Women and the University

Share Button

An article recently came out lamenting that a larger number of women were incurring student loan debt and that debt was larger per capita among women than men. It is based on a report (click this, the graphs are worth looking at) by the “American Association of University Women.”  Certainly this sounds like a factually unreliable organization with an obvious agenda. However, their findings are broadly in line with what I would expect from my own research. Of course, the Fortune article is filled with a lot of ideological garbage blaming the patriarchy, racism, and the mythical wage gap. Feel free to read the article at the first link, but the only really useful information is the numbers.

  • 56% of all college enrollments in the fall of 2016 were women.
  • 833 billion dollars of the 1.3 trillion dollars of American student loan debt is owed by women. This is approximately 64.1% of student loan debt.
  • At the end of a bachelor’s degree, women have on average about 1500 dollars more debt than men.
  • Black women incur the most debt, with the average owing about 30,000 dollars.
  • Women on average take about 2 years longer than men to pay off their debt.
  • Women earn about 20% less than men 5 years after receiving their bachelor’s.
  • Within four years of graduation, men had paid on average 38% of their debt vs. 31% for women.

It is interesting that women are over-represented in incurring debt relative to their overall presence at universities. Possible explanations include affirmative action placement at more expensive schools, better scholarship opportunities for serious degrees which are male dominated, or male workforce participation during college years, which enables them to take on less debt. Or something else.

As usual, there are some substantial racial differences involved. These differences almost certainly correlate with known racial differences in IQ which explain overall income differences. It is better to analyze gender differences after controlling for race; when possible.

However, the overall pattern is the same across races even if the absolute numbers are different. More women are taking on more debt, earning less, and taking longer to pay that debt back. I really have no trouble believing this is true. Unlike the Fortune writer, I don’t believe it has anything to do with patriarchy or gender discrimination. Biologically based gender differences can explain approximately the totality of the differences in outcomes here. For one thing, men have an innate superiority in visuospatial reasoning which makes them tend towards harder sciences, engineering, and computer science which more usually offer a higher wage. This makes it easier to pay back loans regardless of price. The following is a brief excerpt from my book, Smart and Sexy which goes over degree choices by gender. There is of course much more detail and information in the book about this topic. You can see additional excerpts and reviews here.

If a closer look is taken at the specific degrees women are receiving the picture isn’t quite as rosy as is often implied. To be sure, men also succumb to pursuing essentially worthless degrees, but they do so at a lesser rate than women and since the absolute number of men pursing college degrees is less, the problem is quantitatively less severe even when they do. Some of the most common degrees women are getting, such as business, health, and biological sciences, do make them more employable and socially valuable. Most, however, are notorious for conferring little value in the job market and can be expected not to improve income significantly. Among the top ten most common subjects studied by women as undergraduates are education, social science, psychology, visual and performing arts, communications, liberal arts and humanities, and English. Graduate studies which can also be expected to produce less or no human capital and do not confer much in the way of high income also seem to be much more attractive to women than men. The following tables show the graduate degree paths that are dominated by women (i.e., 50% or more of the students are female) and men respectively, as well as the average GRE score for each major.

All of the degree paths examined by the particular study and found to be female dominated are included. A number of these paths are essentially just “professionally” training women to be mothers or surrogate mothers of children. Elementary and early childhood education sticks out in this regard, though probably all of the education paths do this to one degree or another. How anyone could possibly think it is necessary for women to have expensive post-tertiary degrees to watch young children play is hard to understand. Women have been watching young children successfully without any education for millennia before this farce was introduced at universities. Other degree paths which seem particularly useless include English and foreign literature, art history, home economics (i.e., how to be a housewife; where is grandma when you need her?), and student counseling. Disciplines which in theory might be useful if properly designed, such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology, have the problem of being almost totally infested and controlled by people with very radical, far-left ideologies. Considering how far these ideologies force these areas of study away from realistic understandings of reality, their utility is heavily undermined. Though the study this table comes from does not provide information on the relative number of women pursuing each field, it does provide a general idea of the type of degrees women are more attracted to than men in post-tertiary education.

