What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Grave & Gathering Danger of White Racism

Liberal dogma tells us that the differences between the races of man (assuming, for the moment, that such races exist at all) are only skin deep. To challenge that dogma too openly is to commit professional suicide.

But why? What's the big deal?

The problem is that, in the past, claims of racial "inferiority" have been used to justify some of the worst crimes of history - above all, American slavery and Nazi genocide. So shouldn't we suppress any research and/or expressions of opinion that could be interpreted as supporting claims of racial "inferiority?"

True, slavery and genocide don't seem to threaten, at the moment, here in the U.S. But still: mightn't such research and/or such expressions of opinion embolden the racist perpetrators of "hate crimes?" And aren't racist "hate crimes" a grave and gathering danger?

So we're invited to believe, by this FBI report and its attendant coverage in the press:

"Hate crime incidents rose nearly 8 percent last year, the FBI reported Monday, as civil rights advocates increasingly take to the streets to protest what they call official indifference to intimidation and attacks against blacks and other minorities."

And the numbers are, indeed, alarming. The FBI confirms no fewer than 7,722 hate crimes in 2006 - up from 7163 in 2005. And 2,640 of these crimes were "anti-black," compared to only 890 that were "anti-white."

But wait. Just exactly how alarming are these numbers, really? Do they warrant fears of a return to widespread racial oppression? And do they justify the suppression of opinions about racial differences that might give aid and comfort to those who pine for a return to the days of slavery and genocide? I don't think so.

The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program (UCR) is also responsible for a comprehensive report on "Crime in the United States" based, like the hate crimes report, on crimes brought to the attention of law enforcement agencies. According to this report, there were more than 11 million crimes in the U.S. in 2006, including an estimated 1,417,745 violent crimes (defined as murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault). So hate crimes account for just under .07% of all crimes, and violent hate crimes (defined the same way) account for just over .07% of all violent crimes.

That's seven one-hundredths of one percent - i.e., about one in fourteen hundred. Hardly an epidemic.

But perhaps this underestimates the scale of the problem. Perhaps the biases of American law enforcement agencies lead them to under-report the true extent of hate crimes - and especially anti-black hate crimes.

Fortunately, the Justice Department administers another program that produces reports on crime in America, including one on hate crimes, based not on reports by law enforcement agencies, but on "a nationally representative sample of 77,200 households comprising nearly 134,000 persons": the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

And, sure enough, when you ask the victims of crime rather than law enforcement, the number of hate crimes skyrockets. Where the UCR reports 7,722 incidents, the NCVS claims "an annual average of 210,000 hate crime victimizations." Moreover, the NCVS puts the percentage of violent hate crimes at about 3% of all violent crimes - a far cry from the .07% found by the UCR.

Now part of the difference is simply that the UCR understandably excludes crimes that go unreported to law enforcement - and only about 44% of hate crimes ever get reported. But the rest of the difference is due to law enforcement rejecting victims' claims that they have been subject to a hate crime. So might this be a route for anti-black bias to creep into the FBI's statistics?

Consider: according to the NCVS, blacks are victims of hate crimes at an annual rate of 0.7 per thousand ("Hate Crime Reported by Victims and Police," table 8). Given the black population of about 36 million, that works out to an annual count of about 25,200 victimizations. Of these, 50.9%, or about 12,827, are perceived by the victim as anti-black - i.e., motivated by his or her race (ibid., p. 6). If 44% of these were reported to law enforcement, then about 5,644 victimizations perceived by the victim as anti-black hate crimes would have been so reported. But the UCR puts the number of anti-black hate crimes in 2006 at only 2,640.

So, apparently, law enforcement accepts as anti-black hate crimes only about 47% of reported victimizations perceived by the victim as anti-black.

Ah-ha! you say.

But now lets run the same calculations for whites. According to the NCVS, whites are victims of hate crimes at an annual rate of 0.9 per thousand. Given the white population of about 200 million, that works out to an annual count of about 180,000 victimizations. Of these, 54.7%, or about 98,460, are perceived by the victim as anti-white - i.e., motivated by his or her race. If 44% of these were reported to law enforcement, than about 43,322 victimizations perceived by the victim as anti-white hate crimes would have been so reported. But the UCR puts the number of anti-white hate crimes in 2006 at only 890.

