Monday, April 20, 2009

Acting White: The Pareto Principle vs. Racial Realism

On the heels of reading and writing about white nationalists on this and other blogs over the last week, I have some observations that may or may not have meaning to those who wonder “what the hell is that guy Collier's problem?” Granted, the idea of a bunch of white men who want a white-only place to call home (that is not Idaho) disturbs and entices a lot of people.

So why am I not more fearful, but still mindful, of these people? This is where the pictured Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), the Italian economist comes in. Recall that he proposed the relationship where nearly 80% of stuff that occurs results from a source that is 20% of itself. So in Pareto thinking, 80% of the racism comes for 20% of the population, just as 80% of crime comes from another distinct 20%.

In the case of crime, blacks commit a disproportion and some folks errantly attribute this to a racial flaw. What is obscured is that 80% of crime is also committed by poor people (regardless of race), who also happen to be disproportionately black, with influence by some combination of their own doing and society's efforts. What is also obscured is that blacks were ‘bused in’ from regions of the world where the rule-of-law has lagged in development for thousands of years for reasons only speculated, perhaps establishing a lower threshold. Now if you want to have a discussion about racial/ethnic distinctions, this is the place to start, but this post is not the time.

In the case of ‘racial realism’, the white guy lingo for no Blacks, no Mexicans, no Jews, no Asian men allowed, the crux is not with the 20% who want others out, but rather the 80% of white people who don’t care or care in the opposite. Pareto gives us confidence in the 20% of whites ready, willing, and able to counter the white nationalist fever. Sure, the mad-as-hell-crew can show us scary progress, but the practical and committed race realists simply move to Idaho and try to make a living, while they practice for race Armageddon – problem solved.

Moving on, just because the realists are fighting a battle they cannot or should not win, does not mean that we should ignore their protest, especially the content of their angst. For example, immigration policies and enforcement that result in more low-skilled, uneducated citizens and quasi-citizens is very bad for this country's future. The cheap labor war was loss decades ago. Our best option is to pour resources into advancing technologies, rather than borrowing to buy imported consumables. The place to start and finish this effort is early age reading, math, and science in schools. It also means tracking kids who cannot make the grade into vocational trade programs in high school, where they can also live and contribute to a productive, lawful society, instead of filling prisons or as minimum-wage fodder for service industries that feed obesity and general unhealthiness.

To summarily toss out the baby with the racial realist-bathwater is to miss the important learnings their visibility allows. When I see a group angst-ing out, the first thing I try to do, after checking for weapons, is separate the behavior from its source, as they are not all crackpots - just (you guessed it) 20%.

Tip of the hat to Mr. Pareto.

James C. Collier


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,


Nate Da Roc said...

It is an obvious factor that poor people are more likely to commit a crime. A poor person has more to gain by committing a crime. Unlike a middle class individual will be less likely due to the fact that he has alot of stuff to lose and something to gain. The lower income neighborhoods have low quality businesses. Then those businesses exploit the neighborhood for every peny the poor have and don't give a dime back to that community most of the time. What has to be understood is that community has a gain a trust to build up their neighborhood businesses(rather then a non local business like Giant or McDonalds),back their schools more, and be more independent overall.

Louie said...

Illegal immigration will not be stopped. Whites can go to Idaho all they want; nonwhites will inevitably follow.
The angst of whites WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED. Why not? No one cares about their concerns. The President, the congress, and the political establishment have turned their backs on us. The result of this will either be a growth for white nationalists or the complete destruction of European Americans. I don't expect non whites to care (quite the opposite actually) but I do expect whites to cares, for their own sake and for their children.

Anonymous said...

"‘racial realism’, the white guy lingo for no Blacks, no Mexicans, no Jews, no Asian men allowed"

That's not at all what race realism means. It simply means opening your mind to the reality of race. It means abandoning the dogma of colorblindness.

JCC, from what I've read here you are a race realist. I'm sure you don't like the term because you think it equates with white supremacy, but it doesn't.

Racial intelligence studies show that, for whatever reasons, intelligence as an abstract measurement varies between races. The dogma of colorblindness tells you to stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and scream "LALALALALA" when confronted with these suggestions, much like a Creationist does when someone tells them about evolution.

A race realist, far from white supremacy, recognizes that there is some evidence that shows Asians and Jews are more intelligent (defined as performing better on IQ tests) than White people, who in turn perform better than Blacks and Mestizos. Likewise, a race realist recognizes the dominance of West Africans in Olympic sprinting, and does not simply dismiss it as a random phenomenon. Some race realists go further and try to find genetic or cultural factors to explain these differences, but just because Steve Sailer reports something does not mean that anyone who considers himself a "race realist" takes it as gospel.

