Thursday, February 4, 2016

Brain Size, Orbital volume, and National Intelligence

It is well established that populations differ in brain size. The explanation of why is more controversial. This post is going to look at two possible answers to this question.

Some have proposed that populations differ in brain size because some populations have evolved to be smarter than others, and one biological mechanism by which a population can become smarter is to increase its brain size. Others have said that some populations evolved to have larger orbital volumes that others in order to see better, and this increased their over all brain size.

One paper making this argument is Pearce and Dunbar (2011). In this paper, Pearce and Dunbar find a strong correlation between a population's mean orbital volume and the latitude in which that population evolved. The authors theorize that populations distant from the equator evolved large vision related brain areas because of the lower levels of ambient light in such areas. The lead author of the study, when speaking to the press, concluded “we argue that having bigger brains doesn’t mean that high-latitude humans are necessarily smarter. It’s just they need bigger eyes and brains to be able to see well where they live.”

Wolf (2011) wrote a reply in which he took Peace and Dunbar's data set and combined it with national IQ data. He showed that the correlation between total cortical capacity and national IQ is larger than the correlation between orbital volume and cranial capacity. He took this to mean that population differences in orbital volume alone cannot explanation the relationship between national IQ and cranial capacity.

I decided to take this data set and produce a correlation matrix as well as a multiple regression in which orbital volume and cranial capacity are independent variables predicting latitude. I took national IQ data from Lynn and Vanhnnen (2012) and data on the IQ of Native Americans from Lynn (2015). Scandinavia's IQ was calculated by averaging the IQs of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway.

The most surprising finding here is that population IQ correlates more strongly with orbital volume than it does with cortex capacity. However, this may just be due to how well orbital volume correlates with latitude.

Here we see that cranial capacity does continue to predict latitude holding orbital volume constant, but the association has a P value of .14. Given the small sample size of nations being used in this analysis, and the fact that a P value of .14 isn't that far off from conventional significance thresholds, I am inclined to view this as support for the view that brain size is associated with latitude independent of variation in orbital volume.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

Jewish Representation Among Influential Liberals and Conseratives

It is often contended that Jews are over-represented among influential leftists. This post tests this claim by aggregating names from several lists of influential liberals and estimating the proportion of people on these lists who are Jewish. I do the same for lists of influential conservatives and find that Jews are over-represented among the elites on both sides of the political spectrum but that this over-representation is much stronger on the left than on the right.

Method and Sample

To find lists of influential conservatives and liberals, I entered the search terms "top influential conservatives" and "top influential liberals" into google. I took each list done on American politics which appeared in the first 10 pages of results. Naturally, such lists have an element of subjectivity to them. However, there is no reason to think they would be biased with respect to their representation of Jews. Given this, they can be taken as reasonable estimates of the frequency of Jews among influential political figures. 

For conservatives, the lists used were as follows: John Hawkin's 25 most influential people on the right, 2013 and 2014 editions, the Independent Journals "25 Most Loved and Hated Conservatives in America", Anthea Mitchell's "10 Most Influential Voices in the Republican Party Today", The Daily Beast's "The Right's Top 25 Journalists", and the Telegraph's "The Most Influential U.S. Conservatives". Together, these lists provided 133 unique names. 

For liberals, the lists used were as follows: The Daily Beast's "The Left's Top 25 Journalists", Forbe's "The 25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S.", and the Telegraph's "The Most Influential U.S. Liberals". Together, these lists provided 134 unique names. 

To determine whether or not someone is Jewish I used Wikipedia. A person was counted as Jewish if their Wikipedia entry made any mention of them having Jewish ancestry. Wikipedia is a less than perfect source. However, formal tests of its accuracy suggest that it is nearly as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia will fail to mention that some Jews are Jewish. Therefore, these estimates are probably somewhat lower than the real numbers. However, there is no good reason to think that Wikipedia would be more likely to identify the Jewish ancestry of liberals or conservatives. Because of this, a comparison of Jewish over-representation among Liberals and Conservatives should be valid. People whose names appeared in one of the lists but who did not have a Wikipedia page were excluded from the data set. 


Jews were found to account for 8.3% of Influential Conservatives and 29.3% of influential Liberals. Given that Jews account for around 2% of the total U.S. population, this implies that Jews are roughly 4 times more likely than non Jews to be an influential conservative and roughly 15 times more likely than non-Jews to be an influential liberal. Thus, Jews were roughly 3 times more likely to be an influential liberal than an influential conservative. The difference between these proportions was significant at a 1% significance level. 

I know of a few similar analyses to this one done by others. First, The Audacious Epigone analyzed the Telegraph's 2007 lists of the 100 most influential U.S. liberals/conservatives and found that  24% of influential liberals were Jewish compared to 23% of influential conservatives. Second, the author of the blog "Race/Evolution/History Notes" analyzed two lists of America's most influential communists and found that 9 out of 28, or 32%, were Jewish. He also analyzed Forbes's 25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. list, a list which was included in my analysis, and found that 14, or 56%, were Jewish. 

Both estimates of Jewish representation among influential liberals are similar to my own. However, The Audacious Epigone's estimate of Jewish representation among influential conservatives is much higher than mine. It is possible that Jewish influence on the right has fallen since 2007. Given the stereotypical Jewish character of the neo con movement, and the influence that neo cons had during the Bush administration, this is not implausible. It is also possible that our differing results are a rest of variation in how we determine who is and is not Jewish. My impression is the The Audacious Epigone goolges around looking for as much information on each person as he can find. I chose to use a more standardized approach both because white nationalists might make a leftist's jewish ancestry easier to discover on google and because any biases I have may have influenced how much time and effort I spent on each person. 

