Black Groups Will Tend to Have an Inborn Elevated Tendency towards Criminal Behavior

Jason Y writes:

Not arguing blacks are dangerous to be around, without protection. Nonetheless, the argument is why blacks (or for that matter anyone with trashy violent morals ) are the way they are. It’s all due to choice. In Africa and the Caribbean, they are full of superstition, and in the US, they are exposed to an immoral culture (just like everybody else). In that scenario, what do you think will happen?

Oh! If only it were true! What a better world this would be, but alas, I am afraid it is not so. There’s always an excuse, no matter where they live, eh? Blacks are never going to live in a culture that doesn’t have some weird environmental cause that’s turning vast numbers of them into thugs and crooks. I no longer believe this stuff. I look all over the world, at Black populations everywhere, and I conclude: They’re the same everywhere! It’s just a question of degree. It’s as clear as the nose on your face. Study Caribbean and African Blacks and then compare them to US and UK Blacks. See the similarities? Sure, the US and UK Blacks are way less pathological and far more successful, but the phenotype is the same, only the degree changes. I have concluded for some time now that Black groups are born with a genetic susceptibility to crime. It doesn’t mean that Black groups are doomed to high crime. But the predisposition is such that it would take a Superculture to block the genetic tendency so that particular Black group is peaceful, easygoing, and commits little crime. There are definitely some Black groups on Earth like this. But they are rare. And finding precisely the Superculture that would be necessary to block Black genetic tendencies will be a highly difficult endeavor. Under normal conditions in most cultures of the world, Black groups will commit a tremendous amount of crime and engage in vast amorality. Since there is no way that Blacks could have the same criminogenic culture all over the world in all of these far-flung places, the only obvious conclusion we can draw is that the fact that the vast majority of Black groups are wildly amoral and commit terrible amounts of crime can only be down to their genes. I can’t think of any other reason for it. Now I am not sure that anything else about Black culture or behavior is down to their genes. That includes intelligence, work ethic, etc. But on the crime and moral laxity thing, I long ago decided that they had to be born with an elevated tendency for those things. Now has science proven that Blacks have an inborn elevated tendency towards crime? Absolutely not. In fact, few have even broached the question. So I urge you not to treat this as scientific fact. It’s simply one man’s conclusion based on a lifetime of observation. Will we ever prove that this is true? It’s hard to say because we almost never prove anything in the social sciences, and although behavioral genetics is a hot new field, it is also extremely controversial, and the field hasn’t proved much of anything hard and fast anymore. Tendencies are just tendencies. It takes a certain environment to trigger them. Different environments either tend to increase or maximize the genetic impetus of decrease or nullify it. But in most typical world cultures, it’s going to express to one degree or another. So do I hate Blacks? Not really. Although I pretty much hate criminals, I figure a lot of Black criminals can’t really help it. They’re prisoners of destiny, preterite from birth. I don’t hate people for things they can’t help. Anyway, a lot of Black people act anywhere from good to extremely good (I know a lot of Blacks who are better people than I am) and I would prefer to focus on those people and not think about the others too much.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

22 thoughts on “Black Groups Will Tend to Have an Inborn Elevated Tendency towards Criminal Behavior”

  1. Music and movies have a huge impact on the culture, as it has with every other group in the US. As far as non-US places go, they are becoming more westernized. The more westernized they get (as with Nigeria), the more dangerous they get.
    Perhaps the high testosterone and size of blacks, would make them more violent than other races. Nonetheless, the bad culture is going out and affecting (to some degree) all races. For instance, a black might be able to do more harm, then a white (under the same moral conditions) given the size.

  2. It remains more difficult to tease out the elements of nurture and nature than some would believe. The effect of a black subculture in the US certainly has some bearing on the identity and maturation of the pubescent black male. Very few would argue that without the influence of the subculture, these young men would still be more prone to violence and crime.

  3. The development of a super-culture to counter natural tendencies toward crime are a lost cause. No way that will happen in the US. However, if such a culture did exist, then blacks could co-exist normally with other groups. Well, for that matter, many different groups could co-exist normally with each other.

    1. Why do you say it’s a lost cause?
      Another important thing to note is that Black crime rates go all over the place. The Black homicide rate, for instance, has fluctuated between 25/100,000 and 40/100,000 in recent years in only a short period of time. That is a pretty significant fluctuation!
      So this shows that while it will probably always be elevated, there are environmental factors that can make it go sky high and then other factors that can drop it down quite a bit. Increases of 60% and decreases of 40% in relatively brief time periods are common. So if it’s high, there might be a lot of room to maneuver to get it to considerably decline.

