The American Injustice System

County jails used to be very easy-going here in California before the 2011 Realignment which shifted a lot of prison inmates into local county jails with disastrous affects.

Now California county jails are downright dangerous places and in addition, the conditions are often horrific. Cops and guards beat the Hell out of arrestees and inmates all the time and nothing ever happens to them.

You wonder why I don’t like cops too much. Well, they beat the living crap out of some of my best friends for doing nothing at all or for protesting jail conditions. We used to say back in the day that they want to beat up everyone they arrest. It’s just part of the arrest procedure. We’ve had quite a few lawsuits here in California to stop these maniacs from beating people up for no good reason, but they’re still doing it all the time.

I also have a very low opinion of jail guards and even the nurses who work in jails, as most of those people are either out and out sadists (the guards) or cold as ice with zero empathy (the nurses).

I basically hate the whole system, most laws (which are stupid and should be abolished), cops* in general (act like they hate me, beat me up a few times, hassle me  to this day, abuse their authority, lie in court, etc.), guards (see above), jails (see above), prisons (see above but a lot worse), courts (the heart of the wicked system), judges (mostly hanging judges), prosecutors (the worst of them all, generally with zero morals – basically super-cops), and bailiffs (mean as Hell).

The whole system is garbage and I hate every bit of it. I realize we need cops, courts, DA’s, judges, jails, prisons, etc. but the system is completely unfair, messes with way too many people, punishments are far too harsh, jail conditions are Medieval, and cops and guards are sadistic maniacs.

We need a judicial system but not like this. It’s got to be dramatically reformed. We have way too many laws. The cucks, women, cops, narcs, and police state types have succeeded in making just about half of life illegal. Seriously. Half of crimes should just be abolished because they’re chickenshit offenses.  For a lot of that stuff, just let people settle things among themselves.

The Street is a sort of living being constituted of the sum total of all of the minds of all of the people on the Street. It is actually extremely intelligent, even brilliant, in a street smart sort of way.

It is also very honest and moral. There is a Street Code of Honor, and you break it, and you’re going to be sorry. Be cool, be honest, don’t rip people off or wrong people, and for the most part, it’s all good. Start messing people around, and things are going to get ugly real fast.

*A lot of cops don’t like me and for some reason, for decades now, they act like they hate me on sight, something I never understood. But some cops are nice to me, and I like them. A lady cop came up to me in a  coffee shop recently and she was extremely friendly. I was almost wondering if it was a come-on. But she had met me before a few times around town and always acted like she hated me.

I’ve been a crime victim before, and cops are very, very nice when you are a victim. They act like angels. I’ve also worked with police a bit on some investigations. They called me in to interview me about suspects and crimes. These were detectives and at these times these detectives were very nice and friendly. I like detectives a lot more than cops really because they’re far smarter than ordinary cops and have a relatively relaxed moral code.

I mean homicide cops just want to solve homicides.  They don’t care if you smoked weed or even sold it. You’re there to help them solve a homicide or attempted homicide and the low level dope stuff is simply not important or germane to what they need.

Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

A most interesting text out of the UK but a group calling itself Alt Left. Though I don’t agree with them on everything, in a broad sense what they are arguing for is more or less within the broad scope of what I had in mind when I founded the Alt Left. This group calls itself Alt Left Publishing.

I had to cringe at some of the more rightwing things this group wants Labour to do, but the fact is that Labour needs to win elections, and if they have to be a bit more conservative to do that, well so be it. As long as we are not electing Blairites, Labour will always be much better than the Conservatives, and UKIP doesn’t look very good either (sort of neoliberal Trump Republicans-lite).

As usual with the Democratic Party here, the Left is shooting itself in the foot with massive overreach by being wildly SJW in ways that the majority of people do not support, and by being fantatically anti-immigration when 70% of the British public want a slow-down on immigration.

Labour is getting massacred on this issue, as many working class folks are anti-immigrant and feel that immigrants are taking their jobs and in addition, these people feel that they are losing a sense of their country.

Working class Labour voters are left on economics while being rather socially conservative, and that’s the Alt Left right there. What’s the point of alienating working class voters, screaming racist at them, shoving hundreds of thousands of unwanted immigrants down their throat, and bombarding them with SJW extremism that most of them reject as too radical?

As the piece points out all this is doing is making more and more of these socially conservative working class Labour voters defect to UKIP, mostly over the immigration issue.

Labour is also alienating people by being openly unpatriotic. I’m not a patriotard myself, but I do want the best for my country, so I suppose I love my country more than a corporate types who deliberately harm our country. I certainly don’t want to do my country any harm! I may disagree with domestic and especially foreign policy, but I’m not so angry about it that I want to screw the country over. I mean I have to live here too you know.

At any rate, the people around Corbyn are openly unpatriotic and do not pay proper deference to national symbols and institutions. Most British people are patriots, particularly socially conservative working class folks.

While I love Hezbollah myself and even have a soft spot for Irish Republicans, most British people despise both Hezbollah and in particular the IRA. The latter is heavily due to anti-Catholic sentiment in mostly Protestant UK, a tendency that goes back to at least the 19th Century to “anti-papist” and “anti-Romist” sentiment at that time. At any rate it does no good when Corbyn lauds these groups. All it does is create more UKIP voters.

What’s the point? Politics is after all the art of the possible.

While I love Jeremy Corbyn of course, most British people dislike him, and Labour has been shedding votes since he took over. It doesn’t matter whether I love Corbyn or not. What matters is that most British people hate him. And a leader hated by most of the population should definitely go in favor of someone more popular.

There are other good suggestions here about being tough on crime and the causes of crime. This is an issue near and dear to socially conservative working class voters, and Labour, like the Democratic Party, suffers from a soft on crime problem. That’s not necessary and anyway, crime hurts the working class.

This is a very long document, 12,000 words and 25 pages. I edited it quite heavily. The Alt Left Publishing website can be reached by clicking on the title below.

Happy reading!

Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

Labour Isn’t Working in many ways lays the foundations for the Alt-Left. It establishes fundamental principles like the importance of group identity, the need to restrain the free market, and rejection of radical social justice.

It’s my view that whether your interest in politics is keen or fair-weather, you’ll be intrigued by the book, though I do recommend it particularly strongly to Labour party members and to those interested in the Alt Left and what it stands for.

The transcript can be read in full below, or alternatively downloaded for free here.

If you’d like to purchase the text in E-book format you can do so here.

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

The modern Labour party is out of touch with the working class whom it exists to represent, and many of whom turn increasingly to the Tories and UKIP for answers. Labour has been too scared to address immigration, too complacent to address jobs and too divided to address Europe.

The working class is dead. Long gone are the days of the Welsh miners’ choir and the workplace union meetings. The flat cap is worn now by avant-garde members of the rural middle class, men too old to shake a habit, and metropolitan hipsters.

Blackface isn’t the inevitable consequence of a day spent hewing coal from the center of the earth, but is now a racial faux pas. Where once a hard day’s work involved forging world-class steel, for many it’s now manning a call center in order to best resolve Mrs Smith’s broadband issues.

The modern economy necessitates that even the bricklayer has his own local advertising, Facebook page, and website. He doesn’t consider himself part of a homogeneous working class, but instead an entrepreneur, and rightly so.

The production and harvesting of real resources has been shamelessly outsourced to third-world countries. We allow the rest of the world to grow our food, forge our steel, and sew our shirts, and in doing so, we not only deprive our own people of work, but we impose it on others without the benefit of health and safety, a minimum wage, regulations, or any semblance of automation.

Britain’s economy is overly reliant on the financial sector, leaving us vulnerable to the next U.S.-born crash. Where people once took pride in their work as builders, now they are resigned to employment in this coffee chain or that.

Nationalism now rises in tandem with uncontrolled migration leading to names like Le Pen, Wilders, and Farage taking the establishment by storm. What appeared to be a consistently declining level of global violence has begun to reverse itself in recent years, as the wildfire of extremism continues to ravage the Middle East, prompting the worst migrant crisis yet seen in human history.

Humanity is on the precipice of upheaval, there are new questions, and few answers. Left-wing parties across the West are struggling to rally support, caught between the relentless march of globalization and the toll it takes on workers the world over.

The British Labour party is no exception to this trend, and its inability to mount a competent opposition to the government is enabling a period of unchecked Conservative rule. Exerting scrutiny on the executive is essential to ensure that its policies reflect national needs and not self-serving ends. Thus it is in the interests of both Conservative and Labour supporters that the Labour party resurface as a government in waiting and not persist as a party of protest.

In the wake of the 2015 shock general election defeat, long-time backbencher and maverick Jeremy Corbyn, assumed power in the Labour party. Propelled by an anti-establishment appeal and left-wing policies thought to have been consigned to history, he easily defeated his three opponents.

His unprecedented victory prompted a surge in party membership, from some 200,000 to over 500,000, making it notable for being the largest left-wing party in Europe. It appeared that the man to reverse Labour’s fortune had made himself known.

Yet at the time of writing, far from arresting the party’s decline, the Corbyn administration has only exacerbated it. Polling shows Labour now trail the Conservatives by as much as 18%. The 23rd of February 2017 marked a historic by-election defeat for Labour, not just because they had held the seat of Copeland since 1935, but also because it was lost to the governing party.

Owing to resignations, the shadow cabinet is more of a skeleton crew, much of it manned by newly elected and inexperienced MPs.  The vast membership, which was seen as the formation of a campaigning vanguard, has since been shown to be in large part idle, indicative of a niche opinion in the country, and a thorn in the side of the parliamentary party.

That’s not to say that Jeremy Corbyn killed the Labour party. He merely sits atop its coffin. The party has been in a state of managed decline since de-industrialization stripped it of a clear reason to exist. The program detailed herein will therefore not lay blame exclusively at Corbyn’s door, though it will do so where appropriate, but instead will lay blame where deserved, and offer remedies where needed.

It’s not enough to insist that the electorate are deficient or suffering from a false consciousness when they reject you time after time. Nor is it good enough to abandon the values upon which the party was founded in order to pursue public opinion at the expense of all else.

Instead the party must align its core principles with the will of the people, conceding ground on either side where necessary. It’s essential that in order to recover, the party enter a period of reflection, and in doing so it must produce a meaningful answer to the question so many are asking: “Just what is the Labour party for?”.

If it’s to defend the NHS, then that’s an insufficient reason for the electorate to eject a sitting government. No doubt the creation of the NHS was Labour’s finest hour, but to relentlessly invoke its name at every public rally like a war cry is to cement in the mind of the public the idea of Labour as a one-trick pony.

If it’s to be a nicer version of the Tories, this too is inadequate. Aside from the fact that the Liberal Democrats already occupy that ground, the public at large will always opt for competency over compassion.

It’s vital that should Labour ever seek to win again, it must first rediscover its identity. It should reforge its raison d’être from an anti-Tory think tank to a government in waiting, able to steady the nation through what promises to be a turbulent future. Drawing from various tendencies within the party, significant research, personal experience, and observable reality, what follows is a detailed roadmap for Labour’s return to government.

Chapter I – The New Working Class

Labour once had a core demographic on which they could rely: the working class – a monolithic block who worked almost entirely in heavy industry. Commonly united in tight-knit communities centered on a factory or pit, they were class conscious and proudly so.

To inherit one’s father’s job was not just an expectation but a de facto right. The membership of the Labour party and consequently its leadership still holds to these antiquated views of what it means to be a worker. So long as they fail to recognize the nature and needs of modern workers, they will fail to produce policies that appeal to them.

This isn’t a failure exclusive to the left of the party. After all, Blair did once assert that, “We’re all middle class now”, a view still manifest among those of his ilk who exist in substantial number within the parliamentary party.

It’s not so much that this view denies the existence of the poverty-stricken or the manual worker but that it sidelines them. It relies on those people to vote for Labour consistently and is unconcerned when they stay at home, since most such people live within Labour safe seats won on a minimal turnout.

This leads us to a divergence in approach: one that caters to a romanticized and now largely deceased working class and the other which overlooks it entirely. To portray the party as these two schools of thought and nothing but would be disingenuous, but they do have the most to say on the subject. The so-called ‘soft left’ offers little thought on the matter, and the Kendallites have been too preoccupied with plots in recent times to set out any clear views at all.

In order to identify those whom Labour must bring into the fold, we must first establish those who vote for it currently:

Old Labourites. Blue-collar chaps for whom the memories of Thatcherism are still all too vivid. Formerly miners and manufacturers, many now live in the deprived post-industrial communities of Wales, the Midlands, the North, and Scotland. Increasingly, their inherent social conservatism and skepticism regarding immigration has led them to vote Conservative and UKIP in increasing numbers.

