Thursday, September 26, 2013

Why Are Jews So Overrepresented at Elite Universities?

A critique of David Duke's charges of "racism" against Harvard and other elite institutions for exhibiting disproportionate ethnic representation.

The burden of proof is on the person making a positive assertion (in this instance, the existence of a powerful and far-reaching Zionist conspiracy that explains Jewish overrepresentation). Duke didn't meet his burden of proof in the chapter I reviewed. Nor did he give me good grounds for believing he would meet it elsewhere.


Whites who manufacture narratives of oppressive institutional power when they observe Jews getting ahead are operating on the same mentality as blacks who racially resent white success and blame black shortcomings on "racism." They adopt the methodology of Diversity auditors who set out to infer Institutional Racism entirely from statistics showing underrepresentation. Of course, NFL running backs could be 90% black and Fortune 500 CEOs could be 33% Jewish and both outcomes could be entirely merit based and explainable largely by innate factors.

"It's amazing how many white nationalists start adopting the same arguments as egalitarians...attributing Jewish success to societal privilege rather than IQ.
"Blacks blame whites, and whites blame Jews. Same BS. Different color. You have my respect for being consistent." 

-mcfrandy

I do think that Affirmative Action can explain some of the lopsided Jewish representation vs. gentile whites at Harvard. Below the cutoff point for being admitted on merit (IQ  ~140?), the ratio of whites to Jews should be larger than it is among the higher scorers who are admitted.  (Assuming Jews have a mean IQ 10-13 points above the white mean of 100.)  Meaning, applicants who are rejected on behalf of black and brown Diversity will be relatively more white, less Jewish.

The following video, from NewEuropeANP in response to mine, illustrates estimated IQs for Europeans and Jews at 2 and 3 standard deviations above the mean (the right tail of the bell curve).  The video attempts to derive a European:Jew ratio for Ivy League schools that would be predicted by IQ, but it overestimates the idealized ratio.



The more important point is that one can't validly infer institutional bias from the observation that particular institutions in particular parts of the country don't reflect national demographics in a particular IQ range.  Jews are demographically more concentrated in the Northeast.  Perhaps high-IQ non-Jewish whites are more likely to apply at and be able to afford universities outside the Ivy League.

"...the Jewish portion of Harvard’s entering class dropped from nearly 30 percent in 1925 to 15 percent the following year" when restrictions on Jewish enrollment were imposed.
-Ron Unz

In the absence of evidence that Jews are being systematically admitted with lower grades and test scores than their white peers (as blacks demonstrably are under Affirmative Action), hypotheses of systematic Jewish favoritism in college admissions aren't well supported.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Real Independence


Orania is a private town in South Africa.  In contrast to the violence-plagued country that surrounds it, Orania enjoys peace and prosperity.  Its motto is “Working for freedom.”  The town leaders hope one day to become an independent state.  Toward that end, Orania already circulates its own currency, the Ora. 

The people of Orania embody the independence, self-reliance, and love of freedom that libertarians celebrate.  What kind of libertarian wouldn’t? 

Well, some self-described libertarians are ambivalent or even hostile to the notion of proprietary communities.  Libertarian open-borders universalists assert a positive right of anyone to migrate anywhere, while simultaneously claiming to be defenders of property rights.  The existence of private towns such as Orania forces libertarians who assert a positive right to migrate into an ideological dilemma.  Do they seek to impose open immigration into these jurisdictions?  Or do they defend the right of communities to be selective about who gets in?    

Orania's success is tied to its policy of restricting residency to white Afrikaners who meet certain criteria.  Whereas the city of Detroit in the last century saw its white population displaced, its total population decline, its wealth erode, and its crime rate explode under the open borders policy forced on it by the Michigan and U.S. governments, Orania has experienced the opposite (albeit on a smaller scale) -- rising wealth, rising population, and very low crime.   Fortunately for Oranians, the South African constitution explicitly guarantees the freedom of association and disassociation, at least when it comes to establishing residential communities (a freedom U.S. citizens have been denied since the 1964 Civil Rights Act).

The evidence of a town’s high quality of life being tied to its explicit restriction of inflows is a bitter pill to swallow for open-borders universalists.  They tend to be steeped in anti-Racism ideology and hold idealistic egalitarian conceptions of human nature borrowed from the cultural left.  But if they are political libertarians, they must permit Orania to exist, at as long as it remains privately owned.

As of now, Orania exists as a private entity within the context of a state to which Oranians still owe taxes.  But what if Orania moved to secede and become fully independent?
  
As soon as Orania became a completely self-governing sovereign jurisdiction, it would be sovereign nation, just like the United States.  If all nations are morally obligated to the rest of the world to let in anyone who wants in, then how could Oranians retain their right to be selective? 