      1. It could be done, but it would have to be a regime that focused on brainwashing (good brainwashing),improvement of education, and eradication of drugs and crime. I don’t see that happening, as the elites view poor blacks and whites as “throw away” populations. You’ve already noted that inner city public schools are only given scraps.

        1. To top this off, Republicans and other right wingers, actually think blacks are given too much. They actually think, they’ve already given reparations to them for slavery, LOL.

      2. “…The Black homicide rate, for instance, has fluctuated between 25/100,000 and 40/100,000 in recent years in only a short period of time…”
        Is this due to a change in their culture or pushed by the culture around them putting more of them in jail?

  4. Not all hate comes from crime. Japanese are hated in Korea. I’d hate to imagine what would happen if a Japanese person went to Korea. All of this, simply cause they colonized Korea for a hundred years, in the distant past.

  5. I think that what is considered today to be “crime” probably was not so in Africa. Perhaps crime is a white concept.

    1. Yes crime is a white concept. Stealing, dominance and rape are advantageous and even smart in primate cultures scientists say.
      Also, morality is a white concept, that came from the golden rule and religion, which is only due to the moral molecule, Oxytocin, much more generously in the biology of the whites than other races.

      1. Hey I remember you commenting that neanderthal DNA made modern humans frontal lobe bigger. Do you have any sources for that? I’ve never heard that before because most people say that Neanderthal’s iq would have been lower than modern humans before the mixing because of it’s brain power would have been directed to motor control since their muscles were MUCH thicker. They said a neanderthal woman in her prime would be just as strong as a world record power lifer today. Also extra brain power would be redirected toward vision since their eyes were huge compared to homo-sapiens
        Here’s where I got the information.
        Can you post some information about the frontal lobe boost from neanderthal DNA. I highly doubt it’s true since modern humans have only 2-4% Neanderthal in them.

        1. “…Neanderthal’s iq would have been lower than modern humans before the mixing because of it’s brain power would have been directed to motor control since their muscles were MUCH thicker…”
          I don’t believe this for simple reasons. If you have a small hydraulic valve it only takes one control to operate it. A bigger valve still takes only one control. Muscles should be the same way. You only need one nerve per muscle group. If bigger muscles needed bigger brains weight lifers would become confused the more weights they lifted.
          I’m also not seeing them produce any evidence that a bigger eye means more light receptors. Homo sapiens have different eye sizes are there any correlation between eye size and number of light receptors in homo sapiens?

        2. We may have defeated Neanderthal’s solely because we were better able to throw spears. The Romans were beat by the Parthians. The Parthians just stayed back from the Romans and shot lots and lots of arrows at them. Same with Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan’s whole stick was to rush in real quick before the army could get there and attack. When the army came they shot arrows from a distance. Running away if the army got close. They did preform sieges but only after they defeated the army.

        3. For one thing, the insinuation that big eyes requires more energy, thus they were loosing that big brain to their eyes presumes they were eating the same diet as the homo erectus, and utilized it the same, when in fact we know that the Neanderthals had a much richer diet, and their metabolism and lipid digestive system was different. In fact, they say we got fat from the Neanderthals.
          If it were true that big eyes make us suffer intelectually, they Europeans with the biggest eyes would be idiots, which we know based on IQ studies is bunk. The studies presume on a smooth evolution from a small brained, vegetarian eating homo erectus. . .when there is very little if not no evidence for that outside of the mitochondria. (Which I have a perfectly logical explanation for, which includes all the evidence from science and legends. . .)
          As for if we got the gene for the growth of the frontal cortex/neocortex from them, yes we did.

          And you should know that having only found 2 or 3% of their genome doesn’t mean we didn’t stem from them, it would just mean that the surviving members of the tested Neanderthal’s families have been found. In fact though, the latest studies have raised that number to 20%! Also saying that if they tested another 1,000 Europeans we would likely raise it to 40%. “The researchers discovered that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome could be found in modern humans.”
          Although the majority of genes inherited from Neanderthals apparently do not do anything remarkably different from their modern-human counterparts they admit, and you could not tell the difference between them and a pure white European today.
          The different Neanderthals lead directly to different Europeans basically. Scientists now admit that “calculations suggested that anywhere from 35 to 70 percent of the Neanderthal genome could exist in modern people.”So that low number you quoted is both old, and misleading.