Londoners. Labour enjoys ever-growing support within London, a crowd often misidentified as being part of the ‘metropolitan elite’. While much of this demographic could be characterized by the sort of person who hangs a picture of Marx in their parents’ Kensington 4-bed, such people are a minority. Labour’s London support base can be differentiated by its social liberalism, particularly in its concern for LGBT rights, feminism, and police practices.

Public sector workers. Over 56.5% are unionized and the Tories have been slashing their wages for 7 years. They vote Labour consistently, although they do so in worryingly declining numbers. Guarantee a wage rise above inflation and increased expenditure on our public services, and these voters are locked down.

Ethnic minorities. This demographic can be more or less divided between those of African and Asian descent. The black British demographic is concentrated predominantly in London and Birmingham, the product of a generation who were invited to the UK to rebuild in the wake of the Second World War.

Now living in overwhelmingly deprived communities, over 70% vote Labour. Similarly, Asians of both Islamic and Sikh denominations vote by a substantial margin in favor of Labour[i],  despite having (in common with the Black British community) a deep social conservatism and entrepreneurial spirit that would perhaps more naturally put them in the Conservative camp.

As these groups continue to move out into the suburbs and expand their businesses, it’s likely their transition from being staunch Labourites to reliably Conservative will only accelerate.

Entryists. Often hailing from Trotskyist outfits, their influence is at a peak within the Labour party since the days of militant expulsions. Such people are self-professed associates of groups such as the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party. Though not great in number, it seems Tom Watson had it right when he suggested there are some “old hands twisting young wrists”.

This coalition cannot win elections; it lost in 2010, 2015, and it will do so again in 2020, if not before. Where previously Labour had a clear platform that spoke directly to workers the country over, they have so far failed to adapt to the new nature of work in the 21st century.

Talk of workers’ rights to the 4.6 million self-employed[ii] means precisely nothing. When Jeremy Corbyn gives speeches about Keir Hardy, he might as well be reading from Istanbul’s phonebook for all the relevance it has to the voters he’s attempting to reach.

This sort of rhetoric would suggest that Labour now stands on a platform of reviving heavy industry when in fact no such plans exist. It’s evident that such populist polices are not incompatible with electoral success in modern times.

We can look to Donald Trump’s rise to power as evidence of this. A campaign punctuated with the cry – “We’re gonna put the miners back to work!” – roars which carried the rust belt states and Trump himself to an electoral college victory.

While such an agenda should never constitute the headline of a Labour campaign, there is room for it to form a fractional element of a wider economic plan. With the benefits of automation and clean coal, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t create new jobs in coal, steel and manufacturing: industries whose revival would be predicated on a new regime of tariffs and public infrastructure spending.

Though Labour are often happy to ingratiate themselves with the attendees of events like the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ Festival and the Durham Miners’ Gala, they have nothing substantial to offer on the issue of heavy industry yet are content to bask in the romanticism of it.

While the decline of the British steel industry predates recent governments, it now faces a crisis that threatens to end its very existence. The proximate cause of this crisis is China dumping its own steel at below cost price on the world market. This is comparable to a supermarket opening next to a corner shop and offering loaves of bread for 10p.

Inevitably, the former will put the latter out of business, and then, when it’s free of competition, it is able to raise its prices with impunity. Similarly, if we surrender ourselves to a reliance on Chinese steel, we’ll face higher prices in the long run. Failing to protect them would deliver a coup de grâce to the last bastions of our national manufacturing industries, prompting the decline of communities and our capacity for self-sufficiency.

It’s for these reasons Labour would do well to adopt policies to the effect of the following:

  • Introduce tariffs on Chinese steel to such a point that it becomes unaffordable in the UK.
  • Lobby other European nations to form a steel block, not dissimilar from the Common Agricultural Policy, which will allow for free trade in steel amongst nations with comparable wage levels and health and safety standards.
  • Legislate that all public works must use British steel with appropriate caveats (e.g. certain types of steel are not produced in the UK).
  • Cut the disproportionately large foreign aid budget from 0.7% and put some of that money into retraining post-steel communities and investing in new technology for existing plants

As the supply of steel drops, the free market will necessitate investment leading to the construction of new steel plants, not only in the UK but across Europe. It’s an excellent example of triangulating socialism with capitalism and reaping the rewards of the free market in the 21st century.

Now, I don’t suggest that such policies should be the focal point of a Labour manifesto by any means, on the contrary, they should be towards the bottom of the list, but they most certainly should be on that list.

Such a policy, though necessary, is not an election winner, and speaks only to a specific group of people. It should be brought about in tandem with policies that resonate with the 4.6 million self-employed individuals who are in dire need of strong representation.

These people are more inclined to identify as entrepreneurs than as part of the working class. Mechanics and carpenters are now business people not proles. They don’t care about the history of struggle, or talk of how the EU is essential because it ‘protects workers’ rights’ which is nonsense in its own right, but they do want to have constant work with good pay and little else.

Indeed, until pressure from the Tory-supporting press prompted a u-turn, the Chancellor meant to levy upon self-employed people an even higher tax rate. In the wake of such a clear display of contempt towards the self-employed by the Conservatives, no better opportunity exists for Labour to launch an appeal to white van men the country over.

So, what problems do self-employed people face, and what policy platforms can appeal to them?

By definition they don’t have an employer from whom they can claim sick, maternity, or paternity pay, their work can be inconsistent, and they must continually reinvest their earnings to facilitate the survival of their trade or business.

Such policies should include:

  • Cutting taxes for the self-employed, allowing them to free up income they can use to cover the cost of sick pay and other work-related benefits (alternatively, introduce self-employment working tax credits where feasible).
  • Lowering VAT so that consumer spending increases, thus pushing up demand for new wardrobes, landscaped gardens, vehicle modifications, and so on.
  • Forcing the banks that we taxpayers bailed out to provide loans where feasible to self-employed individuals at a special low interest rate for the purpose of buying tools, refurbishing workshops, or taking on trainees.
  • Sending apprentices to work with the self-employed rather than with huge multinational chains, where they exist as little more than wage slaves.

Again, such policies won’t provoke a landslide electoral victory, but they are essential to attract to the Labour cause the sort of voters who are not only needed to win an election but whose interests lie in the Labour camp; the clue is in the name, after all.

But policy isn’t enough. We can’t expect people who work two jobs and maintain other responsibilities besides to read complex manifestos and pay attention to policy documents – to do so would be an unreasonable burden. Instead we need to talk in a language that ordinary people understand. That is to say: we should speak like normal people.

In 1917 the Bolsheviks condensed a complex economic program into three simple words: ‘PEACE, LAND, BREAD’. It was a message that was understood by every echelon of Russian society without exception. This is no means to advocate Bolshevism, but it serves to demonstrate that exactly 100 years ago, without the benefit of social media, YouTube, spin doctors, and hashtags, it was possible to create easily digestible slogans that summarize a policy platform.

Yet somehow the modern Labour party is entirely incapable of developing a slogan, sentence, paragraph, or message of any length or format that appeals even remotely to its core vote or to those it needs to incorporate into it.

In 2015 Labour produced “A Better Plan for a Better Future” as its campaign slogan. This inspired precisely nobody and means exactly nothing. Given that unemployment in 2015 was 1.9 million[iii], how about this: “Labour Will Give You a High-paying Job”. Or with a little more finesse “Higher Pay, More Jobs”.

At the end of the day, despite the Twitterati’s various obsessions, jobs are the primary concern of most voters, and they have been and should continue to be at the forefront of any Labour campaign. Moreover, nobody speaks the language of the 60’s union bosses or the Marxist Politburo; talk of ‘comrades’ and ‘struggle’ should be consigned to the dustbin of history unless in the context of a historical discussion.

This chapter has thus far dealt with the need for and the avenue by which the traditional northern post-industrial vote can be shored up, and how best the 4.6 million self-employed can begin to be brought across to Labour in greater numbers, as well as a brief mention of language and communication which will be dealt with in greater depth in a subsequent chapter.

With all that said, there remains one ever-growing and crucial voting block who cannot bring themselves to vote Labour for reasons easily condensed into one word.: Immigration.

Blue-collar blokes are sick of being called racists for daring to criticize immigration. There is nothing left wing or liberal about the free movement of people; to the contrary it’s a right–wing, neoliberal idea that disproportionately favors employers.

The Labour party has no need to become radically nationalist, but by God it should be patriotic. It should fly the Union Flag and St. George’s Cross at every speech and every office, and the same for the Welsh and Scottish flags. But above all, Labour should call for a points-based immigration system that guarantees people the world over get a fair shake at entering the country on the basis of having the skills we need in the economy.

Let’s take India’s best scientists and China’s best students and do so on the understanding that they will commit themselves to the country for a specific amount of time. Let’s not feel obliged to take unskilled workers, of which we already have a surplus, in order to further drive down the wages of construction site laborers, baristas, and private hire drivers.

So, here’s a ‘radical’ suggestion for a slogan “British Jobs for British Workers” the words of one Gordon Brown as recently as 2007. This is the sort of slogan that should be plastered so thickly on the walls that they begin to be structurally integral to the building they occupy. Like communication, immigration will be dealt with in detail in a subsequent chapter, but in relation to appealing to the forgotten working class, it must be a cornerstone.

Over 900,000 people are apprentices[iv], mostly young women – an  ideal demographic for Labour voters. Since an apprentice in their first year is entitled to a below-subsistence wage of £3.40 an hour, and those most likely to enroll in an apprenticeship are poorer to begin with, it’s a total no-brainer: Labour should be promising every apprentice in the country a pay rise.

To those who suggest this would be irresponsible spending, we’ll be enjoying the benefit within two years of not having to send the EU hundreds of millions of pounds a year, of which a fraction could be spent on improving apprentices’ pay.

Here’s another groundbreaking slogan “A Pay Rise for Apprentices”. It’s time the unions with their multi-million bound budgets and 6-figure wage packets stopped resting on their laurels and actively began unionizing young apprentices the nation over. An offer of free membership for a year would be hard to refuse.

Others talk of an ‘anti-boss’ brand of populism, but as well as being counterproductive, since we absolutely want bosses to vote for Labour, time has rendered it irrelevant. We now live in an age where peoples’ bosses are oftentimes a relative or a friend, where this isn’t the case, it’s rare that employees don’t know their manager or supervisor outside of the workplace on a casual basis, at the very least as acquaintances.

Any anti-business or anti-boss talk cannot be part of a modern Labour party’s rhetoric or policy. Where there is room for populism, it’s anti-corporate populism.

Let’s make sure Google, Starbucks, and Facebook pay the taxes they’re duty bound to, given that without a taxpayer-funded education system they would have no employees, without the NHS they would have to provide insurance, without public roads they would have no means of haulage, and without internet and phone-line infrastructure they would have no means to even exist.

From the gains made by appropriating the correct levels of tax owed by such corporations, let’s move these profits into delivering tax cuts for small business owners, incentivize them to take on new employees, and expand their trades. It’s by means such as these that Labour can successfully convert traditional Conservative voters simply by offering them a better deal.

We can also reach the middle classes. For the first time in their history, junior doctors went out on strike, and did so on several occasions in the wake of Jeremy Hunt’s punishing reform proposals. Legal professionals are in the process of a mass exodus from the legal aid program, with Scottish wages having dropped over 20% from 2007/8-2013/2014 and trainee barristers earning salaries as low as £12,000 per anum (with training costs of £17,000)[v].

While an opportunity clearly presents itself to launch an appeal to traditional middle class Conservative voters, the Labour party is too embroiled with internal affairs to mount any effective effort.

On this point of traditional Conservative voters, it’s time to speak to farmers once again. We will soon have control over farming subsidies, let’s outbid the Tories on this issue and in addition offer an innovative rural apprenticeship program in order to train future generations in the ways of agriculture, while also aiding overworked and beleaguered farmers.

Furthermore, let’s force supermarkets to pay a fair price for dairy, meat, and vegetables, while subsidizing the cost to the consumer, paid for by an equivalent tax on sugary foods in order to ensure farms thrive while still protecting consumers and simultaneously improving the health of the nation.

Once free from the Common Fisheries Policy, let’s put our fisherman back to work and become the fishing capital of Europe. It makes no sense to subsidize corporations through working tax credits. Labour should promise an increase in the minimum wage and use the welfare savings to fund new infrastructure in our now-decrepit seaside towns.

Through this dual approach, we can not only increase the quality of life of those left behind by globalism while once again making British seaside towns worthy tourist attractions, but also bring back into the fold voters who have long since deserted Labour for UKIP.

Through these methods, we can expand our ever-shrinking coalition to include people from all walks of life, while still staying true to Labour values in a modern and relevant way. Let’s go forward in lockstep with farmers, fishermen, carpenters, shopkeepers, laborers, dockers, lorry drivers, and lawyers.

