Changes for page White Genocide

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -38,11 +38,79 @@
38	38
39	39	=== ##Government sponsored study on the problem of Whites and blacks not mixing interracially in marriages enough. This study outlines the prevalent and stubborn issue of Whites refusing to racially mix, and the possible solutions to it.## ===
40	40
41		-{{expandable summary="📄 View/Download PDF"}}
42		-[[Download Full Study>>attach:Who_marries_whom_4cdde62d.pdf]]
	41	+{{expandable summary="Study: Who Marries Whom? The Role of Segregation by Race and Class"}}
	42	+**Source:** *U.S. Census Bureau Working Paper*
	43	+**Date of Publication:** *June 2024*
	44	+**Author(s):** *Benjamin Goldman, Jamie Gracie, Sonya R. Porter*
	45	+**Title:** *"Who Marries Whom? The Role of Segregation by Race and Class"*
	46	+**DOI:** [Link to Source](https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/series/ces-wp.html)
	47	+**Subject Matter:** *Marriage, Race, Class, Residential Segregation, Intergenerational Mobility*
43	43
	49	+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
	50	+1. **General Observations:**
	51	+ - Only 0.5% of White individuals married a Black spouse.
	52	+ - Only 3.1% of people from high-income families married someone from a low-income family.
	53	+ - 68% of married couples lived within 50 census tracts of each other five years before marriage.
	54	+
	55	+2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
	56	+ - 19% of individuals from high-income families married someone from a similar high-income background.
	57	+ - Among Black individuals, only 2.1% had a White spouse by age 30.
	58	+
	59	+3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
	60	+ - The marriage probability drops steeply with geographic distance.
	61	+ - Residential segregation substantially impacts interclass marriage but has minimal impact on interracial marriage.
44	44	{{/expandable}}
45	45
	64	+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
	65	+1. **Primary Observations:**
	66	+ - Interclass marriage is significantly influenced by exposure in residential neighborhoods.
	67	+ - Interracial marriage shows minimal sensitivity to changes in residential exposure.
	68	+
	69	+2. **Subgroup Trends:**
	70	+ - Small increases in racial integration produce measurable but limited increases in interracial marriages.
	71	+ - Residential moves that desegregate neighborhoods show significant effects on interclass marriage rates but almost no effect on interracial marriage rates.
	72	+
	73	+3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
	74	+ - Eliminating distance barriers entirely would increase interclass marriage rates by 41% but would only increase interracial marriage rates by about 6%.
	75	+ - The Gautreaux Project, a real-world desegregation initiative, showed similar limited impacts on interracial marriage rates.
	76	+{{/expandable}}
	77	+
	78	+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
	79	+1. **Strengths of the Study:**
	80	+ - Robust use of U.S. Census and tax data covering a massive sample size.
	81	+ - Methodologically strong with a spatial model capturing general equilibrium impacts.
	82	+ - Careful attention to isolating causality using sex ratio variations.
	83	+
	84	+2. **Limitations of the Study:**
	85	+ - Focuses exclusively on White-Black marriage, largely ignoring other racial pairings.
	86	+ - Does not fully explore cultural, ideological, or media-driven factors that may independently influence marriage patterns beyond exposure.
	87	+ - Relies on tax data, which may underreport non-marital unions and cohabitation.
	88	+
	89	+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
	90	+ - Broaden the racial analysis beyond just White and Black categories.
	91	+ - Investigate the impact of media saturation and social programming aimed at increasing interracial marriage rates, particularly those that target White women.
	92	+ - Examine the ideological pressure placed on White populations to pursue or normalize interracial relationships as a "progressive" social duty.
	93	+{{/expandable}}
	94	+
	95	+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
	96	+- This study provides direct empirical evidence that **physical desegregation alone does little to change entrenched racial marriage patterns.**
	97	+- The persistent racial homophily in marriage directly contradicts the **mainstream narrative pushed by modern media and DEI campaigns that social exposure will naturally lead to increased racial mixing.**
	98	+- From a pro-White perspective, the study undermines the ideological push to engineer higher interracial mixing rates through forced proximity, media conditioning, and cultural normalization.
	99	+- The finding suggests that **deep-seated in-group preferences persist despite decades of aggressive integrationist policy and media efforts**—an important counterpoint to the anti-White agenda frequently present in modern advertising and political rhetoric.
	100	+{{/expandable}}
	101	+
	102	+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
	103	+1. Investigate whether **media-driven promotions of interracial relationships, particularly Black male/White female pairings, have measurable impacts on real-world marriage rates.**
	104	+2. Analyze **other marriage patterns (e.g., Hispanic-White, Asian-White)** to see if similar exposure resistance holds across other racial groups or if specific groups are more affected by cultural programming.
	105	+3. Explore whether **institutional pressure and educational framing contribute to racial self-selection behaviors, particularly within White populations.**
	106	+{{/expandable}}
	107	+
	108	+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
	109	+[[Download Full Study>>attach:Who_marries_whom.pdf]]
	110	+{{/expandable}}
	111	+{{/expandable}}
	112	+
	113	+
46	46	=== ##Former Jewish Director of National Affairs, Stephen Steinlight, discussing how the changing demographics of America are occurring too quickly. Not because this is a bad thing for the country, but it risks awakening the former White majority.## ===
47	47
48	48	{{expandable summary="📄 View/Download PDF"}}