Another issue making it difficult for women to pay back their debt is that on average they prefer working significantly less hours than men. Again, from Smart and Sexy:

A study which tracked high ability men and women found that there are large gender differences in the preference for number of work hours per week even after controlling for the high general intelligence prerequisite. Those who prefer to work 40 hours a week or less are overwhelmingly female, and those who work or would be willing to work over 50 hours a week are overwhelmingly male. The preferences found in this study are supported by US department of labor statistics. 26% of working women were part-time in 2011, which is twice the rate of men.

Now to ease up on “blaming women” a bit, we can look at the overall pattern of college debt. According to the AAUW report, for both genders, the accumulated student loan debt by the time of graduation increased by approximately 30% between 2004 and 2012; a mere 8 years!!! And it is probably even worse in 2017. Women may overall be more prone to bad decisions, but it would be a lie to say that this is the only important factor involved or that large numbers of men aren’t also making bad decisions with respect to education. Universities are churning out an increasing number of people with useless qualifications and exponentially increasing the cost of these degrees at the same time. Meanwhile, high schools, parents, counselors, media, etc are all highly encouraging both men and women to incur this ridiculous debt for these worthless credentials. Let’s not forget that the people expected to competently make financial decisions with respect to education are only 18 years old. 18 year olds are understandably not experienced nor well-read enough to be expected to make good decisions without proper support and good guidance from elders, which they are decidedly not getting. If I were assign blame with respect to the higher education farce, I would probably only assign 20-30% to the naïve kids being duped. The lion’s share of blame belongs to the propagandists and liars in the media and education who are willfully scamming kids out of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars (the evil and stupid people, respectively, in Captain Capitalism’s description).

Share Button

Happy heuristic for the holidays [Polarity Shift #1]

Share Button

A good heuristic for deciding how much to trust a claim about some group of humans is to exchange the groups (say with a find:replace command in word) with other groups and see if the change would result in a large swing in public perception. A large change in the perception based on which group is attributed the traits strongly suggests that great caution should be implemented in accepting the claim. As white males are typically the most egregiously attacked group, they are a good choice for replacing another group in any essay which is fawning and/or flattering. To most people the new essay instantly sounds like the work of an evil white supremacist, where the original was merely a positive expression of ethnic, female, or degenerate pride. For any essay that is hostile to the group under discussion, most of which target white males, it is useful to switch to women, Jews, or blacks. Or better yet, make the switch to black, Jewish lesbians to maximize the absurdity. Suddenly, a noble essay meant to combat institutionalized racism, sexism, and anti-semitism becomes a hateful piece of propaganda for white supremacy. If you could expect a polarity shifted essay to be widely and loudly denounced as X-ist, while the original is a triumph for social justice, chances are quite good that you have a big, steaming pile of bullshit on your hands.

Really, to save ourselves time in producing pro-white male, anti-everyone else propaganda, we should just take essays by leftists and use the find:replace function in word. The amount of lolz-worthy propaganda that could be generated in this way is nearly limitless and requires almost no effort since you don’t have to bother writing anything yourself. The triggered/troll’s effort ratio in this process is about as good as you could expect to get in any serious trolling activity. The curve is steep and has a limit of infinity. Perhaps this type of artistic re-imagining of left-wing propaganda will become a semi-regular staple of the blog. I will always be upfront about polarity shifting. However, I could imagine an enterprising troll using such material secretively in order to get leftists to spend huge amounts of effort inadvertently denouncing and debunking their own bullshit. It is win-win on so many levels and is so easy even a child could do it. Propaganda for the common shitlord.