Some may ponder, then, might this not alienate the metropolitan middle classes, who as of this moment form the last bastion of the Labour bloc vote? Well, the biggest genuine issue for such people is the absurdly high house prices which keep people off the property ladder to middle age, and some of the highest rents in the world.

All the while we spend £25 billion every single year on housing benefit[vi], money which goes straight into landlords’ pockets, (not that we don’t want landlords to prosper).

It’s time to announce a national house building program that takes the money straight out of the housing benefit budget and puts it into building 250,000 homes a year until the housing shortage becomes a surplus, at which point the free market will dictate rents, house prices will return to affordable levels, and the UK will once again become a home-owning democracy.

This is how we can offer concrete solutions to clear issues that will resonate with the 8 million people who live in London. Such a program would also lead to the employment of hundreds of thousands of people, prompting a higher tax revenue and increased spending in local economies throughout the country.

In summary, in order for Labour to properly construct policy that appeals to the working class, it must first understand how the working class has evolved over the past century. It should adopt a dual approach that halts the decline of traditional manufacturing and shores up our export market, while simultaneously engendering job growth in emerging markets, with an eye to appealing to those whose new nature of work leaves them without a natural party to vote for.

This program should incorporate the good work done by Ed Miliband in formulating policies to re-introduce security into the workplace, particularly in dealing with ‘zero-hour’ contracts, while also acknowledging that such policies do not have a broad enough appeal amongst swing voters. Labour must push for full, proud, and secure employment. By these means, Labour will rally all elements of the modern working class to their cause. 

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

Foreign policy is not an election winner. Even when Blair’s hated decision to invade Iraq prompted the largest marches ever seen in the UK, the Labour government comfortably held on to power in the 2005 elections.

However, it’s important to remain principled and strive always to do what is right and best, both for the people of our nation and for those abroad but never at the expense of either. Moreover, Labour faces challenges from the left, notably the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, whenever it assumes an overtly pro-war posture.

There is scarcely a sentient being on earth who still believes Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan were successful interventions, and for all the times it’s been said, it’s clear we haven’t learnt the lessons of the past. The Labour party should make it clear that they will not involve themselves in foreign military entanglements that do not directly concern the security of the United Kingdom and its allies.

British blood should not be expended to remove a foreign dictator only for that nation’s people to find liberation give way to an unimaginably worse kind of tyranny as has happened when ISIS filled the vacuum that Western bombs created.

Having said that, it is crucial that Labour demonstrate that it does not take security lightly, and its commitment to having first-class armed forces should be clear to everyone.

We have a Conservative government that has sacked soldiers before they could claim their full pensions, moved hundreds of thousands of positions into the reserve army, has aircraft carriers that we can’t land aircraft on, and now, most bizarrely, is offering troops the option of not serving in combat zones in return for a pay cut.

In uncertain global times, Labour should put itself forward as a patriotic party committed to the primary duty of the state: the protection of its own people. It’s essential that a commitment to at least 2% of GDP on defense be made in line with NATO requirements as well as a commitment to nuclear weaponry.

The latter is contentious, particularly within Labour circles, but there are some universal truths on this matter. Firstly, Trident has been commissioned, and should Labour win power, they will inherit the system no matter what their policy is. Secondly, the majority of the population are in favor of nuclear weapons, and confusion on the issue only allows the Tories to portray Labour as a threat to national security, philosophical arguments about MAD aside.

It’s also right that we reverse the horrible mistreatment suffered by our veterans. No individual who has laid their life on the line for the nation should be allowed to sleep on the streets, and as part of the aforementioned house building program, there should be guaranteed homes for veterans with subsidized mortgages, a cost to be taken from the 2% of GDP mentioned earlier.

There should also be jobs in the public sector reserved for them, particularly in the police and border forces. It’s my view that the treatment of veterans is a legitimate use of the term ‘military spending’.

Our foreign aid spending is disproportionate, badly allocated, and unsustainable. We are running a budget deficit of £40 billion, and continue to borrow more money to spend abroad, often sponsoring foreign militaries in proxy wars, or putting money into the pocket of despots to secure exploitative trade deals.

After the United States of America, we are the second biggest foreign aid donor on the planet in real terms. We spend $18 billion compared to the U.S. spending of $31 billion[vii]. That is over half of their expenditure despite being significantly less than half the size of their economy.

There are many cases in which it is not only right but morally incumbent upon us as a nation to send funds and resources abroad, to combat Ebola as a recent example.

But setting an annual target of 0.7% of GDP and dispersing that money across the globe, borrowed money in the first place, only exacerbates the economic conditions this country currently faces, and in the long run will prevent us as a nation aiding other countries to our fullest capacity, since our economic growth is constantly hampered by this gross cost.

Foreign aid does a lot of good, and where it does so it should continue to do so, but where reasonable savings can be made, this is exactly the course of action that should be pursued. The liberal, Guardian–reading, mocha-sipping elites will tweet furiously in response to such a suggestion, as if there’s something essential about the budget being set at 0.7% rather than 0.6%.

It’s important to ignore these people, whose numbers appear  more significant online, as they represent a minority as has been shown time and time again, with only 1 in 4 supporting the current foreign aid policy[viii].

For those who suggest that giving money to space-program-pushing India will somehow engender good relations with developing countries, I’d suggest we could better build relations by ceasing to hinder their economic growth through climate regulation (with caveats) and ending the practice of Western and Chinese companies exploiting the developing countries’ natural resources.

We currently face the worst refugee crisis the world has yet known, and as a party, people, and species, we have a duty to help those in need. In the immediate future, we should accept lone child refugees and house them with willing volunteers in the UK.

Subsequent to this, we should quiz every local council in the country and see what facilities they can spare to house other refugees, prioritizing families. However, there are 60 million displaced people globally and counting. The UK cannot effectively double its population by accepting every single individual – even 5% of that number would bring the country’s infrastructure to its knees.

Thus, longer-term solutions must be found, and they begin with rich Middle Eastern countries which have so far allowed the burden to be shouldered by their neighbors like Lebanon as well as Western nations, namely Germany.

It is time we lobbied Saudi Arabia, to whom we sell jets and whose pilots we train in order to better fly them, we gave a free ride when they invaded Bahrain, and continue to do so as they fight in Yemen killing civilians with British bombs, and whose disgusting head-chopping record gives ISIS a run for their money.

This is not a suggestion to cut ties with the Saudis or the UAE, but given the support both militarily and diplomatically that we provide for them, it’s reasonable to assume we can make demands of them: and if ever there was a need to, it is now. These countries should be taking in great numbers of refugees. They have the infrastructure; they just lack the will.

Further to this, the foreign aid budget should be used to contribute to a wider transnational program to build U.N.-protected safe zones across the Middle East, to prevent refugees making the treacherous journey across the Mediterranean, which in itself will save thousands of lives but also to keep them safe from terrorism and keep them fed, watered, and sheltered until such time that they can return to their country or region of origin.

The geopolitical landscape has suffered a seismic shift in the past year alone, and upcoming European elections look to continue that trend. The long and short of the matter is that we have distanced ourselves from our European neighbors so long as their current rulers last anyway, and thus we must move closer to our historic allies in the U.S.

However, Jeremy Corbyn (perhaps out of some need for the adoration of the echo chamber of his cult of no personality) is making a frequent habit of attacking President Trump vocally, viciously and publicly. He’s joined in such attacks by other high-profile liberals, notably the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

When the Cameron government shamelessly courted the Chinese into buying out our public infrastructure, John Bercow was front and center in welcoming Xi Jinping to address both houses of Parliament.

Yet in a stunningly hypocritical fashion which must require Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to justify, Bercow has come out against Trump addressing Parliament and intends to block him from doing so, all the while being supported in these efforts by the leader of the Labour party. Part of the problem is the disingenuous hysteria around Trump that you’ll find in the Guardian, Mirror or indy100.

But putting that aside, even a blind man can see that it’s absolutely within British interests to foster closer cooperation and trade with the U.S.A., the biggest economy in the world, which also has in common with us in language, culture, and history.  In fact, for anybody who considers themselves on the left, a closer relationship with Trump can only be a good thing for world peace, given his thus-far successful moves towards détente with Russia.

On this point, there’s no need to paint Putin as the eternal bogeyman. There are elements of his governance which we can all criticize from one angle or another, but to invoke the words of a separate J. C. for a moment, “Those without sin should cast the first stone”.

The domestic policies of Russia are entirely an issue for the Russian people, and continuing to burden Russia with ever worsening sanctions not only destroys diplomatic relations but is mutually harmful for both our economies. Let’s work with Trump and Putin to defeat ISIS, and in doing so we will position ourselves closer to their ears to best influence them on any human rights issues we find significant.

We claim ownership of an island over 7,000 miles away from our shores on the basis that its citizens voted in a referendum to remain British. This is no bad thing and we should continue to respect the right to self-determination.

However, when those in Crimea, who are 65% Russian by ethnicity[ix], vote overwhelmingly to join the Russian state, the Western political class sees this as grounds for a proxy war in Ukraine.

This is made even more bizarre by the fact Crimea was part of Russia as recently as 1954, when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, and now over 60 years on, it’s reasonable that its inhabitants would rather unite themselves to a superpower rather than a failed state.

Some will surely cry ‘appeasement’ to the idea that we should improve relations with Russia. To those people, I say: compromise is essential in international relations, we can’t preach to the world how they should live and operate, and it’s arrogant and pseudo-supremacist to try and push our liberal democratic model on every culture and people of the earth.

That’s not to mention that Putin did little when we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, supported French action in Mali, and imposed sanctions against their Iranian allies, yet liberals appear indignant at any suggestion that the Russians be allowed the same freedom in their international actions.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t assume a strong posture – we absolutely should – which is one of the reasons this text has hitherto advocated the maintenance of Trident and spending of 2% of GDP on defense.

Working closely with our American allies, we should aim to maintain peace through strength, but this is by no means mutually exclusive with closer cooperation with Russia, with whom we should be seeking to strike trade deals, closer ties, and better relations. In short, we should make allies, not enemies, wherever possible.

Most people aren’t concerned with international relations. They want food on their table, a roof over their heads, and enough disposable income to live a good life. However, it will never be the case that Jeremy Corbyn could be elected Prime Minister on an anti-American ticket.

It’s a simple truism that the U.S. is a crucial ally, and to worsen our relations in the context of Brexit would leave the UK essentially isolated. Trump’s lewd comments about women are not a hill Labour should be dying on, nor a hill they should have even assumed a position atop in the first instance.

Instead Labour should have a foreign policy that doesn’t indulge in 3-dimensional chess and virtue signalling but instead sends a very clear message. Labour will be second to none in defense of the nation, second to none in rebuilding relations, and unwilling to expend British blood or treasure in foreign wars that do not concern us.

In Europe, let’s form bilateral trade agreements and maintain the same standard of intelligence sharing as exists today, both of which are perfectly possible without power sharing in a technocratic bureaucracy.

The upshot of this in messaging terms is that Labour should state loud and clear that Labour will keep you safe, prioritize our own citizens, and maintain a humanitarian outlook on global affairs. Little else is necessary, and Corbyn’s famous hand-holding with the IRA and Hamas are enough to set him up for a decisive defeat in any British election.

Chapter III – Immigration

Immigration became a taboo subject in the realm of political discourse with the dawn of the Blair Age. Conversation on the matter was shut down, and dissidents were branded racists, outcasts, and forced into silence. A mixture of concern and outrage boiled up amongst those left behind by New Labour, leading to the return of two British National Party candidates in the European Elections of 2009.

Fortunately, both of those vile individuals have since lost their seats and faded into obscurity, with those voters now opting to side with the far more moderate UKIP. Nigel Farage single-handedly put immigration at the center of British politics, and his influence led to a vote to leave the European Union, within which the primary concern amongst Out voters was immigration.

This had been a sleeping giant for some time, and Farage was able to awaken it. However, even now in a post-Brexit world, the issue of immigration is still taboo for many, particularly in the mainstream media. It’s rare that anyone advocating a merit-based immigration system as opposed to no controls at all isn’t branded a racist by a ‘Question Time’ panelist or political opponent.

It’s an issue that’s particularly pernicious on university campuses and in inner cities. In the former, anyone to the right of Chairman Mao on the issue is considered Hitler’s earthly avatar, and in the latter, it’s a common occurrence to find your trip through Central London punctuated with stalls of the Socialist Workers Party distributing leaflets that read along of the lines of ‘Let all refugees in now! Stop racism!’.