Name Jewish Status
Jon Favreau Yes
Colin Powell No
Max Baucus No
James Carville No
Robert Bauer No
John Paul Stevens No
Donna Brazile No
George J. Mitchell No
Rod Blagojevich No
Bernie Sanders Yes
Kal Penn No
Daniel Pfeiffer No
Keith Olbermann No
Arne Duncan No
Jim Webb No
Steven Chu No
Mary Landrieu No
Jim Clyburn No
Pete Rouse No
Howard Dean No
David Plouffe Yes
Maureen Dowd No
Desirée Rogers No
Todd Stern No
Stephen Colbert No
Lawrence Summers Yes
Markos Moulitsas No
Joan Blades No
Warren Buffett No
Artur Davis No
Arlen Specter Yes
Joe Solmonese No
Kathleen Sebelius No
Ben Rhodes Yes
Keith Ellison No
Alan Grayson Yes
Melody Barnes No
Al Franken Yes
Peter R. Orszag Yes
Joe Biden No
John O. Brennan No
Ben Bernanke Yes
Thomas E. Donilon No
Michael Bloomberg Yes
Susan Rice No
James L. Jones No
Dick Durbin No
George Clooney No
Jon Stewart Yes
Steny Hoyer No
Paul Krugman Yes
Chuck Schumer Yes
Henry Waxman Yes
Michèle Flournoy no
John Podesta No
Richard Holbrooke Yes
Andy Stern Yes
Leon Panetta No
Valerie Jarrett Yes
Barak Obama No
Hilary Clinton No
Nancy Pelosi No
Bill Clinton No
Rahm Emanuel Yes
Al Gore No
Oprah Winfrey No
Tim Geithner No
David Axelrod Yes
Harry Reid  No
Michell Obama No
Ariana Huffington No
Sonia Sotomayor No
Denis McDonough No
Janet Napolitano No
Mark Warner  No
Robert Gibbs No
Barney Frank Yes
John Kerry Yes
Eric Holder No
John Edwards No
Wanda Skyes No
Stan Greenberg No
Jesse Jackson No
Jimmy Carter No
Roberty Bryd  No
Karl Eikenberry No
Lee Hamilton No
Chris Matthews No
Michael Moore No
Harold Ford No
Anthony Romero No
Joe Trippi No
Christina Romer No
George Soros Yes
Dennis Ross Yes
Eliot Spitzer  Yes
Evan Bayh No
Annise Parker No
Ben Nelson No
Michael Pollan Yes
Kurt Andersen No
Kevin Drum No
Ezra Klein Yes
James Fallows No
Andrew Sullivan  No
Glenn Greenwald Yes
Hendrick Hertzberg Yes
Matthew Yglesias Yes
Maureen Dowd No
Christopher Hitchens Yes
Bill Moyers No
Fareed Zakaria No
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga  No
David Shipley No
Joshua Marshall No
Racheal Maddow Yes
Thomas Friedman Yes
Fred Hiatt No
Jessica Valenti No
David Rieff Yes
Eric Alterman Yes
Deberah Solomon Yes
Adam Moss No
Katrina Heuvel Yes
Christiane Amanpour No
Jane Hamsher No
Franklin Foer Yes
Thomas Hartmann No
Steve Coll No
Johnathan Chait Yes
David Leonhardt No
Frank Rich Yes
Markos Moulitsas No
Name Jewish Status
Michell Malkin No
Newt Gingrich No
Greg Gutfeld No
Jim DeMint No
Matt Kibbe No
Scott Walker No
Charles Krauthammer Yes
Mitch McConnell No
Brent Bozell No
Rick Perry No
Rand Paul No
Wayne LaPierre No
Mark Levin Yes
John McCain No
Glenn Beck No
Ted Cruz No
Koch Brothers No
John Roberts No
Sean Hannity No
John Boehner No
Karl Rove No
Sarah Palin No 
Matt Druge Yes
Grover Norquist No
Rush Limbaugh No
Paul Ryan No
James O'Keefe No
Laura Ingraham No
Dick Cheney No
Mitt Romney No
Tim Phillips No
Tom J. Donohue No
Thomas Sowell No
Clarence Thomas No
Mia Love No
Antonin Scalia No
Mark Steyn Yes
Condoleezza Rice No
Bobby Jindal No
Megyn Kelly No
Glenn Reynolds No
 Jonah Goldberg Yes
Allen West No
Ben Carson No
Tim Scott No
George Bush No
Trey Gowdy No
Darrell Issa No
Dana Loesch No
Robert Gates No
Roger Ailes No
David Petraeus No
Tim Pawlenty No
Haley Barbour No
Eric Cantor Yes
Mike Pence No
Bob McDonnell No
Mike Huckabee No
Andrew Breitbart Yes
David Brooks Yes
Joe Lieberman Yes
David Frum Yes
Michael Steele No
Edwin Feulner No
John Bolton No
Tom Coburn No
Rich Lowry No
Mitch Daniels No
John Thune No
Ron Paul No
George Will No
Dick Morris No
Micheal Savage Yes
Mary Matalin No
Richard Lugar No
Carly Fiorina No
David Keene No
Kevin McCarthy  No
Morton Blackwell No
Arnold Schwarzenegger No
Alex Castellanos No
Steve Schmidt No
William Kristol Yes
Rudy Giuliani No
Jon Voight No
Michele Bachmann No
Lou Dobbs No
Meg Whitman No
Joe Wilson No
Jeb Bush No
James Dobson No
Ann Coulter  No
Judd Gregg No
Tucker Carlson No
Dick Armey No
Michael Barone No
Olympia Snowe No
Paul Gigot No
Joe Scarborough No
Victor Davis Hanson No
Erick Erickson No
Christopher Ruddy No
Frank Luntz No
Jeff Flake No
Mark Sanford No
Tom DeLay No
Michael P. Murphy No
Marc Thiessen No
Emmett Tyrrell No
Liz Cheney No
Jon Huntsman, Jr. No
Charlie Crist No
Peggy Noonan No
Tony Perkins No
Fred Thompson No
Patrick Ruffini No
John Kasich No
Bill O'Reilly No
Lindsey Graham No
Jack Keane No
Marco Rubio No
James Taranto No
Neil Cavuto No
Caroline Baum N0
Nick Gillespie No
Joseph Rago No
Glenn Reynolds No
Marc Morano No
Mary O'Grady No
Caitlin Flanagan No
Edwin Feulner No
Jon Kyl No