So let’s begin this process with a recently released article by the Washington post titled “Women really are better doctors, study suggests.” Which I will rename “White men really are better doctors, study suggests”

If female doctors were able to do as well as their white male counterparts when treating elderly patients in the hospital, they could save 32,000 lives a year, according to a study of 1.5 million hospital visits.

A month after patients were hospitalized, there was a small but significant difference in the likelihood that they were still alive or had to be readmitted to the hospital depending on the gender of the doctor who cared for them, according to the study published in JAMA Internal Medicine. Although the analysis can’t prove the gender of the physician was the determining factor, the researchers made multiple efforts to rule out other explanations.

“If we had a treatment that lowered mortality by 0.4 percentage points or half a percentage point, that is a treatment we would use widely. We would think of that as a clinically important treatment we want to use for our patients,” said Ashish Jha, professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health. The estimate that 32,000 patients’ lives could be saved in the Medicare population alone is on par with the number of deaths from vehicle crashes each year.

For years, studies have suggested that women and white men practice medicine differently. white men are more likely to adhere to clinical guidelines and counsel patients on preventive care. They are more communicative than women. But whether those differences have a meaningful impact on patients’ well-being has been unclear.

The new study, based on an analysis of four years of Medicare data, found that patients treated by a white male doctor had a little less than half of a percentage point difference in the likelihood they would die within a month of their hospitalization. There was a similar drop in patients having to go back to the hospital over that month. Those are not large differences, but Jha pointed out that major health policies aimed at improving mortality in hospitals and increasing patient safety had resulted in a similar drop in mortality over a decade.

To try to rule out other possible explanations for the difference — such as healthier patients’s preference for white male doctors — the researchers did an analysis where they looked solely at hospitalists, doctors who see patients who are admitted to hospitals and who are typically not chosen by patients. They also made sure patients had similar characteristics in the two groups. They compared doctors within hospitals, to avoid measuring a difference that could be accounted for by comparing a white man who worked at a rural community hospital with a woman who worked at an urban trauma center.

Vineet Arora, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, praised the research but was cautious to read too much into the main result, pointing out that it was important to remember the effect might stem from multiple factors.

“It could be something the doctor is doing. It could be something about how the patient is reacting to the doctor,” Arora said. “It’s really hard to say. It’s probably multi-factorial.”

What the study drove home for Arora, who works as a hospitalist, is that white men are certainly not worse doctors than women — and they should be compensated equitably. A study published earlier this year found a $20,000 pay gap between female and white male doctors after controlling for other factors, such as age, specialty and faculty rank, that might influence compensation.

She noted that white male doctors, who are often being hired in their horniest years, may face a subtle form of discrimination, in the worry that they will be less committed or that they will not work as hard when they have poon to chase.

“Having a white male physician is an asset,” Arora said.

William Weeks, a professor of psychiatry at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, said that the researchers had done a good job of trying to control for other factors that might influence the outcome. He noted that one caveat is that hospital care is usually done by a team. That fact was underscored by the method the researchers used to identify the doctor who led the care for patients in the study. To identify the gender of the physician, they looked for the doctor responsible for the biggest chunk of billing for hospital services — which was, on average, about half. That means that almost half of the care was provided by others.

Could an editorial written as the above is have been published in the Washington post? Could a research paper with these conclusions have been published in a “respectable” peer-reviewed journal? Absolutely not. The outrage would have been deafening and the authors would very likely lose their jobs or even be assaulted. The opposite finding would have never been published no matter how convincing the evidence. The only conclusion allowed was, is and will be that women are better doctors, and this institutional bias all but guaranteed that we were going to get some bunk study like this released to uncritical fanfare in the media. Polarity shifting this leftist propaganda makes it very salient that we are almost certainly dealing with bullshit here.

Forgetting for a second that an effect size of a half of a percentage point is trivial (it took almost 2 million data points to find this), and that social scientists have basically no credibility when it comes to their statistical practices, lets give these authors the benefit of the doubt and say they found a real effect here. After all, the idea of women being more nurturing does fit with traditional stereotypes and I could conceivably see how that might contribute to slightly extending the life of someone knocking on death’s door.