Only by remaining part of the socialistic state of South Africa, according to these so-called libertarians.  Because only then could their exercise of their right to exclude people from their property be tolerated.  Once they declare independence, a different set of rules apply – including the one about erecting no barriers to foreign migrants.  An independent Orania would have to bulldoze the fences that formerly served as boundaries and declare itself part of a single world community of people. 

Of course, this isn’t independence at all.  But it’s what the global egalitarian idealists prescribe. Some do so quite consistently in the name of socialism, communism, or communitarianism.  Some do so quite falsely in the name of liberty.

The open-borders prescription carries with it an inherent hostility to the principles of private property.  A propertarian advocate of liberty would not demand that an independent Orania open its doors to the whole world.  Nor would a propertarian advocate of liberty insist that Oranians remain attached to an overbearing state that only tenuously recognizes their property rights.  

If your conception of liberty is grounded in private property rights that fully honor freedom of association and disassociation, then you should endorse full self-determination for private communities.  That means the right of Oranians to exclude people from the state and the surrounding populations from which they seek total separation.  To work against their ambitions of being independent is to work against freedom.

The Principle of Self-Determination

Private property owners, including private communities, have the freedom to be exclusionary. If they didn't, then "ownership" would be a meaningless concept.  

Yet the moment a private community separates entirely from the state and becomes a self-governing sovereign jurisdiction, global immigration egalitarians suddenly claim the moral authority to tell this fledgling micro-nation that it must let anyone in the world live there.  In effect, proprietary communities retain the freedom to exclude only so long as they remain under the jurisdiction of an overbearing government they don't want!

Any universalized “open immigration” prescription is incompatible with the freedom to secede and retain the full exercise of private property rights. The attempt to pre-determine immigration policies for every conceivable sovereign community -- big or small, rich or poor, in paradise or in a war zone -- emanates from dogmatic apriorism and eviscerates the libertarian principle of self-determination.



Friday, September 6, 2013

Should Immigration Policy Be Based on Individualism or Collectivism?

The Real Question Is: Egalitarianism or Selectivism?

Championing an immigration policy that takes account of group demographic characteristics makes me guilty of empirical thinking.  Does it also make me guilty of collectivist thinking? If so, then anyone who advocates age of consent laws is guilty, too.  So is anyone who grants even the potential for a legitimate war waged by one nation against another.

http://www.youtube.com/user/janhelfeld

Immigration policy is a branch of foreign policy. It pertains to a nation's relationship to other nations, which are collective entities. It's not feasible to judge every person in the world individually. No one self-identifies as a future rapist on immigration forms. But the immigrant populations responsible for disproportionate quantities of rapes are identifiable.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/63520

Western civilization is being raped, is being replaced, is committing cultural suicide in the name of egalitarian non-judgmentalism.  If we know that people from Muslim country X are consistently more prone to be rapists, terrorists and moochers than people from Free country Y, then is an “individualist” morally obligated to act as though the two populations are equal?

If so, then “individualism” serves as a Trojan Horse for egalitarianism – which prescribes a single collective value judgment to be heaped upon all humanity. 

Those who recognize individual differences and act accordingly – but pretend not to notice patterns of differences among groups of individuals – are operating on the premise that trees exist but forests don’t.  A well-functioning mind not only processes the particulars it perceives; it also categorizes them.  It forms concepts of types of trees, cars, dogs…and humans.  A rational individual judges based on his values.  I value liberty and judge individual and group threats to it negatively.

I seek to prevent my country from being overrun by tribalistic aggressors, through a selective immigration policy that takes probabilities into account.  If that’s collectivism, then so be it.  Only a farcical form of individualism would require individuals who value their freedoms to stand idly by and allow themselves to be slowly conquered by leftist-aiding Islamists, who state explicitly that their aim is undermine and destroy Western freedoms through demographic conquest. 

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/french-socialists-pay-back-new-mega-mosque

If individuals inhabiting a geographical area can justly form a government for the purpose of securing their individual liberties, then there is no such thing as an open-ended “individual right” of foreigners to become citizens at will, irrespective of the consequences they impose on the liberties of the inhabitants.  Rather, it is the job of government to discriminate among all residency seekers – on any individual or group basis that is relevant to the objective of ensuring that immigration inflows don't cause a net erosion of liberties.  


Monday, September 2, 2013

Sponsor My Work

Help Fund the Creation and Dissemination of New, Hard-Hitting Videos on Topics Such as These...

  • IQ
  • Racial Profiling
  • Racial Science and Crime
  • Immigration
  • Sports and Athleticism
  • Black History
  • Race Mixing
  • Obama
  • Diversity
  • Race/Human Evolution Denial
  • Demographic Decline
  • Educational Decline
  • Cultural/Aesthetic Decline


Thank You for Your Support!