Speaking of the SWP, whilst Labour seems curious about its own credibility gap, meanwhile its own shadow chancellor is giving interviews to the SWP[x], so whoever is running the Labour PR machine should enjoy the ‘benefit’ of instant dismissal.

The fact that the views of a tiny vocal minority are over-represented on television and online media makes people scared to air their true opinions, only taking action within the security and anonymity of the ballot box. Over 70% of the country believe immigration controls are not tough enough[xi], and this is a figure Labour leaders should be more concerned with than the number of retweets a platitude about multiculturalism can receive online.

Overwhelmingly, the country is dissatisfied with current levels of immigration. This includes Black and minority ethnic voters of all stripes who believe the number of immigrants should be reduced, and they do so by sizeable majorities[xii].

It’s pertinent to mention that immigration is disproportionately a concern for the working classes, and many of them have fled Labour, leading UKIP to be the main challenger to Labour in a great many constituencies in the 2015 election. Although it’s proven difficult for UKIP to directly take seats from Labour, there are two problems that this bleeding of voters poses.

The first is that it will lead the Labour vote in northern communities to be split with UKIP, thus allowing a Tory candidate to take a seat with as little as 30% of the vote. The second problem is that these UKIP voters distance themselves so far from Labour when they look at its middle class-centric tone that they jump ship to the Conservatives, and if that happened in large enough numbers, a Labour general election victory would be inconceivable for a generation.

We are in the process of leaving the European Union, and thus we will no longer be shackled to the free movement of labor which has given every citizen of the EU the right to live and work in the UK. However, neither the Conservatives nor Labour have made clear the path ahead.

What better opportunity then for Labour to appeal to its forgotten voters, take back the defectors, and win over Conservatives by proposing a strict points–based,Australian-style immigration system. Let’s legislate in order to ensure that only immigrants who possess the skills and resources we need have the ability to settle and work in this country.

Let’s mandate that immigrants should have an excellent grasp of the English language, not just because such a skill is essential (particularly in the medical profession) but also because it will ensure universally beneficial integration.

At the same time, we should make it clear that this country already has enough unskilled workers, unemployed, and disabled people who are struggling to cope as it is, and it should not be incumbent on the country to take more such people in.

It’s here the points-based system comes into its own: for example, if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, we can adjust the requisite points for entry and mandate that people who enter under such circumstances have jobs waiting for them.

Some suggest a migration system based on merit is xenophobic, and to those people it’s worth mentioning that we’ve applied a points-based system to non-EU citizens for years, and as members of the EU, we were giving preference to European migrants who were predominantly White over Indian and African migrants.

A points-based system is totally equitable and accepts people based on ability, irrespective of skin color, creed, or nationality. This is entirely in keeping with the sort of values that led to Labour’s foundation and should remain at the forefront of any respectable leftwing movement.

There is a myth that there is something ‘left wing’ or ‘progressive’ about uncontrolled migration, or that it would be desirable to have an unlimited number of unknown individuals entering the country every year.

Let’s be clear: the free movement of labor is a rightwing, neoliberal, capitalist policy, not dissimilar to the free movement of capital. It’s a symptom of an anarchic free market system that serves the elites extremely well; it drives down the price of labor for corporations, affords the middle classes cheap gardeners and nannies, and perpetually rigs the job market in the employers’ favor.

It’s a fundamental leftist belief that the free market is not infallible, requires regulation, and this regulation should pertain not just to levels of taxation and regulation but also to the distribution of workers.

This is not advocacy of immigration control on the basis of electoral populism, or economic philosophy, though it would indeed be popular, and it does follow philosophically; instead it’s an advocacy on the grounds of basic math.

Plainly, the UK cannot sustain the number of immigrants coming into the country every year. 300,000 is the rough annual net migration figure to the UK per annum. Many point out rightly that a large number of these people are students, and they’re right to do so.

However, whether student or worker, they still take the same toll on transport, health, and social infrastructure.  As a nation, we are building around half the number of houses we need every single year, at around 135,000[xiii], creating a clear deficit in housing availability. That’s not to mention that our own domestic birth rate is over 800,000 per year[xiv].

We already have a dangerous housing bubble which threatens to collapse at any moment, pulling our entire economy down with it, and it’s only exacerbated by such migrant numbers. Of course, part of this problem is that we don’t build enough houses, and issues pertaining to that were detailed in the first chapter.

However, the costs of building such enormous numbers of houses and providing the associated infrastructure would be to say the least prohibitive, and even if it were feasible, it would not be desirable.

Aside from housing there are huge costs associated with the NHS, when people who have never contributed arrive able to take full advantage of it without question. This is one of the factors that has led to a record NHS deficit of £1.85 billion[xv]; although of course underfunding remains the direct cause of this crisis, immigration serves to aggravate it.

You’ll hear from Labour politicians and often to the thunderous applause of their echo chambers, the following platitude: “You’re more likely to see an immigrant working in the NHS than using it”.

Aside from being disingenuous, since it’s entirely determined by happenstance and geography, the point they are trying to make is that because immigrants work in the NHS, we should allow an unlimited number of immigrants to enter the country, as if the former warrants the latter, which is a total non-sequitur.

Yes, we have a large number of migrants working in the NHS, and that’s a good thing to. Let’s keep them there and continue to allow medical professionals into the country in line with demand. Having controlled immigration and having Indian doctors are not mutually exclusive; in actuality an equitable points-based system will incentivize and drive up the number of highly qualified migrant workers relative to unskilled workers.

The people are crying out for a credible party to come out strongly on immigration, and if Labour did so, they would take the country by storm.

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

As of this writing the most commonly seen Labour slogan is “Working together for real change”. The problem is the party is not working together, and presents no change. The conflict within and between the constituency and parliamentary Labour parties is wreaking havoc on Labour’s public image, and as the well-known adage tells us, voters don’t vote for divided parties.

However, this text will not attempt to dissect the intricacies that have led to this point; instead suffice it to mention a couple of key issues.

Jeremy Corbyn will never receive the support of the current MPs and therefore must go. The only alternative would be to begin a process of deselection across the country –  a sort of Trotskyist Night of the Long Knives, which would only leave the party’s reputation in tatters and replace experienced MPs with amateurs.

There is a divide within the parliamentary party between those representing constituents who are socially conservative working class and middle class social liberals. While Labour has always been a broad church that has incorporated numerous factions, the divisions now seem to be intensifying like never before.

Party loyalty is at record low rates, and people are now more likely than ever to throw out of office the candidate of their forefather’s choice and often on the basis of a single issue. This is more contentious than ever post-Brexit, given that some Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted overwhelmingly to Remain and others the reverse. Inevitably MPs jostle with one another to represent their diverse constituents.

The remedies are imperfect for both issues. For the first, Corbyn must go, which is easier said than done; and secondly the Labour party must support the will of the people and push for a real Brexit that rejects freedom of movement. Neither solution is ideal, but both are necessary, not least because the majority of the country hate Corbyn, and the majority of the country voted for Brexit.

On to the second, and more important, element of the slogan: “Real Change.” The most obvious change that has taken place in the last couple of years is the transformation of the Labour party from a party of government to one that wallows in political oblivion. Change is an important message to transmit, but the kind of change needs to be clear, and Corbyn’s Labour has thus far advocated very few changes indeed.

In fact, in my research for this work, I wanted to see exactly what policies Jeremy Corbyn had promoted in order to deal with them individually. However, when I tried to access Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘priorities’ on his website, it returned an error page reading “Unfortunately the page you were looking for was not found”, which is so patently ironic that no explanation is needed.

Further hunting will lead you to an article in the Mirror listing several flagship policies, which range from unpopular and bizarre like abolishing the monarchy to leftist clichés like ‘tax the rich’, and standard Labour talking points like re-nationalizing rail.

An eager hunter will find a more exhaustive list in a Telegraph article, which is pretty damming for the Labour party PR machine when the right-wing pro-Tory paper gives more policy detail than Labour themselves do. Eventually, one will stumble upon the ‘Jeremy for Labour’ page detailing ten broad policy positions. A brief glance is enough to know it’s a slight rewording of Ed Miliband’s 2015 manifesto combined with some broad meaningless jargon.

“We will build a progressive tax system so that wealth and the highest earners are fairly taxed, act against executive pay excess, and shrink the gap between the highest and lowest paid – FTSE 100 CEOs are now paid 183 times the wage of the average UK worker, and Britain’s wages are the most unequal in Europe. We will act to create a more equal society, boost the incomes of the poorest, and close the gender pay gap.”[xvi]

Do we not already have a progressive tax system? What rate should the highest earners pay? Will you cap executive bonuses? How will you boost the incomes of the poorest? How will you close the gender pay gap?

Such questions could be the only reasonable response to reading such general non-offensive meaningless milk-and-honey talking points. Anyone who feels the media hasn’t given Corbyn’s Labour a fair shake and has undertaken to do their own research will only be doubly disappointed when they discover that in the two years of his leadership, there’s scarcely a new policy to speak of.

For those who seek out concrete information, they should be rewarded with definitive and detailed policy proposals signed off by renowned economists, think tanks, and financial organizations.

Such policies should include pledges to build huge tidal power stations taking advantage of the fact that our nation is surrounded by water, to build offshore wind farms (including specifications on how many of them, at what cost and where the money is coming from), and to build new motorways, detailing how many people such a project would employ and projecting the economic benefits it would bring to this city or that. Alas, nothing of the sort exists.

Not to harp on about political antiquity, but Harold Wilson talked of the ‘white heat of the technological revolution.’ It’s not something that was ever truly delivered on, but it’s a phrase that stuck. What better time than now is there to renew the scientific and technological revolution? In the age of drones, self-driving cars, nanotechnology, and interstellar rovers, the modern Labour party has very little or nothing to say about it.

As a people we have the potential and as a country we have the need to host research and development facilities for the world’s leading technology firms and to have factories producing technology for the modern age. Labour Shadow Ministers should be meeting with Tesla and Microsoft, putting out press releases and winning support amongst the firms of the future, letting them know Britain is open for business.

In tandem with this we need new and forward-looking training schemes. The youth vote is overwhelmingly Labour but also the least likely to turn out.

Labour councilors, MPs and its half million members (Where are they?) should be knocking on every door of every council estate, meeting the unemployed, disenfranchised youth, and giving them a clear, concise piece of paper offering them a world-class training program that Labour guarantees to introduce if it wins the election.

Give these people something to aspire to and something to vote for outside of the Blue and Red tribal dichotomy which means very little to most people.

AddendumI have returned to this section to note that shortly after the time of writing, the Conservative government has unveiled so called ‘T-levels’, which promise to train youngsters in the practical and technical fields of the future. Once again, Labour has been too slow on the draw and attempts to do so now would appear to be a derivative imitation.

Put before people a plan that they can understand and offer them a future: through training programs, scientific advancement, industrialization, automation, pay rises, and tax breaks. Talking points must give way to the tangible.

What matters to most people when all is said and done is the food on their table, the money in their pockets and the roof over their head. Naturally, a sense of community drives many voters, but elections cannot be won through street marches in aid of the NHS. It’s an established truism that Labour will best serve the NHS, and people understand that all too well, but it cannot rely on this one-trick pony to carry it through to government.

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

Possibly the best thing to come out of the Blair era was the acknowledgment that the great mass of Labour voters were not ultra-liberal, as the Westminster establishment would have you believe but are in fact deeply socially conservative. As such, it’s crucial not only for the execution of justice, but for the electability of the party that Labour are seen to come down hard on criminals and serve justice to victims.

This should come in tandem with core Labour values about alleviating poverty, which we know to be the leading cause of crime since the devil will find work for idle hands to do. Any attempt to crack down on crime must do so heavily and stringently on perpetrators, while simultaneously delivering a revolutionary jobs program to put those idle hands to work.

As a consequence, such people will be able to sustain a family and home, thus giving people a stake in society they would be unwilling to discard with wanton criminality. The Tories have shamelessly cut back the numbers of police to levels last seen in 2003[xvii]. Prisons are being sold to private companies and the conditions that occur within them as a result is nothing short of disgraceful.

Prison guards are striking, and criminals are forcibly taking control of their own prisons, if such a thing could be believed to be true in 21st century Britain. Not only is this a national crisis that warrants an urgent response, but it’s a political opportunity Labour has thus far made no move to exploit.

It should call for and develop credible plans to introduce an increase in police numbers, prison reform, and higher wages for those on the frontline keeping our streets safe. Labour should be tough on crime because it’s the working class who suffer disproportionately at the hands of criminals without the benefits of gated drives and suburbia to protect them.

The Labour party has thus far failed to make political capital from any of these issues. It should go forth hand in hand with the police unions and declare that Labour will be second to none in its commitment and strength of purpose to cut down crime and clean up our prisons. Labour will serve the interests of victims and not criminals once again.

