As you can see in the table below, the White European countries and the nations with stock descended from these people, along with some mostly NE Asian countries, are the most honest countries on Earth. Even more disturbing to me, as someone who hates Nordicism, is that it’s the more Northern European countries that are the most honest. The Southern Europeans are quite a bit less honest.
It’s not all Black countries at the bottom, as Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are White countries, albeit not European Whites. Myanmar is a SE Asian country.
I’m really sick and tired of the poverty excuse. Any fucked up country full of fucked up people is automatically written off before the court of God and Man as innocent due to poverty. This is really tiresome.
These same people are usually opposed to socialism and promote capitalism. Since you all promote capitalism, and capitalism has automatic poverty built into it, how are you ever going to get rid of poverty? Answer: you can’t and you won’t. I’ll be dead in 30 years, and there will still be billions of poor in the world.
Since your project can’t eliminate poverty, what you are saying is that these places are going to be fucked up nests of moral degradation and general misery for eternity. Well excuse me but screw that. If that’s what you all are serving, I’ll pass and go without dinner tonight.
Anyway, it looks like it’s not even true. Giving the lie to the obvious rejoinder that these poor nations of liars, cheaters, thieves and all-around scumbags just can’t help being moral sleazebags is the position of Equatorial Guinea. Equatorial Guinea (EG) has a good PCI of $21,000/year, yet the corruption level is unfathomably high. Furthermore, poverty is insane in EG, and health figures such as maternal mortality and life expectancy are abysmal. Apparently a tiny elite of moral garbage at the top steals almost all of the considerable oil income in that blighted land.
I actually had high hopes for Africa. I thought if only they could garner some income, a lot of their problems would go away. But more and more it seems as if Sub Saharan Africans (I don’t include US and Caribbean Blacks in this category) are not capable of running modern societies. When I die in 30 years, I’m willing to bet that they will still be incapable.
Honestly, I don’t have any explanations for this, but having an average IQ of 67 can’t possibly help matters.
There is also the King Syndrome in this region. Africans evolved in tribes whereby the King or Chief was supposed to provide enough food and sustenance for his people, but anything beyond that, he was allowed to hoard to preposterous extremes. So his people would be living in mud hats subsisting on maize and yams while the King would be living in a golden palace 50 feet high with 50 different concubines. In traditional African culture, the King’s subjects either could not or would not say anything about this state of affairs.
This is still the way it is in Africa. The “King” (the rulers) gets to do whatever he wants, and no one can say “boo” to him. I’ve met Africans in the US. I asked one Nigerian why his country was so fucked up. He gave the usual answer of, “Bad leaders,” with a helpless shrug of his shoulders. I really don’t understand this mindset. If your leaders suck, why don’t you just elect some leaders that don’t suck?
There seems to be something similar going on in the US. US Black politicians have always been horribly corrupt, and in recent years in general much more corrupt that White politicians, which is pretty bad right there! But US Blacks don’t seem to give a damn about corrupt pols. As long as he brings home the bacon and does good for the community, they will keep on electing the crook until Kingdom Come.
It’s as if Black voters either expect politicians to steal and just blow it off if they do, or else they don’t have any moral qualms about stealing in office. Either one implies that US Black voters have questionable morality on this question. Furthermore, the similarity between them and African voters and rulers on this issue is uncanny and unsettling.
It’s interesting that Barbados is ranked very high. I don’t know much about the place, but it is quite wealthy. It’s also very Black. This suggests that it’s theoretically possible for a Black nation (albeit a Caribbean one) to be honest, something I was starting to seriously doubt. Dominica and Botswana also score high. Botswana also has a high standard of living is one of the most democratic and free countries in Africa. Dominica, in addition to having low corruption, also has a very low homicide rate. Both have an almost all-Black population. What are they doing right?
Let’s take a look at the Turd World countries from which we are mass importing immigrants, legal and illegal.
If the top score in the table below is 9.4 and the bottom score is 1.1, the median score should be 4.2. Truth is that even a median score is horrible. Italy, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Kuwait, Ghana and Georgia are in this range, and those countries range from very corrupt (Italy) to ridiculously corrupt (Ghana and Georgia). So anything below 4.2, obviously really sucks in the honesty department.
High-immigrant nations to the US:
Nation Corruption Index El Salvador 3.4 Guatemala 3.4 India 3.4 Mexico 3.3 Dominican Republic 3.0 Tonga 3.0 Armenia 2.7 Ethiopia 2.7 Vietnam 2.7 Honduras 2.5 Nicaragua 2.5 Philippines 2.4 Russia 2.2 Cambodia 2.0 Laos 2.0 Venezuela 1.9 Haiti 1.8 Iran 1.8 Somalia 1.1
What’s the point of mass importing immigrants from countries that are corrupt as Hell into a relatively honest country like the US? One wonders if the people coming from countries with endemic corruption will knock it off when they get to the US. In many cases, they probably will not.