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Immigration Views and Political Leftism Among the Global Jewish Population

Within the United States, data on the immigration views of Jews is, on its face, highly inconsistent. However, careful analysis, in my opinion, tends to support the view that Jews have restrictionist views on immigration which are more or less identical to the views of White Americans generally. However, survey data clearly shows that American Jews are more likely than the general American population to identify with the political left. In this post, I use data from the World Values Survey to explore the extent to which these patterns are mirrored among the global Jewish population. The results of this analysis suggest that, globally, Jews are more liberal and more pro-immigration than non-Jews. However, these differences may not be large enough to be of any practical significance depending on how representative the sample of Jews utilized is.

Measures and Samples

To measure attitudes about immigration, I utilized 3 variables from the World Values Survey (WVS). One variable utilized is titled "immigration policy'. This was variable 124 in the wave 4 of the WVS. It asked "How about people from other countries coming here to work. Which one of the following do you think the government should do? 1. Let anyone come who wants to? 2. Let people come as long as there are jobs available? 3. Place strict limits on the number of foreigners who can come here? or 4. Prohibit people coming here from other countries?". Data for this question was collected from 3 waves of the WVS survey which combined include data collected from 1995 to 2009. The total Jewish sample size for this question was 503. The total global population sample size was 184,708.

A second variable utilized is titled "Neighbors: immigrants/foreign laborers" and was variable 37 in the 4rth wave of the WVS. This question presented people with a list of possible groups of people who they might not like to have as neighbors and asked them to mention which of these groups they would not, in fact, like to have as neighbors. This question was asked on all 6 waves of the WVS and, includes data collected between 1981 and 2014. The total Jewish sample size for this question was 964. The total global population sample size was 315,567.

The third variable utilized to measure immigration attitudes was variable 79 in the 4rth wave of the WVS. It asked people whether they agreed, disagreed, or neither agreed or disagreed, with the following statement: "When jobs are scarce, employers should give priority to people of this country over immigrants." The total Jewish sample size for this question was 607. The total global population sample was 209,120.

Finally, a measure of general political orientation was utilized. This was variable 139 in the 4rth wave of the WVS. It asked people to rank their political views on a scale of 1 to 10 with lower numbers meaning further to the left than higher numbers. It was asked in all waves except wave 3. The total Jewish sample size for this question was 1858. The total global population sample size was 237,229.

Respondents were counted as Jews if they answered "Jew" to a question which asked respondents to identify their religious denomination. It was variable 184 of the 4rth wave of the WVS. The fact that this question is religious in nature, rather than ethnic, may skew the results of this analysis so as to make Jews look more conservative than they actually are. However, in the U.S., it is well known that many atheist Jews identify as religious Jews in surveys. Moreover, some, but not all, past analyzes have found that surveys of religious American Jews produce identical political results to surveys of American ethnic Jews. The global population consisted of everyone who gave an answer to questions being analyzed.

It might be argued that the results of this analysis will not be representative of Jews in general or the global population in general due to the fact that countries are non-randomly selected to be included in the WVS. The validity of such a speculative objection is difficult to judge. However, to the degree that the selection of countries in the WVS is unrepresentative, it may be unrepresentative of both Jews and the global population in the same ways. To the extent that this is true, a non-random selection of countries will not bias comparisons between Jews and the global population.


Across all three questions, the global Jewish population was found to be more pro-immigrant than the general global population. These difference are all statistically significant at a .05 significance level based on a two-tailed test. However, these differences were generally not large enough to lead to differences of practical significance. The average member of both populations would answer all three questions the same way.

Jews were also found to, on average, self-identify as more liberal than the general global population. This difference was also statistically significant based on a two-tailed test with a .05 significance level. This difference was the equivalent of .27 standard deviations indicating small to moderate practical significance.

*Astricks indicate that the difference between the Jewish mean/proportion and the global mean/proportion was statistically significant in a two-tailed test with a .05 significance level. 


This analysis suggests that Jews are more liberal, and more pro-immigration, than non-Jews. However, the size of these differences is small and of little practical importance. On the other hand, this analysis may underestimate the true size of said differences due to Jewishness being measured as a religious variable instead of an ethnic one. Because of this possibility, the differences reported here should be taken as estimates of the smallest that these differences are likely to be.

Friday, December 11, 2015

Donald Trump and the Banning of U.S. Muslim Immigration

(An audio/slideshow version of this post can be found here).

Donald Trump has called for a temporary ban on virtually all Muslim immigration into the U.S. until congress devises some way of stopping Muslim terrorists from sneaking into the country via our lax immigration laws. Polls are inconsistent on whether or not this policy is supported by the public at large. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 46% of Americans agree with Trump while 40% disagree. By contrast, a Bloomberg poll found that 37% of the public supports Trump while 50% does not and an NBC poll found that 25% of the public supports Trump while 57% does not. Relatedly, a recent YouGov poll found that a majority of Americans, young and old, Black, White, and Latino, oppose letting any Muslim refugees into the United States. As a whole, the public seems fairly divided on how to handle Muslim immigration. Many within the mainstream political establishment, both right and left, claim the restrictionist policies favored by Trump, and many other Americans, are illegal, un-American, and irrational. The point of this post is to demonstrate that this is false. 