The problem with using this finding to conclude that women are better doctors is graduating female doctors opt out of their profession at much higher rates than men. This ends up removing roughly 30% of the worst female doctors from circulation and thus prevents them from being factored into the study. This should have a substantial impact on their overall average in studies such as this, and I am honestly surprised they didn’t get a larger effect than they did because of it. Of course, I AM assuming that it is disproportionately the worst doctors who opt-out of practice (there is no data on this), but honestly it is a reasonable assumption. People who are good at something tend to stick with it more. In addition, it doesn’t factor in that male doctors are working on average 5 more hours per week than their female counterparts. Ya, maybe he isn’t as cuddly with his patients, but he is likely seeing more patients per week which translates to providing substantially more care overall. You can quibble over this, but I would argue this increase in quantity of service is more important than a doubtful .5% change in mortality in the terminally ill. Leftists are very eager to latch onto any trivial finding to make a specious argument about how great their favored group is, but it is a huge red flag and very typically misses the larger picture. A picture that is already heavily skewed by decades of feminist infiltration into academia, but nonetheless still paints another picture than the established narrative. And that is assuming the finding itself wasn’t complete nonsense to start with.

The excerpt below from my book Smart and Sexy: The Evolutionary Origins and Biological Underpinnings of Cognitive Differences Between the Sexes provides a more extensive discussion of this. Citations for this section are at the end of the post.

The skilled female labor with the most extreme pattern of opting out is masters of business administration graduates from elite schools. Only 35% of the best, most qualified women who get educated from the highest ranked schools are actually participating in the work force; they are 30 percent more likely to opt out than their peers who went to less selective schools. Though even for those women at less selective schools, it must be noted that a 35% opt-out rate is still very high. Depending on the vocation and education level, the rate of expensively educated women opting out ranges from 20-40% but for most careers the female opt-out rate clusters around 30%. Women with children work even less than this with a range of 40-60% opting out over all professions with most professions having around a 50% opt-out rate.i The female drop out rate is partially due to new mothers deciding not to work to raise children, and it is also partially due to significantly greater earnings by husbands making their income relatively insignificant by comparison.

Perhaps the most important example of female opt-out being problematic is in medical training. Training medical doctors is hugely expensive and they receive the highest degree of taxpayer subsidization. Some of the costs are born by the degree seeker, but the majority of the cost is paid for by the state through taxes on the general population and ranges into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per doctor. The general population consents to this subsidization because they realize that they will need medical doctors to treat them when they become ill. However, prioritizing women in these careers is a poor investment for the tax payer even when they have the cognitive ability to meet the demands of the profession.

Work-time preference differences between genders strongly imply that training men is generally a better investment for society than women at the same level of ability. Especially considering 4 out of 10 female doctors are working less than full time and some of those do not practice at all.233, i Even full time female doctors work on average about 4.5 hours less a week than men. A man who works 50 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, for 40 years would work a total of 100,000 hours. A woman who worked 35 hours a week for the same time frame would only work 70,000 hours. This rough calculation is quite generous in assuming that women working part-time only work 5 hours less than the standard work week and that they do not switch out of their trained profession at an early point for the duration of their working life. However, it is known in practice that many women end up switching out of the profession they were expensively trained in long before they retire.233, 236, ii, iii

These sorts of lifestyle choices are fine when the costs are born by the women who make them, but they are unacceptable when the costs are largely paid by society via wasting tax money on training that goes unused and in terms of shortages of access to medical care due to too few trained doctors practicing. The problem only promises to get worse because of the push to get gender parity in medicine. As of 2010, 30% of practicing doctors were female but almost 50% of new medical school graduates were female. It is estimated that if the trend of female opt-out continues, and there is no reason to think it won’t, there will be up to a 150,000 shortage of doctors in the near future. General practice and pediatrics will most acutely feel the problem since these are the fields women gravitate towards.236 The public will have difficulty gaining access to medical care and costs will rise substantially because of the push of women into medicine.