So, apparently, law enforcement accepts as anti-white hate crimes only about 2% of reported victimizations perceived by the victim as anti-white.

In which case we may conclude that law enforcement agencies are more than twenty times as likely to accept and confirm the perceptions of blacks compared to whites that they have been the victims of hate-crimes.

So much for the biases of American law enforcement agencies.

In fact, it turns out that the main reason the NCVS detects so much more hate crime than the UCR is simply because it takes anti-white hate crime so much more seriously. It reports more than a hundred times as much anti-white hate crime, but less than five times as much anti-black hate crime.

Anyway, all things considered, I don't think that the available data on hate crimes supports the view that white racism is a grave and gathering danger that calls for preemptive strikes on the reputations and careers of people like the hapless James D. Watson. If anything, it suggests that garden variety non-hate crime is an overwhelmingly greater problem for everybody - blacks and whites alike - than hate crime. And we can't solve that problem if we can't research and discuss its root causes - all of its root causes - openly and honestly.

Comments (55)

Steve--
I don't think that the research that Watson got burned for citing is likely to increase the incidence of hate crimes. What it is likely to increase is discrimination of various kinds against Blacks in the public sector; schooling, jobs, housing, etc.
Watson got in trouble for accurately mentioning that the research shows Blacks to have a lower average IQ than Whites, and Asians. But Jews are also the victims of hate crimes. And the same research shows that they are on average more intelligent than other whites. At least the Ashkenazi are. Do we expect more hate crimes by anti-Semites, based on that? Or do we even expect more discrimation against Jews, based on that? I don't think so.
I agree with you that regular, garden variety crime is a much bigger problem than hate crime. I also agree with you that Watson got shafted for being imprudent enough to speak politically incorrect truth to the media. But I also think that there is a real danger latent in the numbers about which Watson spoke.

Were anti-Jewish crimes being tabulated as something _other_ than anti-white? I can't tell from the one chart I saw. One of the many problems with a report of this sort is the overlap in categories. For example, anti-Jewish is categorized as "religious" rather than "racial." But does anyone think a guy out to shoot people at the El Al airport terminal would stop if a potential victim yelled, "Wait! I'm not a religious Jew! I'm an atheist!"?

Lydia--
I don't know. But my point was that hate crimes tend to be generated (I think) by factors other than intelligence.
But the data of which Watson spoke, if misused, could lead to some very devastating kinds of discrimination against Blacks (such as "Why bother with college outreach programs in the inner-city? Or why spend money on rememdiation for that group?)
Jews, although they are also victims of hate crimes, do not have to cope with that kind of issue.

'For example, anti-Jewish is categorized as "religious" rather than "racial."'

Well, we all know that it's not religious, don't we?

Actually, under Jewish law, it isn't. You are a Jew if your mother was a Jew. You can be an atheist and a Jew quite easily, and I'm sure many an atheist went to the ovens.

And we can't solve that problem if we can't research and discuss its root causes - all of its root causes - openly and honestly.

OK. What are its root causes? Please list them in order of importance.

Step2: I'd like to see your answer to your own question.

Can anybody play?

1) Chronic material poverty

2) Chronic cultural poverty

3) Chronic hopelessness, alienation, rage

4) Inadequate education

5) Fetal cognitive impairment due to poor maternal diet and/or drug and/or alcohol abuse.

6) Residual institutional racism

"You can be an atheist and a Jew quite easily, and I'm sure many an atheist went to the ovens."

Yes, as did some Jews who had converted to Christianity. Wasn't this the case with the family of the philosopher, Wittgenstein?

It seems to me that suppressed truth has a way of polarizing things, often with very dangerous consequences. Often the shipwreck occurs between the Scylla of universality and the Charybdis of particularity.

Historically the truth that blacks have every bit as much human dignity as whites was suppressed. Now, in significant part as a reactionary thing, the truth that there are intrinsic differences between races that matter in the aggregate domain of policy - and which have nothing to do with racism, i.e. the suppression referred to previously - is being suppressed. In the words of the Prophet Townshend, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

"...meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Zippy--
The difference is that the "old boss" didn't have the weight of peer-reviewed scientific literature threatening to kick down the door that he had closed and bolted against the problem.
I have yet to hear exactly how any of the persons who insist on shouting the full truth from the rooftops plan to deal with the inevitable blow-back, on the one hand, or construct a practical application, on the other.
It's fine and noble to insist that the truth will out; but then what?
I say, the truth is out there now; but there is no need to amplify it, and no prudence involved in its amplification.