Miami, run by Cuban gusanos, is one of the most corrupt cities in the US. Maywood, California is an almost completely Hispanic city that is made up of probably 70-80% illegal aliens. It’s also one of the most corrupt cities in the US. I believe that the FBI came in and was investigating every city government official and the entire police force on corruption charges.
In some cases, new immigrants may be able to put the corruption habit behind them. I’m not aware that Armenians are all that corrupt here in California. But in many other cases, you can take the man out of the Third World, but you can’t take the Third World out of the man.
You may have noticed that this fine country is looking more and more like a Third World country. It stands to reason that mass importation of Third Worlders into a First World country will at some point transform the First World country into more of a Third World Country in one respect or another. That’s exactly what seems to be happening.
|Rank||Country/Territory||CPI 2009 Score||Surveys Used||Confidence Range|
|30||United Arab Emirates||6.5||5||5.5–7.5|
|31||Saint Vincent and the Grenadines||6.4||3||4.9–7.5|
|79||Trinidad and Tobago||3.6||4||3.0–4.3|
|99||Bosnia and Herzegovina||3.0||7||2.6–3.4|
|111||Sao Tome and Principe||2.8||3||2.4–3.3|
|154||Papua New Guinea||2.1||5||1.7–2.5|
|158||Central African Republic||2.0||4||1.9–2.2|
|162||Democratic Republic of Congo||1.9||5||1.7–2.1|
18 thoughts on “Corruption Index By Nation”
Relative to other White nations, the Nordic nations are fairly homogeneous (but not so much anymore :-/). I am sure this is one reason why New Zealanders are less corrupt than those in multiracial Great Britain. Liberal Harvard Professor Robert Putnam reluctantly admitted that diverse nations breed distrust:
Nordics also tend to be more introverted than Italians and Spaniards (who absorbed the blood of extroverted Black slaves and who did not need to evolve an introverted personally in order to be kept sane while holed up in a cave during the wintertime). I have noticed that introverted people (Northern Europeans / N.E. Asians) tend to be more law-abiding (may be for reasons related to testosterone too).
The most corrupt Black nations are often thoroughly Black which means that this type of homogeneity actually leads to more corruption for reasons other than diversity (you touched on them in your article); so, even just having low-IQ, high testosterone, low future-time orientation people in any country, regardless of its diversity, will be a problem in and of itself.
I don’t think diversity makes you steal. It just makes you not trust anyone. One would think that if no one trusts anyone, there would be less thievery. So I don’t really buy that argument.
However, I think you are onto something about introversion. Introverts will always be more honest than extroverts. I’ve known many White extroverts, and in general, they were way less honest and morally-minded that my fellow introverts. The introverts that I have known often have extremely high moral values, almost too high it seems.
If corruption really is tied in to extroversion, then sadly, Black countries are always going to be nests of corruption. That’s a sad thought from my point of view, but sometimes I wonder if Black people even care. A lot of Blacks seem to act like corruption is a perfectly normal and expected behavior and see nothing wrong with it. In that case, I guess they are free to wallow in their mess, but don’t ask the rest of us to do business with you.
Italy is corrupt from north to south. There’s only Black blood in the South. Central and Northern Italians are corrupt as Hell, but they’ve got less Black in them than Germans.
Extroverts will go nuts holed up in a wintertime cave? Interesting concept.
I think future orientation is key here. Societies full of people with poor future orientation who almost literally cannot see beyond tomorrow, are always going to be full of ripoffs of one type or another. One of the things that keeps you from stealing is that you might get caught. By definition, poor future orientation almost prevents you from even considering that endpoint.
Well I do think poverty factors into this. When resources and affluence are scarce, corruption goes up. The most affluent nations in Latin America, Chile and Uruguay are also the least corrupt. Argentina is whiter than Chile yet it is much more corrupt and has way more economic problems. So there’s definitely a connection between corruption and general affluence though there’s a bit of a chicken-egg question as to whether honesty causes affluence or affluence causes honesty.
Russia is corrupt as hell, right up there with some of the worst African nations and it’s 95%+ white as well as having one of the largest populations of whites in raw numbers on the planet. So I really don’t buy the race/corruption arguments. One thing you tend to find in most corrupt countries is that they tend to be machismo societies that believe in the strong man politician.
