and has simply excluded from current thought his interests as a taxpayer or potential college or job applicant. (This could also be one reason why there is so little resistance to foreign aid for the zionist entity.)
This type of thinking suggests to me that Victor Gerhard's libbertoon correspondent didn't go nearly far enough: it is not that the culture doesn't value truth, it is that the (White) human mind has great difficulty processing truth, especially when complex, unconventional or unpopular. This is well-known to marketers, who sell products more commonly based on an "identity" than on actual product features. As the anti-smoking movement has learned, once the identity is established, it is extroadinarily hard to break through factual persuasion, and is really only amenable to offering an attractive alternative identity.
Seemingly as a result of the effects of Catholic/Christian theology and the kindred propaganda of the judenpresse, the vast majority of Whites now have an identity that either makes no reference whatsoever to Whiteness or finds Whiteness more consistent with the interests of negroes and jews than of Whites. If we look at the few instances where minority interests have been successfully challenged, we find that the facets of identity appealed to were neither Racism, which is negatively valued, or White interests, which either lack salience or Whites just find plain embarrasing. Proposition 187 was marketed based on the simple principle of legality, and 209 on the basis of fairness, both of which most Whites still believe in.
If most Whites require a veneer of respectability to assert White interests, is the vast and improbable undertaking of tearing down the veneer a higher priority than achievement of practical White objectives?
Cara Wong & Grace Cho
University of Michigan Center for Political Studies
http://www.polisci.umn.edu/polipsyc/about/events/papers2/wong_cho.pdf
These days it seems only Asians can get away with discussing Race as other than a social construct. This study, albeit very PC, offers some provocative findings of potential significance for WN:
--About half of Whites identify as such. Identification is defined as minimally as I've ever seen: closeness and similarity. Thus half of Whites do not even feel they are similar to other Whites.
--10% of Whites sympathize with negros. negro sympathy is defined similary to White identification. The vast majority of negro sympathizers are also White identifiers. Thus, White identity is largely consistent with closeness and even perceived similarity to negros. Indeed, the degree of warmth toward fellow Whites predicts even warmer feelings toward negros.
--White identity is strongest in the young, well-educated and affluent.
--negro sympathy is strongest among poor Whites and (separately) the well-educated.
--White identity per se predicts only a small negative effect on support for government aid for minorities and views of the snivel rights movement.
--negro sympathy, by contrast, predicts a large pro-negro effect on the same Racial political views, even among the bulk of negro symathizers with White identity. Another study is cited to the effect that Whites do not perceive even affirmative action as a conflict of interest.
--The authors are a bit concerned that the "ephemeral" nature of White identity could be radicalized by "demagogues" in order to do harm to non-Whites (like the authors!), but as a whole they are gratified by the fact that negro sympathy is a much more salient force than White identity.
What I find most fascinating is the finding that Racial politics is perceived as non-conflictual, which belief, except in the case of affirmative action (which sucks for Asians), the authors themselves seem to share. After all, the answer to the question of who pays for government aid to minorities should be as obvious as who loses admissions and jobs due to affirmative action. Especially in the case of the well-educated negro sympathizers, this paradox does great violence to various dogmas surrounding human rationality and the pursuit of self, let alone group interests.
These types of anomalies tend to result from some systematic cognitive biases now well-documented in behavioral economics. Without getting technical, it seems to me that when a White man is supporting aid to minorities and affirmative action, he is thinking of himself as a fair, non-hating, non-Racist, and has simply excluded from current thought his interests as a taxpayer or potential college or job applicant. (This could also be one reason why there is so little resistance to foreign aid for the zionist entity.)
This type of thinking suggests to me that Victor Gerhard's libbertoon correspondent didn't go nearly far enough: it is not that the culture doesn't value truth, it is that the (White) human mind has great difficulty processing truth, especially when complex, unconventional or unpopular. This is well-known to marketers, who sell products more commonly based on an "identity" than on actual product features. As the anti-smoking movement has learned, once the identity is established, it is extroadinarily hard to break through factual persuasion, and is really only amenable to offering an attractive alternative identity.
Seemingly as a result of the effects of Catholic/Christian theology and the kindred propaganda of the judenpresse, the vast majority of Whites now have an identity that either makes no reference whatsoever to Whiteness or finds Whiteness more consistent with the interests of negroes and jews than of Whites. If we look at the few instances where minority interests have been successfully challenged, we find that the facets of identity appealed to were neither Racism, which is negatively valued, or White interests, which either lack salience or Whites just find plain embarrasing. Proposition 187 was marketed based on the simple principle of legality, and 209 on the basis of fairness, both of which most Whites still believe in.
If most Whites require a veneer of respectability to assert White interests, is the vast and improbable undertaking of tearing down the veneer a higher priority than achievement of practical White objectives?