The difference is that the "old boss" didn't have the weight of peer-reviewed scientific literature threatening to kick down the door that he had closed and bolted against the problem.

I agree that that is a problem in a world which worships at the feet of the idol scientism/positivism. But scientism is itself just another instance of the repression of truth.

I say, the truth is out there now; but there is no need to amplify it, and no prudence involved in its amplification.

I actually agree (write down the date!); but there is a clear and basic difference between refraining from shouting a particular truth from the rooftops and ruthless repression of that truth (where, say, merely speaking the truth publicly at all has ruinous consequences for the speaker); and discussion of the objective truth about race differences is presently subject to the latter. Indeed this is precisely the polarization of which I speak. Rather than acknowledging the truth in what Watson said and balancing it with the human dignity of the persons of which he speaks, he is to be burned as a heretic. In the long run that isn't going to work out well for anyone (well, for anyone other than those who make their livings on race-baiting).

Zippy--
If you mean that scientism is a repression of Truth in favor of mere facts, I also agree with you there. Gosh. Total agreement. Terminal buzzkill...

If you mean that scientism is a repression of Truth in favor of mere facts ...

Kind of. Scientism/positivism attempts to truncate (some body of) meaning into a self-contained well-defined body of fully public (which is to say literally mindless) propositions. Scientism specifically is the view that mathematics-plus-empirical-facts is all that is the case, or in "softer" form that m+ef is all that authoritatively matters. In my view, in attempting to do this it "collapses" if you will (by insisting upon this truncation) to the point where it doesn't mean anything at all: where it seems to have meaning, but that seeming is a local and illusory residual, a meaning-parasite in the process of withering away, unable to persist as meaningful on its own terms.

So to me scientism isn't even a repression of truth in favor of mere (value-neutral) empirical facts, though that may well represent what it attempts to construct - and fails.

But all that aside, scientism/positivism does represent a repression of some truths. Postmodernism is the "reaction" to this, or perhaps vice versa. Medieval 'nominalism versus sola scriptura' looks a great deal like modern-day 'postmodernity versus positivism', the main difference being that the content which forms the battleground of the latter is (or attempts to be) more secular in nature, whereas the content-battleground of the former was more (at least explicitly) religious.

Perhaps that can break the spell of that unnerving moment of agreement!

Zippy--
No. Unfortunately, to the extent that I understand what you're saying, I think that I generally agree with it.
That said, it must be kept in mind that my blog only registered "post-grad" on that meter that registered yours as "genius". And--full disclosure--when I tried it a second time, mine came up "undergrad". That's scientism for you--always moving the goal posts.

In decreasing order:
Parental neglect
Substance abuse
Delinquent peers
Parental abuse
Unemployment
Inadequate education
Impoverished neighborhoods
Insufficient law enforcement
Mental illness

Scientism specifically is the view that mathematics-plus-empirical-facts is all that is the case

Yes, it would seem that this information (i.e., about differences in intelligence among the races) is dangerous only in a world without God.

Fortunately, we're all safe and free to cultivate our own gardens, in this, the best of all possible worlds.

Thank you, Rodak & step2, for your interesting answers to the question: what are the root causes of garden variety non-hate crime, in order of importance?

But I fear I must disagree. Both of you find the causes of crime mostly in a lack of this or that: material goods, jobs, education, parental guidance, law eforcement, "culture," "hope," connectedness...

And then, of course, there's the ever-popular substance abuse & parental abuse. And mental illness &/or cognitive impairment, perhaps due to same.

Gee, officer Krupke, they're depraved on account they're deprived!

No. All this misses the point. Which is this:

(A) Crime is fun.
(B) Crime pays.

On point (A): normal human males have been conditioned by countless generations of evolution to enjoy hurting others and taking their stuff.
On point (B): if you're at all good at it, and unrestrained by conscience, crime is probably one of the quickest and surest routes to "success."

Those are the root causes of garden variety non-hate crime, in order of importance.

The problem is that, in the past, claims of racial "inferiority" have been used to justify some of the worst crimes of history - above all, American slavery and Nazi genocide. So shouldn't we suppress any research and/or expressions of opinion that could be interpreted as supporting claims of racial "inferiority?"