I recently was following a discussion on another forum about Scandinavian society. Scandinavia is has become a very feminized, hyper PC society. Scandinavian men are allegedly amongst the most de-balled and passive in the entire European continent. Of course it wasn’t always this way. These same guys were once the fearsome Vikings that kicked ass and conquered. As you go east in Europe(slavics) and South(mediterraneans), the culture becomes more machismo, and the corruption indexes increase. Italians and Russian are probably the most machismo of white societies, and they are two of the most corrupt white nations. Latin America is very machismo overall and quite corrupt. Black societies wherever they exist tend to be extremely machismo. E. Asian societies like Japan, Korea and China, I’m not sure about. China is certainly corrupt. Japan seems less so, S Asian more so like a gradation that runs north to south with least corrupt further north. Interestingly, machismo increases as you go south. Japanese men are probably the most feminized and metrosexual of all Asian men.
So I’m starting to see a pattern emerge. The more feminized a society is, the lower the corruption index. The more machismo, the more likely the society will want to be lead by the iconic “strong man with an iron fist” that makes everyone feel safe. Arab societies and black societies are the most machismo and will be the most corrupt because of it.
Btw, one quick way to gauge a society’s machismo index is to look at how it treats its gay population. The more feminized the society, the more rights gays have up to and including marriage. The more machismo, the more gays are threatened. I just read that Uganda is considering making homosexuality punishable by life in prison, meanwhile western societies are pushing for gay marriage. Black societies are the most homophobic outside of the Arab world, Jamaica perhaps the worst of them all. Interestingly, that you can almost predict a where a society will fall on the corruption index just by what they think of gays. Now look at the top 10 nations on the index. They all are pretty gay-friendly places. Look at the bottom 10, gays would probably be killed or imprisoned there.
So that’s my theory, there is connection between machismo cultures and corruption. There is also a connection between machismo cultures and homophobia, so you can almost predict the corruption index by looking at the level of homophobia. Feminized societies are simply less corrupt, and less anti-gay. And I’m no feminist. And I’m not even thrilled about gay marriage. But I have to acknowledge the truth.
As to black and white differences in corruption in America. I’m only aware of one black politician nationally famous for corruption, and that’s Marion Barry. Not saying there aren’t more, I’m just not aware of them on the national level. Whites aren’t in any position to talk though. Chicago has a long history of corruption for example. George W. Bush was very corrupt and white America voted for him TWICE. Barack Obama is arguably the least corrupt president we’ve ever had. As for blacks voting for those who just bring in the bacon, ummm, that could be said just as easily about Sarah Palin. I could believe however that a black American society would have more corrupt politicians than a white American society because blacks are more machismo than whites. Though not nearly as much as Africans.
A connection between unchecked testosterone and corruption, perhaps? Very provocative.
A connection between unchecked testosterone and corruption? Very provocative.
Come to think of it, Thailand is a very gay-friendly society and the men are quite feminized, yet they have a fairly high corruption index. So they may be an exception. On the other hand, they still have a monarchy and they view their king as a living God and it is punishable by imprisonment to be caught saying anything bad about him. So go figure.
Man, excuse me, I am getting so fucking sick and tired of this argument. You support capitalism, and under capitalism it’s mandated that the only way that there can be rich nations is that there are poor nations. So under your project, there will always be poor countries and there is no way to get rid of poverty or even alleviate it really, since capitalism is terrible at that.
Then you blame all these shitty problems on poverty. That’s just a completely hopeless argument. IOW, since poverty is going to be eternal under your project, hence all of these really evil problems are going to be eternal too. There’s no hope at all.
Excuse me tulio, but THAT SUCKS!
It also lets all these gazillions of moral cretins off the hook since you just gave all of them a Get Out of Jail Free card for eternity.
I can’t believe you are making such a hopeless argument. Have you no hope at all for mankind?
It’s very, very, very well-known that Black pols are corrupt as Hell, and they have always been that way. My Mom was telling me about since I was a little kid. She grew up in Chicago. She also said that Black voters never care and always re-elect them anyway. I don’t have any figures at hand, but I’m quite certain that Black pols are much more corrupt than White pols.
Now if you go back in time, probably everyone was really corrupt, White pols too, so there was no difference. But now that White pols are much more honest than they used to be, the difference is likely to be glaring.
As far as Russia goes, sure, Whites can descend. Descend to the lowest depths on Earth. Any race can, if they get depraved enough. That’s not an issue. The real problem is not whether Whites can descend on occasion, but whether Blacks can ascend. Will we ever see a Black nation, or a number of them, as honest as Sweden or Singapore?
Further, the wealthiest country in Latin America outside of the Caribbean is Mexico. Argentina is a ridiculously, insanely corrupt country. Further, you are hurting your argument because those the Whitest places on the continent.
Further, your argument is incorrect. Argentina is ranked 106 – positively dismal. True, Chile has a good ranking, but it’s one of the Whitest places on the continent.
I should amend the piece and point out that Botswana and Dominica have low corruption, and both are Black. What are they doing right?
One thing about Whites in general is that a pol with serious corruption issues will often be killed if he goes up for re-election, or his polls will go so low that he won’t even decide to run. The exception is the White South. There they don’t seem to care, especially in Louisiana.