Early American Immigration Law

The first place to look to see about the legality of something in the United States is the constitution. Regarding immigration law, article 1, section 8, clause 4, states the following “Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization”. This is all the constitution says on the matter. Thus, the constitution gives the congress the authority to make rules about who can and cannot come to America and places no restrictions on what those rules can look like. 

When determining what the constitution means, it is useful to look at relevant legislation passed by those who were involved with writing it. With respect to immigration, this means looking at the naturalization acts of the 1790's and very early 19th century. Among other things, they banned criminals and non-Whites from becoming U.S. citizens. The Alien Enemies act of 1789 is also worth mentioning. This law, which is still in effect today, gave the president of the United States the right to detain and deport any immigrant who was thought by the president to be an enemy of the state during a time of war. For instance, this act was used by Jefferson to justify the deportation of British Americans during the war of 1812. The Alien act of 1798 was another early immigration law. It gave the president the right to detain and deport any immigrant who, in the president's judgment, might attempt to subvert the nation. This act was repealed during Thomas Jefferson's presidency due to it being seen as an unconstitutional expansion of the power of the president. 

Immigration Law: 1875-1916

As can be seen, from the very beginning the U.S. limited who could come to America and become a citizen based on race. This practice became more extreme in 1882 when, in response to growing concerns about Chinese rail workers out competing American workers, the Chinese Exclusion act was passed. This act banned nearly all immigration from China to the U.S until its repeal in 1943. Restrictions on who could immigrate to the U.S. were further strengthened with the passage of The Immigration Act of 1891, which banned from the U.S. any immigrant who was insane, extremely poor, carried a contagious disease, or practiced polygamy. 

Until this point, ideology had not been a factor in U.S. immigration law, but that would all change with the assassination of President McKinley in 1901. This murder, which was committed by Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist, led to the passage of the Anarchist Exclusion act of 1903 which banned anyone from immigrating to the United States who was an “advocate for the overthrow by force of violence of the Government of the United States or of all governments or of all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials". This was widely interpreted to mean anarchists and communists. Today, some might view this as a violation of free speech. But this grievance rests upon a simple misunderstanding: the U.S. constitution only guarantees freedom of speech to U.S. citizens. It does not protect freedom of speech of foreigners who don't even live in the U.S.

If the constitution did give potential immigrants the same rights as U.S. citizens the Asiatic Barred Zone Act would have been totally impossible. This act, passed in 1916, banned anyone from immigrating to the United States who was gay, retarded, illiterate, or an alcoholic. Obviously, this was not seen as being at tension with the rights of Americans to be illiterate, retarded, or an alcoholic. 

Immigration since 1924

Beginning in the late 1800’s there was a massive surge of immigration from countries that the original American stock did not derive from. Traditionally, almost all Americans had either come from the British Isles or Germany. But beginning in the late 1800's, huge numbers of Southern, Eastern, and Scandanavian, Europeans began coming to America. These groups differed radically from Americans in every way you could think of. They spoke different languages, had different political and religious values, and had highly dissimilar rates of crime and educational attainment. This caused a great deal of social turmoil which ultimately lead to the passage of the Johnson-Reed act of 1924. This act set up a quota system for immigrants so that the proportion of all immigrants that a given ethnicity would take up each year would correspond to their proportion of the total American population in 1890. In effect, this totally disabled immigration from changing the ethnic character of the nation from what it had been in 1890 until the quota system was removed with the passage of Hart-Cellar act of 1965. 

The last major piece of legislation worth reviewing here is the McCarran-Walter act of 1952. This act, which was passed over a veto from president Truman, set up 33 separate reasons for which an immigrant could be denied access to the united states. Included among those denied a right to immigrate to the U.S. were criminals, people judged to be stupid, people whose labor was deemed unneeded in the U.S. economy, and anyone who practiced a “subversive” ideology, such as communism or anarchism. Clearly, at this point in time, the U.S. had no problem with denying people the privilege of immigrating here based on any criteria that we saw fit. 

It is worth noting that we don't have these sorts of immigration laws enacted anymore because of congressional action. None of these laws were ever declared unconstitutional. In fact, as recently as 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government could lawfully deport people for being associated with Palestinian activism and denied that such immigrants were guaranteed freedom of speech under the 1st amendment. 

If the history of American immigration policy makes anything clear it is that there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional, or un-American, about limiting, or totally denying, the right of certain kinds of people to immigrate here. Historically, we’ve banned people based on ethnicity, race, behavior, mental ability, and ideology. And as recently as 1999, the Supreme Court has up help our right to discriminate based on ideology. Thus, there can be no legal argument against Trump's proposed ban on Muslim immigration. 

Refugee Ideology

Of course, the fact that something is legal does not entail that it is wise. Currently, the U.S faces two important questions with respect to Islam and immigration policy: first, should we take in large numbers of middle eastern refugees, as president Obama has proposed, and, second, should we continue our current practice of allowing in roughly 100,000 legal, nonrefugee, Islamic immigrants per year.

Let's first consider the refugee question. Polling of refugees, and the Middle Eastern populations from which they come, suggest that refugees hold views that most Americans would find deeply troubling. For instance, a poll of 900 Syrian refugees carried out by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies found that one in eight Syrian refugees openly admit to having a positive view of ISIS. In a similar vein, polling of Middle Eastern Muslims done by Pew show that roughly one in four believe that violence against civilians in the name of Islam can be justified, more than half support making Sharia law the law of the land, more than half support the death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam, and more than half think that family “honor” killings of women for having premarital sex or committing adultery can be justified. 