Not to nitpick, but American slavery was actually incredibly humane compared to slavery in much of human history. It was wrong, but barely risable compared to the state-inflicted suffering of the 20th century.

That said, you are missing the bigger picture here. It is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not dark-skinned minorities are generally racially inferior to lighter-skinned people, when it comes to the right to life, liberty and property that darker-skinned people enjoy. The fact is, every serious tragedy in history has one thing in common: those who perpetrated it didn't give a hoot about God's will toward their fellow man. Such people must be dealt with, and dealt with harshly if necessary.

MikeT:

"incredibly" humane? No - I wouldn't think so.

What's "risable?"

Did someone suggest here that "dark-skinned minorities are generally racially inferior to lighter-skinned people?"

Such odd things you say.

in the past, claims of racial "inferiority" have been used to justify some of the worst crimes of history - above all, American slavery and Nazi genocide.

To put American slavery among the worst crimes of history on par with Nazi genocide is to disregard even a minimal sense of proportion.

Slavery, with the slaves in much more worser conditions than US slaves, was norm for probably 4 thousand years.

Most conquests by Moslems and Mongols killed many more people that US slaves killed by owners and/or hard working conditions.

Just partion of British India caused deaths of up to 30 million people.

Stalin's starvation of Ukrainian farmers killed millions.

List can go on.

"(A) Crime is fun.
(B) Crime pays."

And, if these are the two pertinent factors in the commission of most non-hate crimes, how does Office Krupke account for the hugely disproportionate number of blacks incarcerated in our society for the commission of crimes?
Might not some of those (gasp!) sociological factors listed above account for the unusually robust appetite of blacks for "fun" and "profit"?


I haven't run the precise numbers, but given std dev and mean difference, the odds are only somewhere around 55-65% that a given white man in a room is more intelligent than a given black man. Conversely, the odds would be around 35-45% the black man would be smarter. Taking this to the next level, say you have a class of 50 students that you wish to divide in half. If you divided by race the aggregate IQ would tend to be higher in the white group than the black group. (Given the numbers, we might be down to 5% of cases where this isn't the case.) However, if you divide the class by IQ, the chances you would have a homogenous class in each half by race are very, very small. I just don't see the policy implications of this data, even if one is a black racialist who wants only the best for the black community.

Did someone suggest here that "dark-skinned minorities are generally racially inferior to lighter-skinned people?"

Generally that is what white racists think, and we are entering a brave new world of genetics and race. Wouldn't it seem fitting to start by suggesting that a black man's rights are not dependent on his being equal in any way to a white man?

The simple answer to why my comment may seem a bit non sequitor is that I found your blog from a discussion about a similar topic that started with discussing genetic and psychological differences between races. This is where it started.

I just don't see the policy implications of this data...

One policy implication might be the abandonment of affirmative action, or at least the realignment of its explicit purposes along honest and truthful lines rather than along the lie of Zero Group Differences. I expect most policy implications would be negative: that is, they would take the form "the government should not do X based on racial data"; though there might well be positive policies designed to protect persons or institutions from persecution on the basis of disparate racial impact.

Another policy implication of recognizing that the economic underclass will be disproportionately Black might be to stop ignoring this and restrict unskilled immigration, since unskilled immigration undermines the economic opportunities available to our already very troubled Black communities. Lower average IQ's don't inherently have to translate into segregated moral depravity, but economically ghettoized lower average IQ will result in just that (despite the significant IQ overlap in the postulated non-racially-ghettoized classroom).

A cultural implication would be the abandonment of PC liberalism with all that that entails.

MikeT: you may find this post and the discussion which followed of interest.

And, if these are the two pertinent factors in the commission of most non-hate crimes, how does Office Krupke account for the hugely disproportionate number of blacks incarcerated in our society for the commission of crimes?

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that black culture in the United States glorifying criminals and the criminal lifestyle might have something to do with it.

Brendan--
And how then would you account for the criminal subculture featuring Irish and Jewish gangs on the streets of Northern U.S. cities, back in the days before the large black migration from the rural south?
Did Irish and Jewish culture each glorify criminals and criminal lifestyles? Or did poverty and lack of opportunity have something to do with that?

Did Irish and Jewish culture each glorify criminals and criminal lifestyles?