Corbyn’s irreparably damaging comments that he was ‘unhappy’ with the shoot-to-kill policy have done nothing to reduce the idea that Labour are soft on crime. The party needs to push the message night and day until it’s accepted as a truism that under Labour the streets will be safe again. 

Speaking to the People

Many in the Labour party have become totally removed from the voters they serve. Famously, Emily Thornberry poured scorn on a white van man for daring to hang the English flag on his own home. She was roundly attacked by people living outside the ultra-liberal Westminster bubble and was forced to resign from her then position as Shadow Attorney General, though since then Corbyn has secured her promotion to even greater heights.

It’s no surprise that working-class people continue to turn to UKIP in such numbers, when Labour’s North London elite mocks anyone patriotic or traditional in outlook. The voters of Rochester and Strood where the comments were made had nothing in common with Emily Thornberry and the beliefs she manifests, yet she felt perfectly entitled to go there and belittle the very people whose support she should have been trying to secure.

Unsurprisingly, Labour came 3rd in the constituency, losing over 10% of their vote share on the 2010 election. Seats like these are essential to take in order for Labour to have any hope of winning a general election.

Such events are symptomatic of a wider problem, which at the moment is embodied within the Labour leadership. The public watched in outrage as Jeremy Corbyn failed to sing the national anthem during a Battle of Britain commemoration. The papers made hay when Corbyn made a half-hearted bow at the Cenotaph, and did so, by the way, in a tatty suit. When the Red Flag is sung, it brings a smile to activists’ faces but confusion to the country at large.

Corbyn is known to be a republican. There is no problem with that. But he must understand that the vast majority of the country are in favor of the British monarchy because it speaks to their patriotism, is synonymous with their British identity, and is associated with the wars from times gone by and those lost in them.

Any leader of any party should sing the national anthem with gusto, and do so in the finest black suit with the boldest red tie. A refusal or failure to engage in the traditions that venerate the nation and honor our war dead sends a clear signal to the working class of this country that Labour is not the party for them. Indeed, many in the country view Corbyn as directly ‘anti-British’ given his close ties to IRA figures and his now infamous comments calling Hezbollah his ‘friends’.

Some will suggest that the aforementioned are merely superficial issues. In many ways, they are an issue of presentation, but the image the Labour party and its present leadership is not a secondary or tertiary concern, it should be the primary concern for any party seeking to win power.

It’s all well and good having an excellent manifesto, but if no one reads it or gives it credence because they believe its authors are intrinsically unpatriotic, then the manifesto is entirely useless.

Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader is essentially a job interview with the British people at large. He must win their approval in order for them to grant him power. Yet he can’t be bothered to wear a decent suit, which in the opening days of his leadership campaign was endearing and charming, but at this point marks him as an unprepared amateur.

The Labour party has a war coffer of funds at its disposal, including membership subscriptions of over 500,000 individuals, a long list of big private donors, and a great deal more cash donated by trade unions. Yet for all these resources, there isn’t a single advisor who can tell Corbyn not to wear black suit trousers with a blue suit jacket during Prime Minister’s question time. When members of the public go for a job interview, they dress to impress, and they expect their leaders to do the same.

We need a leader of the Labour party flanked by the Union Flag, bellowing the national anthem, and embracing patriotism the same way the people do. Sadly, it appears the liberal elite feels shame and embarrassment at any suggestion of national pride.

There are people who understand this. Andy Burnham makes a particularly good example. A working-class lad who graduated from Cambridge, he returned to his home town to represent Leigh as a member of parliament, where he notably worked to secure justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster cover-up.

From a cold reception in a speech at the Anfield Football Grounds in 2009, he returned after five tireless years of fighting for justice to a well-earned hero’s reception. He wasn’t afraid to speak about that which for so long Labour had considered taboo, namely immigration, and during his bid for the leadership in 2015, he did just that.

Burnham rightly acknowledged all the good that immigration brings, from economic growth to cultural enrichment, while at the same time talking about those left behind by uncontrolled immigration. He talked of a factory worker in his constituency who sat alone during lunch times as he was the only English-speaking worker.

He rightly identified that immigration had disproportionately taken a toll on Labour’s industrial and post-industrial heartlands, and since his failed campaign, he has become even more vocal on this issue.

Alas, for some reason he lacked a certain spark during the campaign, though that aside, he spoke directly to the country, but yet it was the niche Labour party membership who had for the first time the total say on the new leader. Consequently Corbyn won. Burnham has moved out of the front line of national politics towards a campaign to be the mayor of Manchester. Let’s hope that he and his fellows plan a return in the near future.

Chapter V – Conclusions

There absolutely is a place for social liberals within the modern Labour party. The Labour party has a history of pushing through excellent liberal reforms from Barbra Castle legislating equal pay for equal work between the genders to the introduction of civil partnerships under Blair.

Throughout its history, Labour has been at the forefront of liberal reforms that have liberated people of all stripes, and it’s a good thing too. It’s also right that the Labour party platform deals with discrimination against transgender, gay, and black and minority ethnic individuals, but it should not do so at the expense of all else.

Too often, Labour party circles have discussion dominated by issues that (while important) effect .01% of the population or less. The cry of ‘racist’ or ‘transphobe’ is too often an excuse to shut down freedom of speech, particularly on university campuses and by individuals associated with Labour at a student level.

How can it be that lifelong gay activist Peter Tatchell, feminist icon Germaine Greer, and the left-of-Labour George Galloway have all been no-platformed or attacked on our university campuses. The attitudes that lead to such absurd action are rife among Labour party members and less often to be seen amongst the general populace, for whom these individuals would be considered far left, not something-or-other-ophobic.

There’s a false equivalence between parties like UKIP, a liberal isolationist organization, on the one hand, and fascism or racism on the other, and the comparison between them is consistently pushed by groups like Momentum, the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party, all of which are groups operating with or within the Labour party.

Here’s an excerpt from the SWP publication the Socialist Worker, which I have seen distributed by Labour party members outside meetings and talks:

“And in Stoke Central the racist UKIP party, which came second there at the last general election, wants to whip up racism to take the seat from Labour. Socialist Worker is calling for a vote for Labour in both elections. They will be seen as referendums on Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour—and Corbyn could be forced to resign as leader if Labour does badly.

The racist right will feel ecstatic if UKIP leader Paul Nuttall wins in Stoke. Labour has rightly attacked Nuttall for his previous statements supporting privatization of the NHS. But Labour’s official campaign has not challenged UKIP over its racism. Labour will be most effective if it both attacks the cuts and also confronts UKIP divisive racism.”[xviii]

It’s simply not enough to shout ‘racist’ and expect to win an argument. In fact, at this point it’s no longer even a case of diminishing returns, but it’s actually backfiring, making people more inclined to vote for UKIP when their concerns about migration are met with insult by leftists. We on the left should be trying to win debates, not shut them down.

This isn’t an appeal to the SWP to change their tactics. They are free agents and can do as they please. But the fact that the Labour party leadership meets with them, gives them interviews and is commonly seen marching alongside them is indicative of the sort of attitudes that fester in Labour and also appears to be a soft endorsement of such views.

It’s part of a wider problem where certain social liberals are going so far in their anti-racism campaigns that they shut down free speech within the media, on university campuses, and on the streets, more often than not targeting people who were never racist in the first place.

In short, these liberals have become the very illiberal people they believe they’re fighting against. Such people are fooled into believing the rest of the country is on their wavelength, buoyed up by thousands of retweets and Facebook likes, yet they do not appear to understand that their online presence is an echo chamber. The more their preaching is welcomed by the converted, the more steadfast they become in their initial beliefs.

Most people in the country are not anything close to this level of ultra-liberal, and such attitudes do not resonate with them. The great mass of people are patriotic and socially conservative, and their concern with politics extends to ensuring the system provides them with a safety net and the opportunity for employment.

That doesn’t mean the country at large doesn’t have a sense of and desire for social justice. Of course it does. But the best way to ensure it is to first establish economic justice. When Labour party figures engage in extended diatribes about intersectional feminism, which to most people of both genders means nothing, it turns the public off.

Liberalism is a welcome element of the Labour coalition, but it cannot continue in such an extreme form, nor can it override concern for the economy and for jobs. Labour need to talk less about rules surrounding transgender usage of bathrooms in North Carolina, and more, much more, about jobs.

Corbyn’s position is untenable. He has had second chance upon second chance and failed to rehabilitate his image or reform his party. His name is toxic and his leadership destructive, and for these reasons, he must go.

In his place, we need a strong man or woman who understands the patriotism that stirs within Labour’s core vote, who understands the nation’s deep social conservatism, and who is prepared to meet the electorate’s demands for homes and jobs. Perhaps an Andy Burnham, a Gisela Stewart, a Dan Jarvis, a Richard Burgeon, or someone else entirely.

Labour must overcome its misconceptions about the people’s wants by breaking free of both Westminster and its online echo chambers.

The public are not shocked or angered about cuts to the benefits bill, in fact it’s a popular position[xix]. On this, let’s deliver the biggest benefits cut yet seen, and let them fall on the corporate welfare that now costs over £50 billion a year between working tax credits and housing benefit alone.

Let’s force corporations to pay a living wage, and put the working tax credit savings into a jobs program that will mop up any collateral unemployment. Let’s build houses until prices fall and housing benefit drops to record lows. Let’s cut old-age benefits for the very richest pensioners who have no need of them, and distribute that money to the needy elderly according to their ability and means.

Over a million food parcels were distributed by food banks to hungry citizens throughout the country in 2015[xx], evidence if any more were needed that our infrastructure, welfare, and employment programs are totally failing the British people.

Unfortunately, the people accessing these food banks are the least likely to turn out in a general election. Let’s take Labour’s mass membership and send it to deprived communities to knock on doors and win support from those who have never voted before. Such an effort should be supported by its hundreds of MPs, thousands of councilors, and hundreds of thousands of trade union affiliated members.

Labour’s war coffers are full enough to help out its members when they sacrifice their time for the party. Travel and other associated costs should be subsidized in such campaigns.

Let’s take a strong message into the heart of the country, into Scotland, Wales, the Midlands and the North, that Labour will deliver British jobs for British workers.  It will carry through to the agricultural areas which the Tories presume to sit upon since time immemorial and deliver a program to get British farms working again.

Let’s go into London and make clear that Labour is the party for social justice, and that begins with housing. Guarantee the construction of at least 250,000 homes every year and provide credible plans on how it will be done because whether you’re Black, White, trans, gay, straight, male or female, your primary concern is shelter, of which there is currently a dire shortage.

Let’s spark off a renaissance in 21st century manufacturing, now with the benefits of automation and renewable energy. Take to the public a message that cuts in the foreign aid budget will deliver a program of nuclear, tidal, wind, and solar energy expansion that will not just create innumerable high-paying jobs but will have the added advantage of saving the climate.

Let’s wade into the realm of the intelligentsia and say loud and clear that Labour is the party for true liberals, those who believe in rationalism, freedom of speech, and tolerance. Let’s talk to those who face the prospect of a life behind bars and deliver to them a place behind a college desk, a workbench or the wheel of a JCB.

Let us go to the people and promise them; Jobs, Homes and Health.