In addition to a preference for less work hours and a tendency to opt out entirely, working women also call in sick or are otherwise absent at about twice the rate of men.iv For sick leave specifically, women are absent about 50% more often for self-diagnosed sickness and 34% more often for medically certified sick leave.v Some, but not all, of this increased absenteeism can be explained by a greater likelihood for mothers rather than fathers to stay home with sick children. The rest may be due to legitimate increased susceptibility to illness (for example, menstrual pain and hysteria), a degree of semi-hypochondria, or a general lack of tenacity in the face of women’s dislike of working. The later would be consistent with normal female work preferences. There is also some evidence for increased hypochondria; though women more often report ill health than men, it is not reflected by higher mortality rates. Reported ill health is much better correlated with mortality in men.vi Whatever the reasons for these trends, the consequence is that by any measure, women as a population make for less productive and reliable employees than men even when they have similar levels of intellectual ability.

The costs shouldered by businesses forced to hire women to meet diversity quotas is enormous. Though employee turnover has been increasing in recent years for all demographics, the above data makes it clear that women lead the pack. It is estimated that employee turnover will approach 65% in the near future. The median cost of employee turnover is 20% of the employee’s annual salary for positions that pay under 75 thousand dollars annually, but there is a large range of costs and the cost increases drastically for specialized positions that require significant education. Replacing highly paid, specialized positions can cost up to 213% of the lost employee’s annual salary.vii, viii

Studies and articles which address the problem of female opt-out, because of the feminist tendencies of the authors, generally advocate costly female-friendly policies.242, 243, ix In other words, they advocate lower standards for women relative to men and toleration of a greater degree of absenteeism for women. Essentially this means that feminists want the costs and opportunity costs of women’s decisions to be externalized to employers and fellow employees who have to pick up the slack for absent or disengaging women, and vicariously to society who have to deal with less available service agents. The obvious and easiest solution is to simply not have as many women in these positions or restrict them to positions which can tolerate less devotion. This is exactly what our ancestors sensibly did. A company would be better off not having female oriented policies to discourage women from working there and thus maintain a more reliable work force.

i Sibert, K. S. (2011). Don’t quit this day job. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/opinion/12sibert.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

ii Belkin, L. (2003) The Opt-Out Revolution. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/magazine/26WOMEN.html

iii Kuczynski, A (2002) “They Conquered, They Left.” New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/24/style/they-conquered-they-left.html

iv Tahmincioglu, E. (2007) Female Absenteeism is not just about child care. NBC News. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21547885/ns/business-careers/t/female-absenteeism-not-just-about-child-care/

v Laaksonen, M., Martikainen, P., Rahkonen, O., Lahelma, E. (2007) Explanations for gender differences in sickness absence: evidence from middle-aged municipal employees from Finland. Occup Environ Med. 65(5):325-30. doi: 10.1136/oem.2007.033910.

vi Young, H., Grundy, E., O’Reilly, D., Boyle, P. (2010) Self-rated health and mortality in the UK: results from the first comparative analysis of the England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland Longitudinal Studies. Popul Trends. 2010 Spring;(139):11-36. doi: 10.1057/pt.2010.3.

vii Boushey, H., Glynn, S. J. (2012) There Are Significant Business Costs to Replacing Employees. Center for American Progress.

viii Appelbaum, E., Milkman, R. (2006) “Achieving a Work­able Balance: New Jersey Employers’ Experiences Managing Employee Leaves and Turnover” Center for Women and Work. Rutgers.

ix Herry, J. L., Wolframz, C. (2009) Work Environment and \Opt-Out” Rates at Motherhood Across High-Education Career Paths. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 14717

i Hersch, J. (2013) Opting Out among Women with Elite Education. Vanderbilt Law and Economics Research Paper No. 13-05. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2221482