The only reason the label "race realist" exists is because race issues are such a huge political and social taboo, at least for white folks. It's open season on MLB for being "only" 10% black, but I don't hear anybody calling for more recruitment of whites in the NBA.

Race realists don't want to get rid of all nonwhites - that is a separate attitude that stems more generally from ignorance than open-minded race realism. We just use the term to distinguish ourselves from the "race deniers" who try to suppress any discussion of the issue. One of their tactics, by the way, is to call us white supremacists, which is why I'm disappointed that you tried to make this connection here.

Louis said...

"‘racial realism’, the white guy lingo for no Blacks, no Mexicans, no Jews, no Asian men allowed"

On a more personal note, why do you care? I don't care to move join the Urban League, or move to Atlanta. Why would any non white care where whites want to live and who they want to associate with?

James C. Collier said...

Louis: I don't care. It's about who's doing the moving - I will not be displaced. BTW, separate but equal was a lie from the start.

Anonymous said...

JCC: The "white nationalists" who want to geographically segregate America are a tiny, deluded minority chasing a pipe dream.

Most of us are like you, we just don't want to be displaced. But if we continue to invite in millions of (in your words)"low-skilled, uneducated citizens and quasi-citizens" many longtime American citizens, black and white, will be displaced. Many districts in the border states have 90% hispanic schools. Would you send your children to such a school, where most students would be speaking Spanish as the primary language, or move?

If we let America become 40%+ hispanic, mostly through the southern invasion, do you think that you and your children will be "safe" from this phenomenon? Do you think hispanics will help elect another Obama, when they have enough political clout to elect one of their own?

In many regards, I think blacks have more to fear from the demographic shift than whites do. Whites will still have the plurality of the population, and the vast majority of the wealth.

Tyrone said...

"It is an obvious factor that poor people are more likely to commit a crime. A poor person has more to gain by committing a crime."
I disagree. I think poor people are more likely to get falsely convicted, less likely to be able to hire a lawyer that can get them out trouble, and more inclined to commit the kind of crimes that everyone is watchful for any way (armed robbery, etc). But to say that wealthier people are somehow more honest and law-abiding is just plain classism - which is just as bad in this country as racism.

Anonymous said...

Tyrone, I think the person you quoted stated the argument badly. It's not that a poor person really has more to gain from crime, it's that they have less to lose.

You state that a poor person is "more inclined to commit the kind of crimes that everyone is watchful for any way (armed robbery, etc)." Armed robbery is a very serious crime. I don't know what other crimes you're alluding to, or what kind of crimes you think middle and upper-class people are committing and getting away with, but are you suggesting that we should focus less on violent, life-threatening crimes like armed robbery?

Preventing the strong (or armed) from taking whatever they want is a fundamental necessity of maintaining a civil society.

Tyrone said...

"It is an obvious factor that poor people are more likely to commit a crime."
Poor people are not more likely to commit a crime, just more likely to be caught and convicted. Making more than $40,000 a year does not make someone more moral or honest. Note that most of the familial slayings in the past year have been upper-middle class folks. The Craig's list killer is not poor.
There is a huge difference between saying the poor are more likely to commit crimes and saying the poor that commit crimes are more likely to be caught and punished for even minor infractions of the law.

If you want to define the word crime as only including those that are violent in nature, I would still take exception with the sentence at the top of my post. Morality has nothing to do with your bank account. Whether or not you will be convicted, how much time you will serve and where you will serve it has EveryThing to do with your bank account.

As for "watchful crimes" - I don't really see the difference between taking someone's assets by force or taking them by subtle bureaucratic manipulation. I don't see a difference between a poor person shoplifting at a store and an investor using insider tips to make money. I don't see the difference between a purse snatcher and the manager that decides to steal his employee's (violation of employment law is a crime) time because he knows that they are unlikely to be able to fight it on an individual basis.

Sorry, the ability to make right moral and ethical choices is not something only the rich have.

kickerofelves said...

What you conveniently leave out is that poor whites and poor Hispanics commit less crimes per capita than poor blacks. That you didn't mention it states volumes.

Anonymous said...

Kickerofelves, don't be silly-

as Tyrone plainly states, being caught and convicted of a crime is in no way correlated with committing crime. Blacks, whites, hispanics, and asians, as well as the rich, middle class, and poor, commit crimes as equal rates. It's the racist police, judges, lawyers, and juries that pick up innocent poor blacks off the streets and wrongly convict them for these crimes. It is simply not possible that blacks and the poor commit a disproportionate amount of crime.

Anonymous said...

You'd best be trolling