          Oh, and there is evidence of farming, musical instruments, pets and more from the Neanderthal, but evolutionary belief has thrown the evidence to the wind.

      2. Stealing is a religious concept and is forbidden in all religions except Islam where it is holy duty to steal from the infidels. There is whole chapter in the Koran called Booty or sometimes translated euphemistically as the spoils of war. It is all about how to divide up the stolen property.
        Vikings also had a similar religion. I grew up in non PC times when every School child in England was taught that the Vikings were nothing but savages who came to rape and pillage. Children did not quite understand pillage but they just assumed int was bad without looking it up. In any case times have changed and this manner of thinking is now completely absent but is still there in older textbooks where Vikings attack monks in the illustrations in order to drive home the point. The subtle point is that the pagan religion of the Viking invaders allowed them to do this. This is in fact true, as it was a warrior religion of conquest and death was great as it allowed one to attend attend an orgy in the afterlife . The same concept exists in Islam. They prefer virgins who keep revirginating as the jihadis keep up the eternal orgy with a variety of partners with their penises that are eternally erect!
        Islam is Essentially a pagan religion with all the brutalities that entails and not a ideology based on the Golden Rule. Most moral religions such have a more evolved ethic in regard. To develop this ethic requires concentrated thought on morality. It requires abstract thinking, a function of the frontal lobes in man.

  6. Anyway it appears the Vikings have changed in Sweden etc . Now they are soft as anything. The religion changed from paganism to Christianity to the elite’s ruling religion now of Culteral Marxism, where violence is permissible against native Swedes! The elites love this new ideology and are are the most fervent exponents of it bar none! So the thinking changed.
    Islam is like that too. Muslims once freed of its influence are peacenik social Cultural Marxist warriors. Why? A new ideology. Some become atheist. Again the behaviour changes.
    Blacks are different. Like Robert says once you have a certain amount it is entirely predictable how they will behave so we should not be too distressed from a distance as this is normative behaviour for them. Nazis behaved one way during those times and now they behave differently. German, Muslims, Viking Pagans, can change but NOT BLACKS.

  7. I read the link and it says Neanderthal and Denisovans had the gene. It never stated that humans received the gene from them. I mean Australian Aboriginies have the genes but they have the lowest iq in the world. you’re simplifying too much Aloisi2. It makes much more sense to say that intelligence was selected for during the cold European winter than saying Europeans are smart because of neanderthal. Also bigger brain does not automatically mean smarter. Yes I know there is a correlation but it’s only .2. How the brain is wired is much more important than the size. Women have significantly smaller brains than men when adjusted for body size, even so their iq is only 3 or 4 points below men on average. Black men have bigger brains than white women yet white women have higher iq. How does that work? It’s not as easy as you think Aloisi2, there’s still much that’s unknown about the brain.

    1. Weren’t Neanderthals also less intelligent than homo-sapiens? Sapiens ultimately dominated them. So why wouldn’t Neanderthal DNA actually LOWER intelligence of Sapiens?

      1. They had bigger brains but I think it was geared towards motor control and vision rather than intelligence. The reason why Europeans ( and Asians) have high iq is because the dumb ones died during the winter. You have to be smart to be able to survive winter and also keep a child alive as well. I don’t buy the neranderthal DNA boost. I’m betting on selective pressures on intelligence rather than neanderthal.

    2. All you said is true I admit, but there are connections that are different in woman, and different specialties men have that help them score better on IQ tests, but more varied. So we have more geniuses, but also more idiots that are males. There are more woman in college and graduating high school though, because the school environment caters to girls. Blacks are a different thing altogether though. . .
      Who told you that black males had a bigger brain than white females? That is not true. Size of body does not excuse them either, as they are bigger in nearly all stages of growth than whites, due to earlier puberty. Black females strangely have a higher IQ than black males by average, while there is no difference between the average for whites. I don’t know why this is, but there are some weird exceptions for brain size, head size and sex differences. I blogged on that here:
      Whatever the case, there is no evidence that temperature changes anything, from skin to intelligence, it is simply a correlation with location and who happened to have been there and started mixing. Yes that makes no evolutionary sense, but I don’t believe whites had a natural evolution! (This coming form an Atheist.)

  8. Environment makes a huge difference. Sure, there are is racial genetic pre-disposition toward certain things, but the environment puts “fuel on the fire”, so to speak.
    I mean, obviously the world we live in isn’t the same as in the 1950s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)