I cannot speak to Jewish culture, but Irish folk music has a strain that holds up as a hero the highway man, the scoundrel, the pirate, etc. Some of these are time and condition specific, dealing with the necessities of survival during famine and such. But others certainly seem to glorify such things per se.

Musha rain da ma do da da da.

Brendan--
Then why isn't there conspicuous Irish and Jewish gang activity still on-going?

Zippy--
I'm going to need a footnote for that last comment.

Google, it, mon.

Some men like the fishin',
Some men like the fowlin',
Some men like to hear,
To hear the cannon ball a-roarin'

Me, I like sleepin',
('specially in my Molly's chamber),
But here I am in prison,
Here I am with a ball and chain yeah.

Hmmm. Let me guess... That's either Tommy Makem or Ira Gershwin... Am I warm?

'tis that most famousest of Irishmen, O'Nonymous.

Then why isn't there conspicuous Irish and Jewish gang activity still on-going?

Again, I cannot speak to the condition of American Jews and Jewish culture.

In the United States? Does ethnic identity play a large role in the life of people of Irish descent? Does it still act as a force of social cohesion and a tie that binds together families, neighborhoods and other communities? Gangs tend to be territorial, do they not? Perhaps the forces that destroyed the unity of towns and neighborhoods also made gangs unnecessary.

There is also the fact that "the criminal as hero" was never the sole focus of Irish folk music. There are also such themes as love of place, love of family, political mobilization, etc. Such themes have positive social effects rather than negative. One could argue that love of family and place were two of the factors that motivated Irish immigrants to join the police force and seek to eliminate organized crime, since this would improve the conditions of their neighborhoods and to earn respect for their families. And songs exist that laud these men for doing so (such as "The Streets of New York" by the Wolfe Tones). Perhaps I am simply unaware of the strains of black culture that celebrate one of there own when he opts to carry a badge rather than to be a 'gangsta'?

"I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that black culture in the United States glorifying criminals and the criminal lifestyle might have something to do with it."

I think you're correct here, Brendon, with the emphasis that the issue is not so much one of race/color, but one of culture. It's a specific, very visible, mostly urban black subculture that glorifies crime and criminality. If you talk to suburban middle class blacks, many of them hate the whole ghetto/gangsta thing as much as whites do. Witness Bill Cosby's recent comments against the gangsta subculture.

Brendan--
The point was not the mere existence of Irish gangs, but their reasons for choosing a criminal life-style. At the same time the Irish gangs were at their peak, many of the cops were also Irish, unlike most of the non-gangster Jews, I think.
Is "the criminal as hero" the "sole focus" of black folk music? What about John Henry? Gangsta is a relatively new genre, after all. James Brown, to name just one black superstar, wrote plenty of songs meant to be uplifting. There was virtually no glorification of crime in any of the Motown music. Stevie Wonder is another artist with none of that element. Etc.

Musha rain da ma do da da da.

Whiskey in the Jar?

Rob G,

Thank you for reminding me of Bill Cosby.

Rodak,

I will admit to some tunnel vision with regard to American black culture in toto. Thank you and Rob G for making me step back and take a wider and more historical view. But when the artists you mentioned were at the hight of their popularity was there also a "hugely disproportionate number of blacks incarcerated in our society for the commission of crimes?"

Yeah, ok, there's some politically correct hysteria in our culture. And yeah, it's a bit shallow and cheap. The insistence that we're all the same is always going to fall flat on its face. You don't even need empirical data to know difference exists.

The problem is how difference is handled. I would insist that political correctness does not understand what racism is, and when it in fact correctly labels something as racist, it is a matter of the stopped clock being right twice a day.

The slavish, the resentful, and the nihilist all have a few different things in common. They're reactionaries -- they need others to be weak so they can be strong. They're victims -- some mysterious body is always oppressing them, like the patriarchy or international Jewish bankers. They're also incapable of creating anything new, and can only ever pine for yesterday.

Politically correct folks fall into those pits all the time. But you know who sets up shop in those pits, beds down in them and calls them home? Guess. Just guess.

Whiskey in the Jar?

Pass the man a nip!

"They're victims -- some mysterious body is always oppressing them..."

Mike--

So you're saying that:

Blacks are to Whites as Conservatives are to Liberals?