Based on the proportions provided by these polls, if we accept 10,000 Syrian refugees, as president Obama would like us too, then in the next year alone we can expect to gain an extra 1,300 Muslims who openly have a positive view of ISIS, 2,500 Muslims who think that violence against civilians in the name of Islam can be justified, and over 5,000 Muslims who favor the implementation of sharia law, the death penalty for leaving Islam, and honor killings. Given that it only takes a handful of people to commit a deadly terrorist attack, this seems like pretty good cause for concern.

Islam, Crime, and Terrorism

Setting refugees aside, Muslim immigrant populations have serious problems related to political ideology, terrorism, and crime.

First, let's look at crime. In every White country for which data is available, we see that Muslims commit crime at a higher rate than non-Muslims do. In France, Muslims take up roughly 8% of the general population, but account for roughly 70% of those incarcerated. Most U.S Muslim immigrants come from the Middle East and Southern Asia. Within these regions, research shows that the larger a countries Muslim population is, the higher its level of violent crime tends to be. Thus, if we import more Muslims into the United States we can expect them to have a negative impact on our crime rates.

Source: England FranceDenmark, Belgium (Roth 2014 page 408), Norway, the Netherlands (Roth 2014 page 408), Australia, and Canada

Next, let's look at politics. Polling done by the Center for Security Policy shows that slightly more than half of American Muslims think that they should have the right to be governed by Sharia law. Pew polling shows that American Muslims are more likely to say that they identify as a Muslim first than to say that they identify as an American first, that 68% of U.S. Muslims, compared to 42% of the American public, say they would prefer a bigger government with more services to a smaller government with fewer services, and that  roughly 70% of American Muslims identify with the Democrat party. As with other minority groups, an increase in America's Muslim population will likely result in an increase in the size of government and a decrease in social cohesion.  

Finally, consider Islamic extremism and terrorism. Surveys done in Germany, England, France, and Spain, suggest that about 1 in 4 Muslims think that violence against civilians in the name of Islam can be justified. Similarly, Pew polling shows that roughly one in eight American Muslims believe that suicide bombing can be justified. Perhaps most strikingly of all, a survey of 600 American Muslims found that one in four agreed with the statement “Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”

These aren't idle words, either. Recently, liberals in the United States have been citing an analysis of FBI data which claims that only 6% of terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 were committed by Muslims. The methodology behind this analysis seems rather dubious to me, but there is no real need to go into that. Instead, we need only remember math we learned in elementary school in order to see that this statistic is misleading. Between 1980 and 2005 Muslims only accounted for about 0.45% of the U.S. population. This means that committing 6% of the terrorist attacks that happened during that time would constitute an extreme degree of over-representation. Specifically, this figure, put within its proper context relative to the Muslim population size, implies that Muslims have been roughly 13 times more likely than non-Muslims to engage in terrorism. This coheres well with a recent analysis of global data which showed that the larger a countries Muslim population is the higher its rates of terrorism tend to be. This remained true even after controlling for national differences in income. 

The Assimilation Myth

Some people recognize that Muslim immigrant populations are extremely problematic with respect to crime, political ideology, and terrorism, but believe that these problems will only last in the short term because future generations of Muslims will assimilate into Western culture just as past waves of European immigrants assimilated into American culture. This is a comforting belief, but, unfortunately, the evidence suggests that it is false. Multiple reports out of England have shown that young and native-born Muslims are more likely than old and foreign-born Muslims to embrace extremist versions of Islam. Similarly, Pew polling has found that native-born Muslim-Americans are more likely than foreign-born Muslim Americans to support suicide bombing and to have a favorable view of groups like Al-Qaida. Finally, work done in Germany, Norway, and Denmark has shown that young and 2nd generation Muslims have higher crime rates than older and foreign-born ones. Thus, contrary to the assimilation hypothesis, the descendants of Islamic immigrant populations in the West seem to only be getting more extreme, more radicalized, and more criminal.


In this post, we've seen that Muslim immigration carries with it significant and potentially deadly costs. The more Muslims are allowed into the United States the higher our rates of crime and terrorism will be, the more social tension and anti-American ideology will prosper, and the bigger, and more democrat, our government will become. Moreover, no immigration advocate has ever demonstrated any gain from Islamic immigration that would compensate us for such costs. Given this, and the fact that it is both legal and consistent with traditional American values to do so, there is no compelling reason for our government to allow even one more Muslim into our country.  

Saturday, December 5, 2015

White Criminals Are More Likely Than Black Criminals To Be Killed By Police

In the media, we often here colorful anecdotes about African Americans being killed by police. Some outlets have gone as far as saying that there is a "epidemic" of police violence against African Americans in America. What is almost always missing from such analyses are statistics by which we might judge the relative rates at which Whites and African Americans are killed by police. Recently, a paper published in the Journal Preventative Medicine provided an exception to this rule. Using data from the Center for Disease Control's Compressed Mortality Index, they determined that that African Americans are more likely than White Americans to be killed by police. A likely explanation for this finding is that African Americans are more likely to commit crime, and especially violent crime, than White Americans are. To explore this issue, I estimated the rate at which White and African American criminals are killed by police and found that White violent criminals are significantly more likely as African American violent criminals to be killed by police. 

Measures and Samples

To determine the number of White and African Americans killed by police I used data from the Center of Disease Control's Compressed Mortality Database for the years 1999-2013. The CMD received reports on causes of death from every county in the country. In keeping with the definition used by the paper in Preventative Medicine, I counted any death caused by a law enforcement officer that was not a legal execution. Some people argue that government data may underestimate the number of people killed by police each year. Even if true, this bais will not impact the analysis done here unless police are less likely to report a death they cause when the victim is White or Black. There is no evidence that this is the case. 