Share Button

Adjusting the Connotation of White Privilege

Share Button

To those who are paying attention, there is a lot of anti-white sentiments in our culture and they seem to be increasing at a dramatic rate year after year. You can see this article written that seeks to ban whites from holding elected office in student governments in Britain. Considering Britain is a natively white country, the audaciousness is astounding. That it is published in a mainstream newspaper, rather than some fringe blog, is even more concerning. In another example, a student banned white men from her organization then claimed she wasn’t racist because racism is a quality unique to whites. Sure. Or racism is a word used to attack whites by other ethnic groups, and that power isn’t as helpful if whites can use it too. There are plenty of other examples, but this drives the point home. A significant portion of society hates white people, and white males especially, and would like nothing better than to turn us all into second class citizens; in our own countries. Enough people agree with this that they can publish such articles and opinions in mainstream outlets. It isn’t clear that they won’t succeed either.

Knowing the attitudes of these people towards myself and people like me makes it very clear that they are my enemy. They want to see me and my kin reduced to nothing politically, socially, and economically. They probably would love to see us all dead too; though they usually avoid stating this preference publicly. Usually.

I didn’t ask for this. I have never gone out of my way to inconvenience anyone because of their race or gender. I would have loved to continue on neutral to the whole business of identity politics. This sort of increasing and outspoken aggression has convinced me to take a side. My side; which in this case means my people’s side. Since whites are being attacked as group, they must resist as a group. There are still many whites who have yet to realize this important turning point in their attitudes, but as the rhetoric against whites continues to increase, so will the willingness to “pick a side” increase. In theory, people will tend to pick the side that best promotes their personal interests; at least when things become saliently dire. In this case, that means picking the side of anyone that promotes a positive white identity; and if you look around there are preciously few groups with such a message. Given the candidates, I worry that this may end up very badly for a lot of people. Still, if forced to do so, I will choose which ever group is available and has its interests aligned with my own. If there is only one group which will protect my person and my interests as a white male, then the choice will be a no-brainer based purely on self-interest. Here’s to hoping against worse case scenarios, though.

One method of attempting to turn the tables on enemies, hopefully well before anything nasty happens, is to take their rhetoric and reconnotate or redefine it. By redefining racism as something justified and worthwhile, by showing drastically contrasting stats for criminal acts for example, you could make it so people no longer have to dodge the accusation. In fact, they may even embrace it. The attack term thus looses its claws and can even become an asset. There are many terms which could, with variable levels of difficulty, be redefined in such a way (racism has a long way to go, though).  Some time ago, there was a very good article which conceded “white privilege” as a concept worth discussing, but that it was not something that white people just got because they happened to be white. White privilege is a normative commons that white people as a group earn by foregoing opportunity costs. For example, stores where whites are the main customers can leave their merchandise out in the open and unguarded because whites as a group accept the opportunity cost of not stealing. As a group they support the normative commons of having open selections. Some other ethnicities support similar normative commons, and may even have commons unique to them, while others do not. The groups who do not support such commons and regularly steal items from stores are faced with straight-forward results; merchandise is kept behind the counter or there is a heavy security presence. Is this racism? Well, racist is just another word for someone who accepts the reality of group differences, so I guess so. Nothing wrong with that at all.

This is a nice bit of white magic, but I think we can go even further. White privilege can be more than an abstraction; it can be a consciously pursued policy. Basically, white privilege is something whites should actively work towards granting other whites. When given a choice, say you have a project and have a series of different people to choose to hire, choose the white male. Choose the option that keeps the benefits within your in-group. Clearly the government limits choice for many businesses, but there are still opportunities where white males can be consciously favored by other white males. Do so every chance you can get without running afoul of the law (or when the eye of Sauron won’t spot you). We must still render unto Caesar, and thus follow the laws even when they are absurd, harm ourselves, and harm our group because we are not in a position of sovereignty, but that doesn’t mean we are completely unable to act. (The restrictions suck, but it is what it is).