[i] Khan, O. (2015 May 15) Race and the 2015 General Election Part 1: Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/race-and-the-2015-general-election-black-and-minority-ethnic-voters

[ii] Monegan, A. (2014 August 20) Self-employment in UK at Highest Level Since Records Began. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/self-employment-uk-highest-level

[iii] BBC Business. (2015 March 18) Economy Tracker: Unemployment. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

[iv] Mirza-Davies J. (2016 November 21) Apprenticeship Statistics: England. Retrieved from http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06113/SN06113.pdf

[v] Blacking, D. (2014 July) So You Want to Be a Legal Aid Lawyer? Retrieved from http://lacuna.org.uk/justice/so-you-want-to-be-a-legal-aid-lawyer/

[vi] BBC Business (2015 September 21) Why Is the UK’s Housing Benefit Bill so High? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34290727

[vii] OECD. (2016 April 13) Development Aid in 2015 Continues to Grow despite Costs for In-donor Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ODA-2015-detailed-summary.pdf

[viii] Leach, B. (2012 December 19) One in Four Support Britain’s Foreign Aid Policies. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9770644/One-in-four-support-Britains-foreign-aid-policies.html

[ix] Lubin, G. (2014 March 16) How Russians Became Crimea’s Largest Ethnic Group, in One Haunting Chart. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/crimea-demographics-chart-2014-3?IR=T

[x] Socialist Worker (2017 February 28) Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell Spoke to Socialist Worker on the Recent By-election Results. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44161/Shadow+chancellor+John+McDonnell+spoke+to+Socialist+Worker+on+the+recent+by+election+results

[xi] Migration Watch UK (2014 November 18) Opinion Poll Results on Immigration. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/249

[xii] Migration Watch UK (2015 March 25) Immigration Policy and Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/11.37

[xiii] Castella, T. (2015 January 13) Why Can’t the UK Build 240,000 Houses a Year? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306

[xiv] BBC News (2013 August 8) More UK births Than any Year Since 1972, Says ONS. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23618487

[xv] Dunne, P. Mckenna, H. and Murray, R. (2016 July) Deficits in the NHS 2016. Retrieved from https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/Deficits_in_the_NHS_Kings_Fund_July_2016_1.pdf

[xvi] Our Ten Pledges to Rebuild and Transform Britain. Retrieved from http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/pledges

[xvii] Newburn, T. (2015 November 24) What’s Happening to Police Numbers? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34899060

[xviii] Clark, N. (2017 February 14) Clive Lewis Backs off, but the Labour Right is out for Corbyn’s Blood. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44091/Clive+Lewis+backs+off%2C+but+the+Labour+right+is+out+for+Corbyns+blood

[xix] Wells, A. (2011 May 16) Strong Public Support for Benefit Cuts. Retrieved from https://yougov.co.uk/news/2011/05/16/strong-public-support-benefit-cuts/

[xx] BBC News. (2015 April 22) Record Numbers Use Food Banks – Trussell Trust. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32406120

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

A repost of a previously posted article that is being reposted because it is being linked in a very stupid Cultural Left feminist site run by some cucked male feminist soyboy. This article is said to make me a huge racist even though every single fact I report here is 100% scientific truth. How facts can be racist is beyond me. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Below is a list of the “racist facts” that I listed in a previous post. But first of all, a look at some great progress. Some good news for once.

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

Yes, Blacks have closed the achievement gap by 1/3, which shows it was not purely genetic. However, 2/3 of the gap remains. Blacks in the UK have closed the achievement gap completely according to scores on the latest high school achievement tests.

Yes, the Black crime rate can go down and has gone down dramatically in the last 25 years. But that occurred at the same time as the crime rate for everyone dropping dramatically. It’s definitely true that you can have large swings in the Black crime rate. Black violent crime is down 40%. That wouldn’t be the case if it was all down to genes.

Nevertheless, crime reduction becomes an arms race as the White rate declines concurrently with the Black rate so the Black 6X discrepancy remains.

Yes, there are Black societies in Africa with over 1 million members who have homicide rates as low as the Japanese. This shows that a high Black crime and violent crime is not a genetic inevitability. And it shows that genes are not destiny.

An excellent environment which does not occur naturally very often (I call it a superenvironment) can wipe out the entire Black tendency towards crime and violence (which I believe is genetic). The problem is that replicating these “superenvironments” Blacks need to get these problems down to low levels seems to be quite difficult to achieve.

The Black IQ gap has closed significantly among Black children, among whom it has closed by 40%, and in places like Barbados and Bermuda, where it has closed by 50%. Nevertheless a significant gap remains. Blacks have closed the standardized test score gap in high school in the UK. Such scores can be seen as proxies for IQ.

The Black single parent rate was quite low in the 1950’s when 80% of Black children lived with a mother and father. So single parenthood is not a genetic inevitability.

There are wealthy Black areas like Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights that reportedly have low crime rates. They are the opposite of rundown, slummy, blighted, dangerous Hellholes. Apparently if you get a lot of wealthy Blacks in one place, they can create a well-functioning metropolis.

However, in general, it seems that not a whole lot can be done to ameliorate the Black problems and discrepancies below. This is why most of the people talking about such things resort to extreme solutions such as bringing back Jim Crow and legal discrimination or forming a separate White state.

They advocate such extreme solutions because those are the only real ways to deal with the problems below. The problem here is that the solution is immoral. Immoral solutions are not acceptable no matter the problem.

Now we will look at why there is little point harping on and on about these discrepancies unless you can do something about it. If you don’t have even a partial solution to a problem, why talk about it?

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

If there’s no solution, and if writing about this just gets me called racist, makes Blacks and liberals hate me, and stimulates a lot of White racism, why bother to write about this stuff unless I want to use these facts as a stick to beat Black people with? See what I mean? That’s why I don’t bother often to write about these things. I write about them once in a while, but I don’t like to harp on and on about them.

What’s the point? There’s no way to fix them, and all writing about them does is cause a lot of bad vibes, exacerbate hostility and racism in society, and make even more people hate me. Why do it?

Now we will look at the absolutely awful rejoinders that the liberal/Left uses as rejoinders against “racist facts.”

Bad Arguments Used by the Left to Counter “Racist Facts”

Nevertheless, the Left still has no arguments or very poor arguments for all of the facts below. I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies. So we need to determine if these are lies or not. If they’re not lies, then the facts below are not racist. How can you have racist facts? It’s weird.

Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly,” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” This argument is a logical fallacy, but never mind. The rest of the allegations, they will just say they are not true.

I will list the previously stated facts below along with the bad arguments that the liberal/Left uses to try to refute them. I would like to point out that all of these liberal/Left rejoinders are very bad arguments. All are illogical or do not even attempt to counter the original statement. And in general, they rely in a huge way on all sorts of logical fallacies.

  •    Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests. They will say that’s a lie. However, it is simply a 100% fact. It’s not even 1% controversial.
  •     Black people impose considerable costs on society. They will say that’s a lie or White people impose costs on society too, so therefore the statement is a lie. This is factually true. Black people per capita impose much greater costs on society than other races.
  •     Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. They will say that’s a lie. But this is a straight up pure scientific fact. There’s no debate about that figure either. It’s accepted across the board.
  •     Blacks commit 6X more crime than Whites. They will either say that’s a lie, or it’s due to poverty (which means it’s still true) or that Whites commit just as much crime except they commit corporate crime. Those are all very bad arguments. First of all it is true. Second of all it’s not due to poverty. West Virginia is the poorest state in the country and it has the second lowest crime rate. The kicker? It’s almost all White. As far as corporate crime, so what? Does it effect you personally? Anyway it goes on constantly no matter who’s in power and there’s no way to reduce it. Since it’s always at the same level, isn’t it a good idea to lower street crime then? Are individuals truly and obviously harmed by corporate crime the same way they are by street crime? I say no. When I am walking in a shady neighborhood at midnight, and there is a guy in a suit and tie walking behind me, I will not start running away because I’m afraid he’s about to violate a health and safety code. Get it?
  •     Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime. They will say that’s a lie, or resort to the poverty non-argument, or talk about Whites and corporate crime, imperialism, or White historical crimes like settler-colonialism or slavery. But it’s true. And White settler-colonialism, slavery, and whatever is all in the past. Imperialism doesn’t affect Americans. Corporate crime is always at high levels, but it doesn’t effect people much at the micro level in a brutal way like Black crime does. Anyway, Blacks commit white collar crime at levels much higher than Whites do anyway, so if corporations were run by Blacks, corporate crime would be vastly worse.
  •     Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. They will ask you to define those terms, say there are nice areas in all of those cities, say it is due to discrimination (which means it’s still a fact), or say White cities are slummy too. The terms are obvious. So what if there are nice parts of those towns? Does that obviate the places like look like they just got leveled in a WW2 bombing run? Discrimination doesn’t cause heavily Black cities to turn into slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. You know what causes those cities to be like that? Black people. Black people created those cities in precisely that way of their own free chosen will for whatever reason. There are almost no slummy White cities in the US. Haven’t seen one yet and I’ve been all over.
  •     Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites. They will say that’s a lie and demand evidence. Never mind the candy bar test originally done in the Caribbean and redone in the US and elsewhere in the Caribbean now replicated ~15 times. These tests showed conclusively that at least Black children are vastly more impulsive than White children at off the charts rates. And it has to be genetic. Those kids were only six years old.
  •     80% of Black kids are born to a single mother. They will say that’s because of racism or because Whites took all the jobs away. Neither of those things are true. This is true because so many Black men of their own free will refuse to stick around and take care of their kids for whatever reason. I’m not sure why this is but this behavior is also very common in the Caribbean and Africa, so maybe there’s a genetic tendency, no idea.
  •     Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. Same thing. Racism makes them do it, or Whites stole all the jobs. Neither of those things are true. Black men do this, it’s a fact, they do it far more than other races, and they do it of their own free will for whatever reason.
  •     Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around. They will say it’s a lie and demand proof. Or they will bring up some weird case of a White raping a Black and say it’s a lie because Whites rape Blacks too. Those are terrible rejoinders. Black men rape White men in prisons all the time. White men almost never rape Black men in prisons. Those are facts. Those Black men in prisons rape those White men of their own free will at insanely disproportionate rates for whatever reasons they have to do that.
  •     Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s. They will say Whites get STD’s too or it’s due to poverty or racism (which means it’s still true). Whites get STD’s at much lower rates than Blacks. Black STD rates have nothing to do with poverty or racism. Who knows what causes it but Blacks are far more promiscuous than Whites on average, so there’s a clue.
  •     Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly. First they will say it’s not true, then they will say it’s due to poverty and racism. It’s not due to poverty or racism. There is a considerable intelligence gap between Blacks and Whites on average. This average lower intelligence would be expected produce poorly performing schools.
  •     Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification. See the candy bar studies. Liberals reject all of those candy bar studies as flawed even though they have been replicated 15 times. And they were done with little six year old children, so there’s little cultural influence. And many were done in the Caribbean, where there is zero racism against Blacks.
  •     One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime. They will say that Whites commit crime too. Sure, but they don’t commit nearly as much! Unarmed Whites are more likely to get killed by police than unarmed Blacks, so Black Lives Matter is based on a fraud, and obviously the high rates of Black killings by police are simply due to Blacks committing six times as much crime.
  •     Black people tend to be louder than White people. They will say that Whites are loud too and bring up some example of loud White people. Ever taught in a Black school? Ever taught in a White school? Hispanic school? Asian school? Pacific Islander (Filipinos and Samoans) school? I have taught all of those races of students countless times over many years. Blacks are much louder than any of those groups. It’s most horrifically noticeable in primary and junior high, but it can still be heard in 9th grade and even up to 10th grade. 11th and 12th grade Black schools even in the heart of the ghetto are rather subdued because all the bad ones are either dropped out and on the streets, in juvenile hall, or dead.

All the Ways That IQ Is Relevant to Society

Intelligent Mouse: By “relevant for society” i meant relevant for economics. IQ can matter for many reasons, like for example just being interested in any form of scientific rigor in understand behavior could make it relevant to an individual as the person would seek for all (or at least most) alternatives in models.
But lets investigate some of the potencial usage of intelligence meassurments and see how IQ tests meassure up.
Measuring potential school performance:
Some small amount of years in school will already give the teachers or parents ample information about their prospects, but also traits that make IQ more productive in synthesis:
https://books.google.se/books?id=SCyEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Layzer+(1973:+238)&source=bl&ots=9Rf9sy0Jd6&sig=WjWMXZsLTGLGy7SS7JSZQ9RLmNE&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl0q7t78fdAhUQpIsKHXb7AFsQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Layzer%20(1973%3A%20238)&f=false
Job performance:
Well, IQ correlates around 0.3 with job performance, but the measurement is subjective so it might capture some things that correlate with social-class and therefore IQ.
Eugenics:
Pleitropy and polygenic structures makes eugenics by swapping SNPs impractical. Breeding programs can only do so much without further molecular biology knowledge. Twin studies seem kinda ridiculous:
Twin Studies, Adoption Studies, and Fallacious Reasoning
And i also agree with:
Behavior Genetics and the Fallacy of Nature vs Nurture
and (which is what GWAS interested behavioral geneticists like Steven Hsu agree on):
Height and IQ Genes
making eugenics very hard. If we already knew the mechanisms behind
Testing mental health:
This is actually the best use of IQ, as decreasing IQ is indicative of loss in brain stuff.
Criterion validity and correlation:
I also think that IQ´s criterion validity lies on shaky grounds when its founded on correlations that are only tested in narrow environments, essentially just creating the same correlation again and again without testing the methodological validity by testing the correlation appropriately. to test correlation appropriately would find anomalies in the pure environmentalist approach (or any level of conviction to environmental explanations) or finding causal IQ relationships (which Environmentalists have done).
I’m not really an IQ denier though, i think there probably is an range of IQ that any given person can inhabit, but the fact of individuals sticking around the mean makes it hard to know who could be where, especially in such large and genetically similar groups like economic classes and races. Some people are obviously extreme, but as previously stated, we don’t need IQ tests to know that.
And whats to say that smart people have high IQ? IQ is contingent on G, but all of my criticisms on IQ are pretty much equally (for better or worse) valid against G.
I see no use in IQ if not for future developments. Its an unfinished project at best.