To determine the number of people arrested, by race, from 1999 to 2013 I used the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. The UCR receives arrest records from counties that cover 94% of the American population. Some claim that arrest records are racially biased because police are more likely to arrest African American criminals than White criminals. However, in a previous post I showed that racial crime rate estimates from the UCR and the National Crime Victimization Survey match up very closely. The NCVS is a survey carried out yearly by the Department of Justice in which a large and random sample of Americans are asked about their experience with crime over the last 6 months and to describe the demographic characteristics, such as race, of the perpetrators of any crimes they have witnessed. It would, therefore, be totally free of police bias. And because the UCR does not over-estimate Black crime relative to the NCVS it seems reasonable to conclude that it is free from such bias as well. 

I produced two estimates: one of the rate at which all criminals of each race are killed by police and another of the rate at which violent criminals of each race are killed by police. The first estimate is based on the assumption that basically all people who are killed by police are also being arrested. The second estimate assumes that basically all people who are killed by police are being arrested for a violent crime. Since attacking a police officer is a violent crime. and almost all police officers claim self defense when they kill someone, this seems like a reasonable assumption. (Note: assuming that someone is being arrested for a crime is not the same as assuming that they actually committed a crime.)


As can be seen, between 1999 and 2013 there were 41,147,462 arrests of African Americans, 2,469,537, or 6.00%, of which were for violent crimes, and 102,708,386 arrests of White Americans, 3,817,252, or 3.72%, of which were for violent crimes. The CMD recorded 3,792 White Americans and 1,476 African Americans being killed by police during this time period. 

The rate per 100,000 arrests at which suspected criminals were killed was 3.69 for White Americans and 3.59 for African Americans. Thus, White suspected criminals were found to be killed more often than Black suspected criminals. However, this difference was not statistically significant (p=.35).

The rate per 100,000 at which suspected violent criminals were killed by police was 99.34 for White Americans and 59.77 for African Americans. Thus, White suspected violent criminals were killed 1.67 times as often by police as African Americans were. This difference was statistically significant (p<.0001). 


There is no evidence that Black criminals are more likely to be killed by police than White criminals are. To the contrary, there is evidence that White violent criminals are significant more likely than Black violent criminals to be killed by police. 

Friday, December 4, 2015

Anti-White Racism

In recent weeks Facebook has seen the creation of numerous pages representing White Student Unions at U.S College campuses. These groups claim to provide White students with a "safe space" in which to discuss their experiences with anti-White racism. The existence of such groups has infuriated and shocked many who believe that such groups are, at best, absurd and, at worst, downright evil. This reaction rests on the premise that White people do not experience significant discrimination and that, to the extent that modern western society is racist, White people are the perpetrators, rather than the victims, of bigotry. The purpose of this post is to show that these people are mistaken and to demonstrate that, in fact, racism against white people is common place.

Opportunities Denied

The most transparent examples of anti-White racism are to be found in the world of educational and employment opportunities. Unlike the task, often attempted by liberals, of demonstrating that African Americans suffer discrimination in these domains, showing that White people face racist hurdles is very simple. The simplicity of this task owes itself to the fact that, as you would expect in any genuinely racist society, businesses and schools are open about their anti-White policies.

For instance, in the United States it is typical for firms to announce that they are either beginning to go out of their way to find non-White employees, improving upon their previous attempts to find non-White employees, or that they are proud of the success of their previous attempt to find non-White employees. Any time a firm talks about increasing "diversity" in a workplace they are functionally talking about decreasing the proportion of their employees that are white. Examples of this are easy to come by. It took me about 5 minutes to find pages implicating Google, Facebook, Apple, Walmart, McDonald's, and Microsoft in such attempts. In fact, I know of few major corporations that do not have some sort of "diversity" policy in place. Such policies make ethnicity a factor by which a person's hire-ability is judged. Obviously, White is seen as a negative and so qualified whites are denied job opportunities which they deserve so that companies can reach their "diversity" goals. 

Educational opportunities are also denied to Whites based on their race. Empirical research from Princeton University shows that Whites have to score much higher than non-Whites on standardized tests in order to be allowed into the same universities. In fact, said research found that when you compare equally qualified Black and White applicants to elite universities you find that Black applicants are over 5 times as likely to be admitted. Similarly, a recent survey of officials from 68 highly selective U.S colleges found that “membership in an under-represented group” tied with “exceptional talent” as the top pick for what makes a student “fit” their university. Other research has shown that similar discrimination takes place with respect to the funding of college. Specifically, it has been shown that Whites receive, on average, significantly smaller loans and grants than non-Whites do.

This discrimination has real world consequences. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that Black high-school students are more likely than White high-school students to make it into college. That this is due to discrimination, rather than Blacks being more qualified than Whites, can be seen by the fact that White high-school students make better grades than Black students and score better on standardized tests. Thus, anti-White racism unfairly denies both educational and employment opportunities to Whites.

Racist Stereotypes

Equally unfair are the false and negative stereotypes about White males which exist in our society. Everyone has, at one point or another, heard it suggested that Black males are taller and have larger genitals than White males. Obviously, such a statement is meant to diminish the sexual value of White males relative to Black ones. Of course, real group differences, where they exist, should be recognized. But both of these claims amount to nothing more than racist myths. Analyzes of the relevant data show that there are actually no significant differences between White and Black males in terms of genital size and that White males are actually taller than Black males.

There also exists a stereotype that White people, male or female, are, basically, just not cool. Of course, "coolness" is rather subjective. Nonetheless, it’s hard not to notice that phrases such as "That's so White" meaning the same thing as "That's so lame" is a striking exception to the more general trend of our society becoming increasingly sensitive about the use of any group label that can be construed as having a negative connotation. It's almost as if the group in this instance, White people, is valued less than the groups in other instances.