The way I see it, as a white male I do not owe anything to anyone who hasn’t earned it. I especially do not owe anything to groups of people who regularly and without shame call for using the government to increase the difficulties for me and my kin; in the countries that were single-handedly built by MY ancestors, not theirs. Anyone who has applied for a job in recent years gets a constant reminder of anti-white discrimination on every. single. application. I think the constant reminder of the state of things is what is most frustrating. Businesses are forced to preferentially hire minorities over me, regardless of relative merits. If I can go out of my way to return the favor by discriminating against the people who discriminate against me, then I will. Quite happily I might add.

Even so, I realize that most people of any group are just trying to get along with their lives. I do not, and do not advocate, going out of the way to inconvenience or harm them. What I am advocating is going out of your way to benefit your in-group whenever possible. Given a choice, pick the option which ends up helping the white male. The other people are merely left at a neutral position; or to pursue similar treatment from their own co-ethnics. Undoubtedly they receive it all the time. Other than whites, all groups do this as a normal part of their lives and culture; and there is nothing wrong with it. There is no reason we shouldn’t also.

Recently, I was faced with such a decision. I needed some work performed and I posted a job to a forum asking for applications. I was given 10 or so options to choose from. Most of the applicants were ethnic minorities from other countries and two were white male Americans. As far as quality of work goes, most seemed perfectly capable of completing the project successfully based on their portfolios. Some of the foreign labor even had more references than the white males. At the end of the day I decided to use racism to help me with my decision. I gave the job to one of the white males, and the deciding factor was his identity as a white male. I couldn’t be happier with the results of the contract either. It exceeded my expectations.

Though granting white privilege purely to benefit your in-group is worthwhile on its own, it also increases the probability you will be the beneficiary of a higher quality performance or have better work completed. As a group, you know that whites have a long history called western civilization in which they collectively performed very well. There are exceptions, but you increase your probability of success by choosing someone from a group with a good track record. Not to mention group differences in IQ tests. By that logic, you could also use racism successfully in choosing whom to hire even when a white male isn’t an option. Northeast Asians, like the Japanese, would also be very likely to provide good labor. So would ethnic Indians (dot, not the feather). By applying your knowledge of group differences discriminately, you are more likely to get the quality you want. Though, you still have to work within the bounds of the law.

A person who utilizes white privilege in their business dealings is moral because to benefit your in-group is moral self interest. I am not saying that someone shouldn’t have to earn their white privilege, they do, but if they can then you help yourself by selectively helping them. Or, that would be true if most whites would act this way because the benefits would eventually hit everyone in the community. It is something worth working toward. In addition, you are also more likely to get higher quality work, and are less likely to be screwed over. European high trust societies mean that whites generally are more trustworthy as a result of their genetic inheritance. As savvy as Asians are at building civilizations, there is a reason they prefer to invest in governments, banks, and other institutions that are primarily European run. As a group, Europeans tend to engage in corruption less often and therefore their money is safer than with their own co-ethnics.

So be proud of your white privilege. Be proud to grant white privilege. Its a good thing, use it. You’ve earned it.