 
I do not think that people realize what they are criticizing when they attack IQ. For IQ is simply the best measure we have for measuring intelligence in human beings. No better test has ever been devised. So when you criticize IQ as a concept, you are actually criticizing human intelligence itself. Do you IQ critics who say IQ is not that important really want to say that human intelligence is not important for human beings? Because that is exactly what you are saying.
You realize IQ correlates very well with all sorts of things, right?
Percentage of country that are college grads. % of college grads rises with rising IQ.
Grades in college, SAT. Good correlation between college grades, SAT scores and IQ.
Wealth of society. As IQ rises, societies tend to become more wealthy. As IQ falls to a low level, you can end up with extreme poverty, a lot of crime and chaos, rampant disease, and sometimes even a failed state.
State of the infrastructure of society. Infrastructure of society improves as IQ rises. People and society are more likely to maintain things. When IQ falls to a low level, people often do not know how to fix broken infrastructure and there is a tendency to jerry rig or do temporary quick and dirty fixes to problems that last for a bit but then fail again.
Civilizational level of society. As IQ rises, societies appear more civilized. As it drops to a low level, countries can appear downright barbarous.
Crime rate of society: As IQ rises, the nation’s crime rate falls.
Whether or not you will go to jail or prison and how long: As IQ falls,  you are more likely to be imprisoned and for longer.
Whether you will go on welfare programs. As IQ falls, welfare use increases.
Whether you will get an advanced degree. As IQ rises, advanced degrees become more common.
Income (up to a certain level). Income rises in tandem with IQ up to 125-130, after which it falls
Accident rate. As IQ falls, people get into many more accidents, some fatal. Includes car crashes, recreational accidents, accidents at home, etc.
Hospitalization rates. As IQ rises, people are hospitalized less often.
Rates of alcoholism and serious drug abuse. As IQ rises, rates of drug and alcohol abuse fall.
The environment you create for your children. As IQ rises, parents create better environments for their children.
Stability for chaotic nature of your surroundings. Even if you look at it on a neighborhood level, as IQ rises, the neighborhood becomes calmer, sometimes nearly to the point of being boring. Yet only three miles away, a large group of apartment complexes housing many low wage workers has a lot of noise, a general chaotic atmosphere, frequent police calls, a lot of yelling and screaming coming from homes, more frequent and more chaotic parties, more violence, more residential crime, and more drug and alcohol abuse.
Domestic violence rates. Domestic violence falls precipitously as IQ rises. Men at the highest IQ levels seldom beat their wives. As IQ falls down to a low level, domestic violence becomes commonplace to the point where most men are beating their wives.

Against Preventive Detention: It's Not Against the Law to Be Dangerous

You cannot lock people up for “Dangerousness.” It’s not a crime to be dangerous. People can be as dangerous as they want to within certain limits. It’s a free country and you are free to be as dangerous as you want to be. People aren’t criminals until the commit a crime. If we want to lock someone up, we have to wait until they commit a crime first. It’s seems awful, but it’s only fair, don’t you think? Why not lock me up because I might rob a bank some day. After all, I have thought about it before.
There are many men now locked up on the charge of Dangerousness because of new laws that allow sex offenders, and sex offenders only mind you, to be imprisoned on preventive detention forever all because they have a mental disorder that supposedly makes them dangerous.
This is a grotesque misuse of the laws locking up the Criminally Insane. Those people need to be legitimately crazy, generally speaking psychotic, and they generally need to have a chronic psychotic disorder that won’t get better, to be locked away as Dangerous Due to Insanity. I have no qualms with locking up completely insane people who have also committed serious crimes and have an untreatable mental illness that makes them an out and out menace to society. They don’t have the faintest idea what they are doing most of the time, and that combined with a propensity for violent crime means that people like that have to be locked up at least until they are stabilized.
So because we were locking up the psychotically violent criminals in preventive detention (which is rational), the authorities opened up the damned DSM and noted that the DSM had made the error of labeling certain paraphilias as mental disorders, which they probably are not.
How does merely having a paraphilia make you nuts? Some guy has foot fetish. No one knows about it other than some woman who might sleep with him. Otherwise he’s completely normal. Show me how this man is crazy. I can’t see it.
So they started diagnosing a number of sex offenders with paraphilias as a way to keep them locked up forever even after they had served their full term in prison and had paid their debt to society!
These “Mentally Disordered Sex Offenders” being locked away forever because they might maybe commit a crime if they are released are what boils down to thought criminals being prosecuted for thought crimes.
People allow it because they hate pedos so much, but now that people have said it’s OK to lock people away forever on preventive detention on the basis of dangerousness, what’s preventing the authorities from coming out and arresting you for “Dangerousness?” What’s preventive the expansion of these crazy Dangerousness laws? Nothing. People are idiots. They allowed their hatred for pedos to cloud their judgement, and now they have set themselves up for some very nasty preventive detention nonsense. That 5-4 Supreme Court case that legalized this preventive detention nonsense was one of the worst cases ever. Scalia wrote the final opinion, so that ought to tell you something.

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

Below is a list of the “racist facts” that I listed in a previous post. But first of all, a look at some great progress. Some good news for once.

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

Yes, Blacks have closed the achievement gap by 1/3, which shows it was not purely genetic. However, 2/3 of the gap remains. Blacks in the UK have closed the achievement gap completely according to scores on the latest high school achievement tests.

Yes, the Black crime rate can go down and has gone down dramatically in the last 25 years. But that occurred at the same time as the crime rate for everyone dropping dramatically. It’s definitely true that you can have large swings in the Black crime rate. Black violent crime is down 40%. That wouldn’t be the case if it was all down to genes.

Nevertheless, crime reduction becomes an arms race as the White rate declines concurrently with the Black rate so the Black 6X discrepancy remains.

Yes, there are Black societies in Africa with over 1 million members who have homicide rates as low as the Japanese. This shows that a high Black crime and violent crime is not a genetic inevitability. And it shows that genes are not destiny.

An excellent environment which does not occur naturally very often (I call it a superenvironment) can wipe out the entire Black tendency towards crime and violence (which I believe is genetic). The problem is that replicating these “superenvironments” Blacks need to get these problems down to low levels seems to be quite difficult to achieve.

The Black IQ gap has closed significantly among Black children, among whom it has closed by 40%, and in places like Barbados and Bermuda, where it has closed by 50%. Nevertheless a significant gap remains. Blacks have closed the standardized test score gap in high school in the UK. Such scores can be seen as proxies for IQ.

The Black single parent rate was quite low in the 1950’s when 80% of Black children lived with a mother and father. So single parenthood is not a genetic inevitability.

There are wealthy Black areas like Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights that reportedly have low crime rates. They are the opposite of rundown, slummy, blighted, dangerous Hellholes. Apparently if you get a lot of wealthy Blacks in one place, they can create a well-functioning metropolis.

However, in general, it seems that not a whole lot can be done to ameliorate the Black problems and discrepancies below. This is why most of the people talking about such things resort to extreme solutions such as bringing back Jim Crow and legal discrimination or forming a separate White state.

They advocate such extreme solutions because those are the only real ways to deal with the problems below. The problem here is that the solution is immoral. Immoral solutions are not acceptable no matter the problem.

Now we will look at why there is little point harping on and on about these discrepancies unless you can do something about it. If you don’t have even a partial solution to a problem, why talk about it?

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

If there’s no solution, and if writing about this just gets me called racist, makes Blacks and liberals hate me, and stimulates a lot of White racism, why bother to write about this stuff unless I want to use these facts as a stick to beat Black people with? See what I mean? That’s why I don’t bother often to write about these things. I write about them once in a while, but I don’t like to harp on and on about them.

What’s the point? There’s no way to fix them, and all writing about them does is cause a lot of bad vibes, exacerbate hostility and racism in society, and make even more people hate me. Why do it?

Now we will look at the absolutely awful rejoinders that the liberal/Left uses as rejoinders against “racist facts.”

Bad Arguments Used by the Left to Counter “Racist Facts”

Nevertheless, the Left still has no arguments or very poor arguments for all of the facts below. I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies. So we need to determine if these are lies or not. If they’re not lies, then the facts below are not racist. How can you have racist facts? It’s weird.

Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly,” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” This argument is a logical fallacy, but never mind. The rest of the allegations, they will just say they are not true.

I will list the previously stated facts below along with the bad arguments that the liberal/Left uses to try to refute them. I would like to point out that all of these liberal/Left rejoinders are very bad arguments. All are illogical or do not even attempt to counter the original statement. And in general, they rely in a huge way on all sorts of logical fallacies.

  •    Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests. They will say that’s a lie. However, it is simply a 100% fact. It’s not even 1% controversial.
  •     Black people impose considerable costs on society. They will say that’s a lie or White people impose costs on society too, so therefore the statement is a lie. This is factually true. Black people per capita impose much greater costs on society than other races.
  •     Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. They will say that’s a lie. But this is a straight up pure scientific fact. There’s no debate about that figure either. It’s accepted across the board.
  •     Blacks commit 6X more crime than Whites. They will either say that’s a lie, or it’s due to poverty (which means it’s still true) or that Whites commit just as much crime except they commit corporate crime. Those are all very bad arguments. First of all it is true. Second of all it’s not due to poverty. West Virginia is the poorest state in the country and it has the second lowest crime rate. The kicker? It’s almost all White. As far as corporate crime, so what? Does it effect you personally? Anyway it goes on constantly no matter who’s in power and there’s no way to reduce it. Since it’s always at the same level, isn’t it a good idea to lower street crime then? Are individuals truly and obviously harmed by corporate crime the same way they are by street crime? I say no. When I am walking in a shady neighborhood at midnight, and there is a guy in a suit and tie walking behind me, I will not start running away because I’m afraid he’s about to violate a health and safety code. Get it?
  •     Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime. They will say that’s a lie, or resort to the poverty non-argument, or talk about Whites and corporate crime, imperialism, or White historical crimes like settler-colonialism or slavery. But it’s true. And White settler-colonialism, slavery, and whatever is all in the past. Imperialism doesn’t affect Americans. Corporate crime is always at high levels, but it doesn’t effect people much at the micro level in a brutal way like Black crime does. Anyway, Blacks commit white collar crime at levels much higher than Whites do anyway, so if corporations were run by Blacks, corporate crime would be vastly worse.
  •     Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. They will ask you to define those terms, say there are nice areas in all of those cities, say it is due to discrimination (which means it’s still a fact), or say White cities are slummy too. The terms are obvious. So what if there are nice parts of those towns? Does that obviate the places like look like they just got leveled in a WW2 bombing run? Discrimination doesn’t cause heavily Black cities to turn into slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. You know what causes those cities to be like that? Black people. Black people created those cities in precisely that way of their own free chosen will for whatever reason. There are almost no slummy White cities in the US. Haven’t seen one yet and I’ve been all over.
  •     Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites. They will say that’s a lie and demand evidence. Never mind the candy bar test originally done in the Caribbean and redone in the US and elsewhere in the Caribbean now replicated ~15 times. These tests showed conclusively that at least Black children are vastly more impulsive than White children at off the charts rates. And it has to be genetic. Those kids were only six years old.
  •     80% of Black kids are born to a single mother. They will say that’s because of racism or because Whites took all the jobs away. Neither of those things are true. This is true because so many Black men of their own free will refuse to stick around and take care of their kids for whatever reason. I’m not sure why this is but this behavior is also very common in the Caribbean and Africa, so maybe there’s a genetic tendency, no idea.
  •     Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. Same thing. Racism makes them do it, or Whites stole all the jobs. Neither of those things are true. Black men do this, it’s a fact, they do it far more than other races, and they do it of their own free will for whatever reason.
  •     Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around. They will say it’s a lie and demand proof. Or they will bring up some weird case of a White raping a Black and say it’s a lie because Whites rape Blacks too. Those are terrible rejoinders. Black men rape White men in prisons all the time. White men almost never rape Black men in prisons. Those are facts. Those Black men in prisons rape those White men of their own free will at insanely disproportionate rates for whatever reasons they have to do that.
  •     Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s. They will say Whites get STD’s too or it’s due to poverty or racism (which means it’s still true). Whites get STD’s at much lower rates than Blacks. Black STD rates have nothing to do with poverty or racism. Who knows what causes it but Blacks are far more promiscuous than Whites on average, so there’s a clue.
  •     Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly. First they will say it’s not true, then they will say it’s due to poverty and racism. It’s not due to poverty or racism. There is a considerable intelligence gap between Blacks and Whites on average. This average lower intelligence would be expected produce poorly performing schools.
  •     Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification. See the candy bar studies. Liberals reject all of those candy bar studies as flawed even though they have been replicated 15 times. And they were done with little six year old children, so there’s little cultural influence. And many were done in the Caribbean, where there is zero racism against Blacks.
  •     One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime. They will say that Whites commit crime too. Sure, but they don’t commit nearly as much! Unarmed Whites are more likely to get killed by police than unarmed Blacks, so Black Lives Matter is based on a fraud, and obviously the high rates of Black killings by police are simply due to Blacks committing six times as much crime.
  •     Black people tend to be louder than White people. They will say that Whites are loud too and bring up some example of loud White people. Ever taught in a Black school? Ever taught in a White school? Hispanic school? Asian school? Pacific Islander (Filipinos and Samoans) school? I have taught all of those races of students countless times over many years. Blacks are much louder than any of those groups. It’s most horrifically noticeable in primary and junior high, but it can still be heard in 9th grade and even up to 10th grade. 11th and 12th grade Black schools even in the heart of the ghetto are rather subdued because all the bad ones are either dropped out and on the streets, in juvenile hall, or dead.