Anti-White stereotypes extend not only to appearance and status, but also crime. In particular, many people in our society believe that basically all serial killers and mass murderers are White. This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the serial killer database assembled by Radford University shows that in recent decades blacks have been roughly 4 times more likely than whites to be serial killers. This figure surprises many people, as we almost never hear about Black serial killers. But this is because of biased reporting and not because they do not exist.

Crime in anti-White America

Speaking of crime, anti-White racism has profoundly distorted the public's perception of inter-racial crime as well as police brutality. In recent years, it seems as if every few months we hear a new story about whites, either police or private citizens, killing blacks. Based on the media's portrayal someone could easily get the impression that homicide is much more often White on Black than Black on White. Crime statistics paint a strikingly different picture. Data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that the rate of Black on White homicide has been roughly three times the rate of White on Black homicide for at least the last 35 years. Moreover, an analysis of 6 years of data by the Department of Justice showed that roughly 500 more Whites than Blacks were killed during arrests. Of course, this is partly due to the fact that the White population in the United States is much larger than the Black population. But if we divide the arrest fatality numbers by the violent crime numbers provided by the FBI's Uniform Crime Report we see that a White violent criminal is more likely than a Black violent criminal to be killed by police. Any American who watches the news knows the names of several blacks killed by Whites in recent years (Micheal Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Freddie Gray, for instance). By contrast, even though more Whites are killed by police, and even though more Blacks kill Whites than the other way around, and even though White criminals are more likely than Black criminals to be killed by police, few people know the names of any Whites recently killed by law enforcement, or by Blacks.

Of course, someone who follows the news will also probably know that many of the Blacks whose deaths generated protests were killed justly. And this is another form of anti-White racism: White police officers and private citizens are now regularly demonized for defending themselves against Black aggressors.
White Racial Consciousness

Anti-White racism is fairly obvious in crime, education, and employment, but nowhere is it more out in the open than in the university. Consider, for example, a recent report by the University of Illinois which argued that having a room filled with too many white people is a "microaggression" against students of color and, therefore, wrong. Could the racism be any more overt? Consider, also, the classes on ethnicity offered by universities today. It is perfectly normal for a college to offer classes in "African American Studies", "Latino Studies", etc, in which the problems of these ethnic groups are systematically studied and an appreciation for what makes these groups unique is gained. By contrast, most universities offer nothing in the way of "White studies" and when they do it literally consists of offering classes with titles like "The Problem of Whiteness". Similarly, most schools have clubs designed to serve the interests of Black, Hispanic, and Asian, students. But the recent rise in White Student Unions has shown that White people are uniquely not allowed to engage in such activities. Meanwhile, Blacks not only organize their own student groups but also demand that white people leave areas when such groups are using them.

More broadly, what is being done in the university, and in society at large, is that White people are being denied any sense of ethnic identity. This is in-spite of the fact that large meta-analyses of dozens of studies show that racial consciousness is associated with improved personal well being and better life outcomes. Indeed, White identity is so strongly viewed as evil that many left wing publications went as far as to call Whites mourning the death of the French of the Paris Terrorist Attacks racist. Can you imagine anyone calling Blacks, Asians, or Arabs, racist for morning an attack on one of their cities? 

The most important implication of denying White's a racial identity is the denial that there is such a thing as White interests. Everyone knows that there are certain things that are in the interests of Black people, Asian people, and Hispanic people. Such interests are to be served by organizations like the NAACP, the ADL, racial student unions, political coalitions (Ex: the black caucus) and other modes of organization that are denied to Whites. To many, the mere suggestion that Whites also have group interests is itself racist. This denial of White interests has serious political consequences. 

Consider the recent Muslim refugee crisis. Whites are expected to take in these refugees only because it is denied that they have any right to view the situation from the perspective of their own group interest. This is why everyone is talking about Europe and America's obligation to take in Muslims. No one mentions an obligation on the part of rich Asian nations like Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Nor do Asian nations with populations so large that a million Muslims would barely be felt, such as China and India, have obligations. Perhaps even more extraordinarily, Arab nations which are far richer than almost all European nations, such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, are never mentioned either. No, instead, only Whites have an obligation to take in Muslim immigrants. And this is not because Whites are uniquely able to take in immigrants, but, rather, because Whites uniquely lack the right to decide not to do so. This is why the excuses which are valid for non-Whites, about how their economies can't take such a surge of immigration, about how the Muslims would change their national culture, etc., aren't valid for Whites. White people have no right to preserve their culture. They have no right to protect their economies. Hell, they don't even have a right to fear terrorism. The only right afforded to White nations is to serve the interests of others. This, the denial of the national sovereignty of White nations, directly flows from the denial of White interests, and is the pinnacle of anti-White racism. 

At this point, I think it would be instructive to imagine a world in which the tables were turned. Imagine a society in which firms openly declared that they were going to try and hire more White people and universities had a policy of requiring non-Whites to get higher test scores than Whites in-order to be let into the same schools. Imagine that police were actually more likely to kill non-White criminals than White criminals and non-White police were blamed for defending themselves against White thugs. Imagine that Whites were three times as likely to kill non-Whites as the other way around. Imagine that the terms "Black" and "Hispanic" were used to disparage things and that racist, demonstrably false, stereotypes existed about the mating value and criminal tendencies of non-Whites. Imagine that non-Whites were not allowed to organize, at school or politically, the way that Whites do. And, on top of all this, non-White nations were assigned responsibilities that no one would imagine forcing on White ones. What would we call such a world? Obviously, we would call it racist.