Blacks are to Whites as Conservatives are to Liberals?

Sure, and vice versa.

(Speaking quite broadly there, of course)

Speaking for myself, my worry isn't that this research will result in more "hate crimes" in the near-term among the run-of-the-mill population, but that it will lead to a dehumanizing belief in racial inferiority becoming intellectually respectable again, having been lent a veneer of scientific respectability, and that this will be combined with advances in genetics and newer, more subtle forms of eugenics to carry out all manner of "civilized" barbarity.

That so many of the "race realist" researchers and their most fervent supporters are manifestly motivated by a desire to lend scientific respectability to their belief in racial inferiority, and that most of them also appear to support eugenics, is hardly encouraging.

However, I think the solution to this problem (or rather part of the solution) is not to suppress information and persecute anyone who approaches the topic, but rather to jettison the liberal dogma surrounding it, and to get rid of the stigma attached to researching it.

Look, while I think there is likely something to the "race realists" claims about average racial differences in various socially-relevant capacities, I simply don't trust them to give an accurate and unbiased picture of the situation. Heck, I wouldn't trust most of these guys to tell me what time it is. A quick look at their backgrounds, their funding sources and affiliations, their research methodologies, and what kinds of things they accept as data, should make any reasonable person wary of taking their conclusions at face value. While I find the Zero Group Differences dogma implausible, I'd also be surprised if these guys weren't overstating their case, and skewing things in their favor.

Unfortunately, it's impossible for me to tell how much these guys are overstating things, because there are essentially no mainstream researchers seriously looking into the question to offer a corrective. Instead of corrective research, the "race realists" are met only with howls of protest and angry denunciations.

A large part of the reason for this is that anyone who researches the topic, and comes up with anything short of the predetermined correct PC answer (that all groups are exactly 100% the same, no exceptions), will have their careers ruined by the liberal establishment. As a result, the whole topic is too dangerous for most researchers to even approach, and instead of balanced corrective research, the field is handed over to fringe scientists with nothing to lose.

The topic of racial differences in intelligence is intrinsically deeply unpleasant. By its very nature, the people who are going to be interested in dedicating significant energy to it are mainly going to be racially-motivated fringers with an axe to grind. Rather than helping, the liberal dogmas simply exacerbate the situation.

On point (A): normal human males have been conditioned by countless generations of evolution to enjoy hurting others and taking their stuff.

Such a dim view of mankind. No, men have evolved into being aggressively competitive. Those impulses are channeled into "playing by the rules" by parents and peers. They become wild and violent from the factors I listed.

On point (B): if you're at all good at it, and unrestrained by conscience, crime is probably one of the quickest and surest routes to "success."

Depends on the circumstances. It seems to me like a criminal career is much more difficult to sustain than a legitimate one. Besides, you appear to be implying that entire groups of people are born with a defective conscience.

A large part of the reason for this is that anyone who researches the topic, and comes up with anything short of the predetermined correct PC answer (that all groups are exactly 100% the same, no exceptions), will have their careers ruined by the liberal establishment.

There you go. You either light the pinch of incense to the ZGD idol (a practice which, as a denial of obvious realities which everyone perceives, is a naked emperor strategy with a limited shelf-life), or you are a Nazi. Those are the choices presented by advanced liberalism.

The fact that researching racial differences is career ending isn't necessarily about toeing an ideological line. It might - it just might - have more to do with the fact that the whole enterprise is mind-blowingly retarded, and that even broaching the topic indicates you simply aren't intellectually adequate to be doing paid teaching or research.

Good to see you back to your usual well thought out arguments, Mike. Is "mind-blowingly retarded" another one of those terms of art from your studies of Heidegger?

Was I making an argument? I didn't realize.

I'd be happy to mail you a bag to shout into if you think that would help.

Deuce,
I trust Flynn and Dickens much more than Rushton and Jensen, who interpret their data only to present the widest possible difference. If there is any innate difference, it is likely just a few points. This would have a negligible effect upon liberal policy. Has affirmative action reduced income disparity to within a few percent among racial groups? Please.
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2001/0401IQ.aspx

Zippy,
Some slopes are more slippery than others.

Does ethnic identity play a large role in the life of people of Irish descent?

Only around St. Patrick's Day.

"Only around St. Patrick's Day."

That is certainly not the case in cities like New York and Boston.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.