The rest of your argument, that feminization leads to low corruption and machisimo leads to high corruption, is actually very interesting and seems to make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, it’s also hopeless, because Black societies will always be balls out.
Tell you what, man, cook up this feminization – masculinization / homophobia – pro gay rights argument into a post for me and I will print it under your name. I’m only interested in that argument, though, not the rest of it. I’ll edit out anything outside of that argument. That’s good enough for a post. Want to be a guest poster?
SE Asian guys are a lot more macho than NE Asian guys, and a lot of people think they have higher testosterone. Also, Chinese guys are at least as feminized as Japanese and Korean men. Check out the different figures for China and Taiwan, identically racially. Looks like this corruption thing is going to be pretty hard to figure out.
You know Alpha, once you throw some women into the all-male mix, the guys quit ripping each other off so much. All-male scenes are full of all manner of stealing, ripoff, cons, schemes. Check out the Gold Rush. Single men in general steal a lot, among other bad things. That’s why society has always tried to get single guys to marry, to civilize them. Take a thieving single guy and marry him off and a lot of times he will turn honest on account of the woman.
Makes good sense. All-male environments can be pretty hardcore.
Sure, but in that case, it’s a political matter. We’re talking about a paranoid dictatorship versus a democracy. N. Koreans and S. Koreans are racially identical but you’re going to have way more corruption north of the DMZ for the same reason. You can’t have an authoritarian government without a strong man. In their cases, their corruption is driven by ideology and communist philosophy, not genes or culture. Nigeria or Mexico on the other hand are not corrupt due to any ideology.
“I don’t think diversity makes you steal. It just makes you not trust anyone.”
But why would someone be less likely to trust someone in an outgroup? Because a person is more willing to screw over an outgroup member than an ingroup member (i.e. not be as loyal) (e.g. “Is it good for the Jews?” “Italians don’t screw over other Italians”)–I have heard this type of ethnic talk over the years. Now surely this type of thing builds distrust that may negate extraethnic corruption.
I don’t know man, Singapore is very diverse. It has 1/3 Chinese, 1/3 Malays, and 1/3 Indians. That’s as diverse as you can get.
I really think you need to prove this diversity engenders corruption thing better. It makes people paranoid, sure. But it might be harder to steal from a bunch of paranoids.
The book Bowling Alone seems to show that diversity makes people not leave their house and watch more TV.
Also, it is just obvious that xenophobia is the guiding principle, it’s in our blood, and anyone in an outgroup is just not seen as trustworthy.
Don’t forget too that this is a corruption PERCEPTIONS index. There is no way to objectively measure corruption. It’s based on the perceptions of people in those countries. People may over or under-estimate(sometimes grossly so) the level of corruption in their country. So that is one thing we cannot forget in this CPI rankings.
I kind of doubt if the survey is that far off. If it was as unreliable as you suggest, you would regularly see such surveys showing Somalia in the Top 10 and Norway in the bottom 10. Notice that they do have a confidence range.
i would look at not just wealth, but income disparity, to explain some of the weirdness.
The type of entertainment accessible, the type of education accessible, immediate distracting threats from poverty, family size, nutrition, economic structure (the law), arrangement of natural resources, military size, population size, threats from outside nations, gender roles, views of masculinity/peer pressure, religion, human capital, social capital, and corruption are all correlated and can of course in different circumstances cause each other in different arrangements.
I suspect that the argument of wealth being what causes corruption is correct, if we redefine wealth to include not only purchasing power per capita but also military size/strength (strength being population x equipment x GDP – enemies strength) and human capital. Military alliances are very important in this regard.
There are also very subjective means to come up with the index. Its based on the opinion of rich whites and academic Jews. It’s basically the capitalist stamp of approval.
China and Venezuela are regarded lower than Israel, Greece, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia. They are seriously arguing that Qatar, USA, Austria, Ireland, and Iceland are comparably corrupt.
Sure, in some aspects/metrics all of the absurd patterns might be correct, but it’s a retarded quantitative measurement when you account for the qualitative aspect of it. It’s a retarded qualitative measurement as the value of corruption differs depending on the ideology of the person saying “corruption”.
A Marxist might say that Botswana is a crazy laissez faire country with an insane GINI coefficient, and a capitalist might see it as an example of their autism working. But really it generally comes down to an individual bias.
In my opinion, the degree of corruption means the degree of incentive the upper class have to care for their proletariat’s living standards at the threat of losing their ground or getting killed, and so the material conditions therefore control the morality of the society depending on the mode of production.
There also goes most of my view on morality. That’s why Japan and Korea are so strong, with American aid against China and Sweden starting to import non-whites since the end of the cold war.
I wonder if East Asia ever could become friends, do you think that’s possible Robert?