Smart people are just as racist as their less intelligent peers—they’re just better at concealing their prejudice, according to a University of Michigan study.
“High-ability whites are less likely to report prejudiced attitudes and more likely to say they support racial integration in principle,” said Geoffrey Wodtke, a doctoral candidate in sociology. “But they are no more likely than lower-ability whites to support open housing laws and are less likely to support school busing and affirmative action programs.”
Wodtke presented his findings at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. The National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, part of the National Institutes of Health, supported his research.
He analyzed data on the racial attitudes of more than 20,000 white respondents from the nationally representative General Social Survey. He examined how their cognitive ability, as measured by a widely used test of verbal intelligence, was linked with their attitudes about African-Americans, and about different policies designed to redress racial segregation and discrimination.
Respondents were about 47 years old at the time of the interview, on average, and had completed 12.9 years of education. They correctly answered an average of about six of the 10 cognitive ability test questions.
Among Wodtke’s findings:
- High-ability whites were more likely than low-ability whites to reject residential segregation and to support school integration in principle, and they were more likely to acknowledge racial discrimination in the workplace. But there were only trivial differences across cognitive ability levels in support for policies designed to realize racial equality in practice.
- In some cases, more intelligent whites were actually less likely to support remedial policies for racial inequality. For example, about 27 percent of the least intelligent whites supported school busing programs, compared with 23 percent of the most intelligent whites.
“The principle-policy paradox is much more pronounced among high-ability whites than among low-ability whites,” said Wodtke, who is also affiliated with the Population Studies Center at the U-M Institute for Social Research. “There’s a disconnect between the attitudes intelligent whites support in principle and their attitudes toward policies designed to realize racial equality in practice.
“Intelligent whites give more enlightened responses than less intelligent whites to questions about their attitudes, but their responses to questions about actual policies aimed at redressing racial discrimination are far less enlightened. For example, although nearly all whites with advanced cognitive abilities say that ‘whites have no right to segregate their neighborhoods,’ nearly half of this group remains content to allow prejudicial real estate practices to continue unencumbered by open housing laws.”
According to Wodtke, the broader implication of this study is that racism and prejudice don’t simply come about as a result of low mental capacities or deficiencies in socialization. Rather, they result from the need of dominant groups to legitimize and protect their privileged social position within an intergroup conflict over resources.
“More intelligent members of the dominant group are just better at legitimizing and protecting their privileged position than less intelligent members,” he said. “In modern America, where blacks are mobilized to challenge racial inequality, this means that intelligent whites say—and may in fact truly believe—all the right things about racial equality in principle, but they just don’t actually do anything that would eliminate the privileges to which they have become accustomed.
“In many cases, they have become so accustomed to these privileges that they become ‘invisible,’ and any effort to point these privileges out or to eliminate them strikes intelligent whites as a grave injustice.”
To any intelligent person it should be obvious, what the consequences of policies are. And who wants to leave a country looking like Haiti or Liberia leave to his descendants? Race Realism just makes sense.
HERESY! Each society has its own word for HERESY!
Communists called all HERESY! fascism.
Fascist Italy called all HERESY! Communism.
Today, the Politically Correct tyranny calls HERESY! “Hate!”
They call people who speak HERESY! names.
You Political Correctness fanatics are playing a very old game.
When you scream HERESY! aka Hate! at people who disagree with you, it says nothing about the point we make.
But it tells us ALL about YOU ANTI-WHITES.
“Racist” is hate word.
The anti-whites are only eliminating white people and countries via mass immigration and social engineering.
The genocide law says it`s genocide.
Look at all this anti-whitism. In the 60’s, anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white countries to bring in millions of non-whites. Then anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white people to “integrate” or face penalties for being “naziswhowantokill6millionjews.” Now anti-whites are praising and counting down the days till ALL and ONLY white children are minorities and extinct EVERYWHERE. That makes it genocide. “Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white. /watch?v=lKDeyuM0-Og
Some groups feel singled out for effective genocide by forced mixing with other groups. Remember “Fidler on the Roof”? The father’s realization that if Jews married non-Jews then “where would the Jews be”. A melting pot wipes out individual groups, putting an end to their race or religion. Many whites now fell the same way. Forced integration is seen by many as an attempt to stir the melting pot and eliminate the White group. This view is reinforced by seeing other groups NOT forced to integrate. Will the government force Korean neighbourhoods to accept blacks as well? Will the media push the concept of racially mixed families on Vietnamese people? Will Japan be forced to take in Muslims the way European countries have? To see how upset the White group has become visit www DOT stormfront DOT org.
The author states ““More intelligent members of the dominant group are just better at legitimizing and protecting their privileged position than less intelligent members,”. But fails to define “privilege”. For many this “privilege” is safety. More intelligent people are more likely to follow news than less intelligent people. Certain races appear more often in news reports for certain crimes. Most people will assume a mass shooting is committed by a white male. Based on news coverage. This is obviously racist. Other crimes are associated other racial groups. When a white community is forced to accept those racial groups it causes fear. It will be called racism. Obviously if the new people shared similar social / economic status then the fear will be less. No one expects middle class blacks to be breaking into neighbourhood homes. Government forced integration of communities would do well to keep this in mind.
Racism is about stereotypes. These stereotypes are fed by news reports, personal experiences, and backed by statistics. When crimes are reported people remember race and circumstances. For example many highly publicized attacks on gays were by groups of white males. This creates a stereotype that many white males are homophobic. I am certain that an openly gay person fears a group of white males more than a group of Asian males. That reaction would be called racist by most people.
Apparent racism may not be about race. Often times it is about fear. For example middle class mixed race neighbourhoods. Because values and behaviour are similar people respect each other. But forced integration by moving a group of lower class people into that neighbourhood will raise safety concerns. If the new people are black it will be called racism. If the new group is white reaction will be the same. But it will NOT be called racism. Where I live no one wants the “trailer park trash” moving into our neighbourhoods. Despite being of same race.