Category Archives: Egalitarianism / Culture Wars

How our Cities evolve by population and white/black ratio

Pretty damning.

New Haven

Pop: %wht %blk
1990 130 474 53.9 36.1
1980 126 109 62.1 31.9
1970 137 707 72.6 26.3
1960 152 048 85.1 14.5
1950 164 443 94.0 5.8
1940 160 605 96.1 3.9
1930 162 655 96.7 3.3
1920 162 537 97.1 2.8
1910 133 605 97.3 2.7
1900 108 027 97.2 2.7

Hartford

Pop: %wht %blk
1990 139 739 40.0 38.9
1980 136 392 50.3 33.9
1970 158 017 70.8 27.9
1960 162 178 84.5 15.3
1950 177 397 92.8 7.1
1940 166 267 95.7 4.3
1930 164 072 96.0 4.0
1920 138 036 96.8 3.0
1910 98 915 98.1 1.8
1900 79 850 97.5 2.4

Oakland

Pop: %wht %blk
1990 372 242 32.5 43.9
1980 339 337 38.2 46.9
1970 361 561 59.1 34.5
1960 367 548 73.6 22.8
1950 384 575 85.5 12.4
1940 302 163 95.3 2.8
1930 284 063 95.3 2.6
1920 216 261 94.3 2.5
1910 150 174 94.5 2.0
1900 66 960 96.8 1.5

Chicago:

Pop: %wht %blk
1990 2,783,726 45.4 39.1
1980 3,005,072 49.6 39.8
1970 3,366,957 65.6 32.7
1960 3,550,404 76.4 22.9
1950 3,620,962 85.9 13.6
1940 3,396,808 91.7 8.2
1930 3,376,438 92.9 6.9
1920 2,701,705 95.8 4.1
1910 2,185,283 97.9 2.0
1900 1,698,575 98.1 1.8

Cleveland
Pop: %wht %blk
1990 505 616 49.5 46.6
1980 573 822 53.5 43.8
1970 750 903 61.0 38.3
1960 876 050 71.1 28.6
1950 914 808 83.7 16.2
1940 878 336 90.3 9.6
1930 900 429 91.9 8.0
1920 796 841 95.6 4.3
1910 560 663 98.4 1.5
1900 381 768 98.4 1.6

Philadelphia:

Pop: %wht %blk
1990 1 585 577 53.5 39.9
1980 1 688 210 58.2 37.8
1970 1 948 609 65.6 33.6
1960 2 002 512 73.3 26.4
1950 2 071 605 81.7 18.2
1940 1 931 334 86.9 13.0
1930 1 950 961 88.6 11.3
1920 1 823 779 92.6 7.4
1910 1 549 008 94.5 5.5
1900 1 293 697 95.1 4.8

Baltimore:

Pop: %wht %blk
1990 736 014 39.1 59.2
1980 786 775 43.9 54.8
1970 905 759 53.0 46.4
1960 939 024 65.0 34.7
1950 949 708 76.2 23.7
1940 859 100 80.6 19.3
1930 804 874 82.3 17.7
1920 733 826 85.2 14.8
1910 558 485 84.8 15.2
1900 508 957 84.3 15.6

Gary

Pop %wht %blk
1990 116,646 16.3 80.6
1980 151,953 25.2 70.8
1970 175,415 46.7 52.8
1960 178,320 61.1 38.8
1950 133,911 70.6 29.3
1940 111,719 81.7 18.3
1930 100,426 82.1 17.8
1920 55,378 90.4 9.6
1910 16,802 97.6 2.3

Newark
Pop %wht %blk
1990 275 221 28.6 58.5
1980 329 248 30.8 58.2
1970 382 417 44.0 54.2
1960 405 220 65.6 34.1
1950 438 776 82.8 17.1
1940 429 760 89.2 10.6
1930 442 337 91.0 8.8
1920 414 524 95.8 4.1
1910 347 469 97.2 2.7
1900 246 070 97.2 2.7

Detroit

Pop: %wht %blk
1900 285,704 98.55 1.44
1910 465,766 98.75 1.23
1920 993,678 95.81 4.11
1930 1,568,662 92.22 7.65
1940 1,623,452 90.71 9.19
1950 1,849,568 83.58 16.25
1960 1,670,144 70.83 28.87
1970 1,511,482 55.50 43.69
1980 1,203,339 34.38 63.07
1990 1,027,974 21.63 75.67
2000 951,270 12.26 81.55
2010 713,777 10.61 82.69

Only Jews Have a Right to Their Identity, Claims Leading Jewish Supremacist

European Americans who want to keep America’s “essence” European are a “scourge” but Israel has a “non-negotiable right” to be Jewish.

This is the opinion of leading anti-European Jewish supremacist Menachem Rosensaft, who claims to be the “Founding Chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors” and regular columnist in the Zionist-controlled mass media.

https://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/only-jews-have-a-right-to-their-identity-claims-leading-jewish-supremacist/

PROSPERITY ENCOURAGES GENDER DIMORPHISM

It turns out that the gender gap in tech related fields is smaller in poorer countries. In Mexico and Turkey, a proportionally higher % of women go into tech than in the US and Canada.

While there are different ways to interpret this data, it seems likely that given more freedom, many women express themselves by going into more socially oriented fields.

The gender gap could just as easily be interpreted as evidence of liberty and prosperity, than as oppression.

Prosperity seems to encourage gender dimorphism.

In this era when “I identify as” has replaced “I am”, why is it so hard to accept that given the opportunity, many men choose a more masculine imagine, and many women a more feminine one, than each of them would be able to choose in a poorer society?