Share Button

Passing Progressive Litmus Tests as a Prerequisite for Employment

Share Button

I have recently been interested in switching careers and have thus been sending out a series of applications. One company requested that I take a series of tests to determine my aptitudes. Most of the tests were reasonable, but there was one that I found to be quite atrocious. It was a writing test in which the taker is given a series of bullet point facts and statements which they need to write into a newspaper article that might appear in a nationally syndicated newspaper. That idea in and of itself isn’t so bad, but the problem is that they chose the currently contentious illegal child immigration from central America to the United States as the topic and it was clear from the statements in the bullets that a progressive stance was expected. The company is essentially requiring everyone applying for a position to demonstrate their support for this illegal immigration by forcing them to write an ideologically progressive newspaper article on the subject. I was completely incensed that this type of political creep was introduced into the application process since my day job has absolutely nothing political about it. I found it incredible that this company was giving ideological tests to potential employees. The Cathedral will stop at nothing to discriminate against anyone who might dissent against them. Hypocritical leftists love to talk about discrimination being bad, but when given the opportunity to discriminate against non-leftists they are pretty blatant and open about it. In the heat of the moment, I wrote an article that was clearly contemptuous of the topic and was purposefully sarcastic in tone. However, before I submitted it, I did come to my senses and wrote an article that was as neutral as possible without actually supporting the illegal immigration. For anyone wanting to advance their career, it simply wont do to make a stand in situations like this. Virtually all companies will have some sort of BS like this and it is just better to keep your head down and pick better battles.  Or battle anonymously. Either way, I saved the original contemptuous article and felt it would be nice to share since I feel it is darkly humorous at parts.

Jose Sanchez was just a normal child enjoying rural life in Nueva Guinea, Nicaragua with his mother and sister. That all changed when a hurricane ravaged his rural village. Both his mother, Maria Villarreal, and his sister, Esther, were tragically killed by a mudslide in the hurricane. With little left except the clothes on his back, the resourceful Jose decided to contact the man who Maria claimed was his father.

Jose sent a letter to Alejandro Luis Sequeira, the alleged father, who is currently living in New York. In response to the child’s desperate plea and in light of the bad situation in his home country, Sequira wrote back to Jose saying that he should come and meet him in America and that he would be willing to meet him in late August. To help him on his journey, Sequeira also wired 200 dollars.

Cheered by the prospect of meeting a father and having a new life and opportunity in America, Jose embarked on his trip on May 22cnd with nothing more than the money and letter sent him by his father, a birth certificate, a small bag of clothes, and a few cookies. Bravely, Jose set off to traverse the 3200 miles that separated him from his American Dream.

Like many poor Nicaraguans, Jose did not have legal permission to enter into the United States and so he had to sneak into the country by stowing away in an over-night mail package as instructed by his father.  Not knowing the geography of America very well, he booked a trip to Miami because he thought the city was close to New York.  When he learned of his mistake from local Spanish speaking people, he desperately begged for money on the street until he had enough cash to get a bus ticket to New York.

Though he was dirty and now infested with fleas and lice from many nights spent in homeless villages hidden away in the greenbelts of Miami, Jose was itchy but not undeterred.  He was determined to meet his father and start his new life at the American Taxpayer’s expense. Wearing nothing but a burlap sack he dug out of a dumpster, he booked a grey hound bus ticket to New York. Thanks to the camouflage his dirty burlap sack shirt provided, no one thought he looked strange on a Grey Hound.

When Jose tried to take a cab in New York, the patriotic cab driver dutifully notified the police about the unaccompanied minor. According to the Republican police commissioner, the water-boarding during the late-night interrogation of Jose revealed that his mother was a disreputable lady of the night and had several other children that were sold on the black market. Given that Jose’s last name doesn’t match his father’s (or his mother’s) and that his sister only had one name, like Cher, police do not believe that Sequeira is truly Edwin’s father. After reviewing the letter carried by Edwin, police suspect he might be involved in gang affiliated human trafficking. Sequeira, also in the United States illegally, is already wanted by police in connection with a number of drug smuggling operations, public intoxication, and public exposure to a group of nuns.

Currently under the protective custody of the mayor’s office, it was arranged for Jose to stay with a Spanish speaking foster family until it could be arranged to deport him safely back to his home country. City Officials assured this newspaper that the orphanage he would be sent to would have no more than 500 children, plenty of rice gruel, and only a couple communicable diseases. None of the diseases are believed to be life threatening. This reporter is thankful that Jose avoided child slavery and wishes him luck in his new life.

Share Button