History Does Not Justify Anti-White Racism

Some people will say that racism against Whites is justified. They will claim that White people deserve all of this as punishment for past wrong doings and that Whites have a unique obligation to help non-whites because they uniquely hurt them in the past. This belief is mistaken, but before demonstrating that, it is worth emphasizing exactly what it is: this is just a racist saying that their racism is justified. It is the exact same as an anti-Black racist claiming that their racism is justified because Blacks really are dumb and criminal. I point this out not because I believe we can discredit racism apriori, but, rather, just to note that society, for better or worse, would never tolerate something like this being said about non-Whites. With that being said, let's briefly look at some of the White races supposedly unique sins.

First, let's consider slavery. We hear endlessly about the slavery practices that Western governments engaged in several hundred years ago. Slavery is supposed to explain why certain minorities in America lag so far before economically, and Whites are expected to eternally pay for enslaving Africans. Given that slavery from 150 years ago is thought to be so potent, you would think that modern day slavery would be an even greater concern. And yet, you almost never hear about the fact that, today, there are literally millions of slaves in both Africa and Asia. In fact, according to the Global Slavery Index, the number of slaves in The Congo, or India, or China, or The Sudan, or Iraq, or Syria, alone is greater than the number of slaves in The United States, Canada, The United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Greece, combined.

Non-Whites engaging in slavery isn't exactly new, either. History's longest-running slave trade was carried out for over 1,000 years by the Islamic Ottoman Empire and enslaved well over 10 million Africans (as well as many Europeans). In fact, long before the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade began, being a slave was perfectly normal in many parts of Africa. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, prior to 1600 in many African nations’ as many as one in three people or more were enslaved. Given that all the races engage in slavery, it's hard to see how slavery can be used to assign any unique blame to White people.

The same can be said of conquest. Often times, Europeans are made to feel guilty for conquering America, Africa, Australia, and other lands. The poverty of nations today is blamed on them being conquered in the past. Historically, this is nonsense. Virtually every group of people in history has engaged in conquest. The Aztec Empire in America, the Songhay Empire in Africa, and the Chinese Empire, to name just a few examples, all greatly increased the power of their states by conquering pre-existing nations and subjugating their native peoples. In fact, both The Mongolian Empire and The Ottoman Empire invaded significant portions of Europe. And yet, neither Arabs nor East Asians, not to mention Africans and Native Americans, are made to feel guilty about their imperial past. Nor is said past used as an explanation for why some nations are poor today while others are not. Clearly then, the idea that Whites are uniquely guilty due to the history of White imperialism is untenable. (It also isn't true that European colonialism made nations poor. In fact, a 2012 paper out of Berkeley and NYU showed that the more colonized a nation was by Europeans in the past the richer it ended up being today.)

Finally, there's genocide. Many view Whites as a uniquely evil race of people because of the genocides which Whites have committed against non-Whites. The problem with this line of reasoning, like those refuted above, is not that White people did not kill huge numbers of Native Americans and Jews but, rather, that White people don't hold anything like a monopoly on genocide. Consider The Ottoman Empire. During the 20th century, the Ottoman's killed millions while carrying out genocides of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. Arab's aren't the only non-Whites to commit genocide either. Nearly 2 million people died in the Cambodian Genocide of the 1970's.

Africa has had its fair share of genocide as well, though they are treated differently than other non-White genocides are, which are themselves treated differently from White lead genocides. Generally speaking, if a genocide is carried out by Whites the focus will be on how evil the villains are and how much they owe to their victims. Thus, people are made to hate the Nazi's and early American settlers. If Arabs or Asians commit a genocide it is ignored. Many people have probably never even heard of the Genocides carried out by the Ottomans and the Cambodians, outside of perhaps a passing mention in a history class, even though these genocides are much more recent than what happened to the Native Americans. Finally, if a genocide is committed by Africans the public is made aware of it, but we entirely ignore the villain and, amazingly, believe that it is once again us who has an obligation to help the victims! For instance, most Americans heard about the late 20th century genocides carried out in Rwanda and the Congo. But what did we hear about them? We heard about the victims and how it was our duty to help them. The perpetrators were not demonized the way that, for instance, the Nazis were. In fact, I bet the average American doesn't even know who the perpetrator was in either Rwanda or the Congo. This would never happen with a White lead genocide. It is unthinkable that a white nation could do what these African nations did and not be remembered as villains hundreds of years later.

What we see, then, is that we have a double standard when looking at history. We blame white people for things that we absolve other races of. Clearly then, since this way of looking at history is, itself, racist, this historical perspective is a symptom, rather than a cause or justification, of anti-White racism. 
The Peculiar Nature of Anti-White Racism

When discussing anti-White racism, there are two peculiar facts which must be noted: firstly, that many white people are involved in leading anti-White racism, and secondly, that few White people complain about anti-White racism, at least compared to other groups who claim to face discrimination. When asked one after another, it becomes clear that these questions are really one and the same: why do so many white people seem to buy into anti-White narratives? No other ethnic group has, at any time in history, been subject to a racist movement in which they were at once the chief victims and among the chief perpetrators. Answering this question is beyond the scope of this post. Here, I just want to point out that the fact that Whites actively participate in anti-White racism does not change the fact that it is real and serious. If anything, it makes anti-White racism more serious, because Whites lack anyone to defend them, including themselves.


In this post we've seen that whites face discrimination in a variety of different areas. This racism limits their individual opportunities, encourages racist and false stereotypes, and deprives them of both a healthy sense of racial identity and their right to govern in their own group interests. We've also seen that history cannot be used to justify anti-White racism since there are no historical sins unique to Whites. Many White people aren't aware that this racism exists. It arose so gradually and is now so commonplace that many fail to notice it as anything out of the ordinary. Those who do are silenced. Still fewer understand where this racism came from or why White people themselves participate in it. Clearly then, contrary to those who deny the legitimacy of White Student Unions, when it comes to facing racism, there is quite a lot for White people to talk about.