Answer: the left needs victims. They are nothing without an angry and restless class of victims.

Compare sexual dimorphism in birds which evolved with / without evolutionary pressure from predators and starvation.

Poverty out, Inequality in (a rant)

A bit of advice for all my leftist friends (if any of you still read my FB wall):

If you’re serious about being a leftist, you should get with the program — poverty is out, because it’s just too RIDICULOUS, and equality is in. Your peers made this pivot long ago and you should too.

Signal your moral superiority regarding inequality and you’ll still get a few suckers to admire you. Signal your moral superiority with “poverty”, and you’ll just look stupid.

I know what poverty looks like. I’ve seen it in Afghanistan and Tanzania. And I live in Ukraine which is far poorer than ANY american demographic. Officially, among the people designated as “poor” in the US —

76 percent have air conditioning.
66 percent have more than two rooms of living space per person.
97 percent own at least one color television.
62 percent have either cable or satellite television.
Almost 75 percent of households own a car (30 percent own two or more).
73 percent own microwave ovens.
More than 50 percent have stereos.
33 percent have automatic dishwashers.
99 percent have refrigerators.
Virtually none lack running water or flushing toilets.
46 percent own their own home, the average of which is a three bedroom house with 1.5 baths

This is why the LYING left has abandoned the poverty argument. The left murdered millions of people in their defense of the poor, and then capitalism solved poverty. Your messiah has come. But the lying, power-hungry left, has no use for a messiah who actually shows up.

So, poverty is out. Inequality is in. Inequality is better because it has been around among humans for 50,000 years, and eradicating it is impossible — so you can have your “permanent revolution” as Lenin advised.

Good luck.

Jordan Peterson on the Left’s Lying

If academics were intellectually honest, they would have fallen prey to their own logic long ago.

“Is your pain real? This is a question for people who think there is no such thing as meaning. You try to argue yourself out of pain and see how far you get. You might think ‘well that’s not the sort of meaning I meant.’ But you know, a negative meaning is a place to start. If there is something negative and it’s real that does imply there is something positive that’s real. It might be harder to get ahold of. At least it’s not pain.” – Jordan Peterson

I am tired of pointing out leftist hypocrisy.

I am tired of pointing out leftist hypocrisy. It’s too easy. My new interest is underlying causes. Here are a few theories, and after writing them, they all seem like restatements of the same theory:

1. Thomas Sowell’s paradigm that conservatives see the world in terms of trade offs, while the left sees it in terms of good vs evil. If you believe yourself to be fighting evil, lies are more acceptable.

2. Haidt’s morality chart showing Harm-Care and Fairness as the ONLY positive dimensions of morality for radical leftists. (Sanctity, Authority, Loyalty are not only less important, but in fact, negatives.) Perhaps they are on one hand, desperate to exercise Harm-Care, and on the other indignant toward the “Sanctity” and “Authority” of the rules of debate: truth telling, consistency, precise meaning.

3. Evolutionary biology as the consilient field of all social sciences: The left is intuitively female, the right is intuitively male. If you’re exercising the moral instincts that evolved with childrearing, it makes perfect sense that you treat every impulse and whim as if it were a universal principle. We want mothers to care for babies and families in such a devoted, uncompromising way. But this moral intuition cannot be allowed to govern all of society because it’s so inconsistent and impulsive. It needs limits. The male moral intuition evolved to solve the prisoners dilemma of facing danger as a group (duty, honor, courage), and therefore, much more readily embraces “no matter what” type rules and principles.

on Sam Harris

My first time listening to Sam Harris.

It would be difficult, honest, and helpful for Sam Harris to identify and compare moral frameworks.

Instead he does what is easy, dishonest, and damaging.

1. Rely on emotional arguments and analogy
2. address the most literal interpretation of scripture (shooting fish in a barrel)
3. completely ignore the role of tradition and sanctity in society’s survival
4. conclude with a blatant lie: “if there is a less moral, moral framework, I have not heard it.”

Has he not heard of atheistic communism which is not only indifferent to the suffering of the unfortunate (the charge for which he condemns Christianity), but actively creates and justifies such suffering???

That thing at the end is the slight of hand you often see. You get hooked on the emotional arguments he feeds you, and then boom, the subject changes. All of sudden it isn’t that literal religion does correspond to our moral intuition, but rather, religion is the WORST THING EVER. Study Haidt for the role of sanctity and tradition in a society’s survival.

***

So I had to eventually listen to this Sam Harris – Jonathan Haidt discussion:

https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/evolving-minds-a-conversation-with-jonathan-haidt

(It starts at 27:00.) If anyone has already read some of Haidt’s work, this discussion reveals more about the participants than the subject.

Harris seemed out of his depth. His shtick seems too much like Frankfurt School “deconstruction” — using partial explanations to ridicule and condemn a whole social framework while applying no scrutiny whatsoever to the vague plan you have for improvement.

I think he’d do great work if he did comparisons instead of criticisms.

Harris gets no traction with his usual emotional appeals and analogies, and a couple of times, when Haidt introduced new ideas, it seemed like he responded with “word salads” — basically saying, “Look! I know things too! I’m relevant!”

In the end, Harris does the gentlemanly thing and relegates himself to the role of interview.

The term Racism has been Rendered Meaningless

My left-leaning friends may not accept hearing this from me. Just as economic Marxists apriori dismissed arguments by people of the wrong economic class (via dialectical materialism), today’s cultural Marxists apriori dismiss arguments of the wrong ethnic/gender class (via all the invisible flavors of racism).

So here is a person from one the “good” classes making the same argument:

81cf111cae3f64169e7df07c6ec680a2