Situational Homosexuality in Men and Women with Emphasis on Prison Populations

Rod Fleming: Heterosexuality is the default human position, absolutely. Evolutionary pressure alone assures that. However, don’t forget the importance of ‘situational homosexuality’. Extreme examples of this occur in prisons, boarding schools, and other single-sex environments. Although more work has been done on the male variant, it happens in women too. This means that in some cultures the number of people who have, perhaps even regularly, indulged in homosexual behavior, is much greater than the number of those for whom it is their primary orientation.
This even becomes a defined feature in many cultures, where young males go through a phase of being submissive sexual partners to older ones. Once they get older, they adopt the dominant role BUT they also marry women and become fathers.
Homosexuality is a very complex phenomenon, massively influenced by culture. I think this is because the imperative to have sex, particularly for men, is stronger than the imperative for heterosexual sex.

Thanks Rod. I am quite familiar with situational homosexuality. A lot of young straight men engage in some sort of sexual behavior with men when they are young, say between 18-30, particularly say 19-23. I saw enough of it with my own eyes, though I never participated and it always creeped me out big time. Sometimes they did it right in front of my face (guys grabbing each other and kissing each other). I was disgusted and frightened. Later they got mad at me for not joining in the faggy fun!
These young men had sexual things going on with women too, but just not very often or at least not often enough. Later in life, I think all of them did the default marrying or LTR’s with women and even having kids. The gay stuff early on was just a short term detour, a side road off their main route in life.
Young men need sex with women. When you deprive young men of women to have sex with, they’re going to screw guys.
Regarding your last sentence, see above. The dominant theme of men’s sex lives is, “A pole needs a hole.” No women around? Fine, they’ll screw a guy. Or a little girl. Or an old lady. Or maybe an animal. Or probably even a hole in a wall.
Older women often say, “Men will fuck anything.” In a sense, they are largely correct.
Regarding women, let me tell you something.
I know a thing or two about women’s prisons. There is far more sex going on in a typical women’s prison than in a typical men’s prison. The sexual energy in those places is crazy. They even create their own dildos, I think in the bakery, though I am not sure how they do it. Most are basically straight women. They call, “Gay for the stay, straight at the gate.” As soon as they leave prison, those women go right back to men.

Behind Gay Bars

There is not nearly as much sex going on in men’s prisons as people think. Further, there’s a strong taboo against homosexuality among many of the very masculine men who are typically in there.
A friend of mine did some time in Los Angeles County Jail, only a 4-5 months. It must have been pretty bad in there though because when he came out, he was far worse than when he went in. He was basically full-on psycho when he got out. I don’t see the point of imprisonment if they are even more violent, nuts and psycho when they get out than when they went in. What’s the point?
He told me they had a “Nut Tank” for the crazies. It was a segregated unit separate from the main unit for seriously mentally ill or disturbed prisoners.  They also had a “Queen Tank” for the gay men, who were also segregated from the main unit.
I know some guys who did some serious prison time and they told me there is not nearly as much sex in there as you might think, and rape is not real common either. They said the majority of men who are not doing very serious hard time or life don’t participate in gay sex behind bars. Even guys doing ~10-20 years often don’t participate in homosexuality behind bars.

Is It Bad to Call Someone a Faggot?

Gay men have a huge misconception about this. They think that straight men go around calling gay men faggots all the time. Actually we do not. It’s considered a mean, hateful, homophobic thing to say about gay men, and that sort of nasty homophobia is just not popular anymore.
However, the word fag is used a lot, often free of any negative context. It can have a negative context, but even then it tends to be mild. Or it can be a major put-down. I think straight men like words like fag and queer etc. because we have a single word for gay women, lesbians. We have no single word for gay men. We have to use two words all the time, gay men. That’s awkward. It would be nice if we could come up with a single word for gay men like we have for lesbians.
I recently took a trip of several days with my cousin. He’s about as PC and SJW as you can get, and he’s really not homophobic at all. I mean 0%. Yet he called gay men fags several times on the trip. In his case, the word was simply descriptive.
People think words themselves matter, but they really don’t. That’s magical thinking – these people treat words as if they are alive. Words have no particular meaning other than the meaning we assign to them. The word fag used in a vicious way is a slur, but the same word used by a gay-friendly person is simply descriptive. That is because that word, like many words, has whatever emotional context and association that the speaker has placed on the word.
Now here comes the main thing that gay men will never get. Yes! Straight men use the word fag a lot. But nowadays it’s mostly used towards other straight men! Calling another straight man a fag does not mean he’s gay. It’s the same as calling him a pussy, a wimp, a wuss, a girl, or a bitch. You are saying he’s not masculine. So the word fag is usually used to by straight men to police masculinity and keep other straight men in line.
Nowadays it tends to be used towards men who do not side with their brothers and instead side with the women. Heterosexuality is about the War of the Sexes. In a sense, no matter how much they love each other, men and women are enemies. This is because they think differently and tend to want different things. This leads to all sorts of clashes, feminism, men’s rights, and #metoo only being a few of the more recent ones.
Say a man asks out, flirt with, or talk to a woman. A lot of idiot men are what we call cockblockers, white knights, or Captain Save-a-ho’s. They are always rushing to the side of women to protect them from these evil horny men. Any man who tries to discourage another man approaching a woman in a friendly, possibly sexual manner would be called a fag or a faggot.
The idea is to shame this cockblocking man so he quits trying to stop other men from getting laid. And yes, men routinely cockblock other men and try to stop them from getting laid. They think they are protecting women by white knighting them this way, and they think they can themselves get access to the woman. Truth is women are contemptuous of white knights even though they are rescuing the women.
The word is also used in a teasing sense towards other men. You go over to your friend’s house, and there are several men, all good friends of yours, sitting around watching TV and taking bong hits. You walk into the room and say, “So what are you fags up to?”, and you laugh a bit as you say it. The whole room will explode in laughter. Or you point to one friend, and say loudly as if you are greeting a long-lost friend you have not seen in years, “What’s up fag?” This will also cause the room to collapse in spasms of laughter. This is macho talk, masculine talk, heterosexual talk or straight talk, however you want to see it. But if it is straight talk, it has a strong masculine overtone to it.
However, the purpose here really is to enforce heterosexuality among straight men and make sure that they don’t engage in any gay-type behaviors. Because by making the word fag an object of absurdity and ridiculousness, you also make any type of gay sexual behavior pretty much off-limits because it’s so ridiculous, derisive and preposterous that it is almost unthinkable. By making the word an object of ridicule for other straight man, you place the behavior outside of the limits of the possible.
Men who call each other fags are also enforcing masculinity by proclaiming their masculinity. Typically men who talk like this will never or almost never try any sort of gay sexual behavior for the reasons stated above. Once again though it is not directed at gay men, but it is used to enforce straight men’s masculinity and keep straight men straight sexually.
Men in prisons sometimes call each other fags. A man visits another man’s cell. “What’s up fag?” says the guy in the cell to his visitor. They are both in prison for a long time. There are no women around. They’re probably horny and in need of an outlet. There is a lot of sexual tension in the air which by default is going to get routed homosexually because there are no woman around.
By calling each other fags, they are enforcing masculinity and heterosexuality and trying to defuse the heavy gay tension that builds in a place like this. They are both trying to be straight and not give in to gay temptation to relieve their frustration, in other words. Using that word towards each other is an attempt by both of them to stay straight in prison where it’s hard to do. Once again by making the word an object or ridicule for the men who use it, it serves to place the behavior outside the realm of the possible.
Gay men need to understand that straight men use that word far more nowadays towards other straight men to police masculinity and enforce “bros before hos” mindsets. The purpose is to shame the other man so he mans up or sides with his brothers against the women.

Laquan McDonald Shooting


Famous case from late 2014 in Chicago. It didn’t happen the way the media said it did. He wasn’t walking away from police. He was approaching them and he was armed with a knife. Cops had guns drawn and warned him repeatedly to drop the knife but he continued to approach police armed with a knife. When he got to within 10 feet of police, one officer opened fire. However, 16 shots were fired, many of which when he was already down on the ground after being shot, and that doesn’t seem to make sense at all. The officer Jason Van Dyke is on trial for murder. The trial has not yet started.
Mr. McDonald was not portrayed properly in the media. Photos showed him as a boy and another showed him with a graduation cap on, but that must have been from junior high as he never graduated from high school to my knowledge.
McDonald was 18 years old going on a very early grave, full speed ahead. I figure this shooting postponed the inevitable for probably less than 10 years. He had already been shot multiple times by rival pharmacy organizations while he was employed as a Street Pharmacist for the New Breeds Pharmacy Group, a profession he took up at the tender age of 12.

The ward was born to a 15-year-old mother who herself was a ward. The teen mother entered DCFS care at the age of 12 because of her mother’s extensive drug history, including giving birth to a substance-exposed (PCP) infant, her lack of participation in services, and her extensive criminal history for drug charges.
By the age of 18 the teen ward lost custody of her then 3-year-old son and his younger sister after she left the children home alone and the younger sister suffered extensive burns which required hospitalization. The mother was indicted for inadequate supervision. The two children were placed with several relatives and were returned to the mother in 18 months under an order of protection.
A year after they were returned to their mother, the then 5-year-old boy and his sister reentered DCFS custody because of physical abuse by the mother and her boyfriend. The boy reported that he often witnessed domestic violence between his mother and her boyfriend. His father was incarcerated.
The mother, then 21 years old, did not participate in services, struggled with continued drug use and did not visit her children. After several failed placements, including one where the boy was sexually abused, the maternal great-grandmother took the children into her home. In first grade the boy was described as sometimes explosive. In 2006, when the boy was nine, the great-grandmother obtained subsidized guardianship of the children and DCFS closed its case.
The boy became involved with gangs and selling drugs on the street at age 12. He was a member of the New Breeds gang and had sold drugs for the gang and had been shot at by rival gang members but did not engage in gang violence. At the age of 13 he was arrested and referred to juvenile court for possession of a controlled substance.
At the age of 16 he was incarcerated at the juvenile detention center for violation of probation. He was released and placed on electronic monitoring so he could visit his 79-year-old great-grandmother before she died and attend her funeral. Afterward DCFS became his guardian and learned that he had been living with his mother prior to his detention.
While in detention he exhibited aggressive behaviors, but his behavior was uneven. At times he was respectful and insightful; however his poor judgment put him at risk of harm. At one court hearing he was high on PCP and had an aggressive outburst in the courtroom resulting in his being taken into custody and placed in detention.
He violated probation several times and cut off his ankle home monitor. His mother became involved in treatment and began family therapy with her son.
The community service provider recommended intensive outpatient treatment while probation recommended commitment to the Department of Corrections or a residential treatment center. The court-appointed advocate recommended residential treatment. A DCFS staffing resulted in a referral to an intensive specialized foster care program for dually involved (delinquent and child welfare) youth. He and his mother agreed to attend therapy. His uncle agreed to have the youth placed with him.
Intensive probation stayed involved and the ward was enrolled in an alternative school. He was suspended once but was enrolled when he died.

Judging from the biography of this famous young American Black man, this is looking more and more like what I call a “PSK” or Public Service Killing. Nevertheless, I do not agree that Black scumbags should get the death penalty by extrajudicial execution without trial. Black scumbags suck all right, but they should be dealt with properly by the criminal justice system via the courts, and penitentiary system. We don’t want to turn into a banana republic with death squads running around. Despite the Hispanicization of America, we are yet too good for that at this early date. Death squads are not just White, at least not US White. American White people don’t do it like that, not yet anyway.
However, I will disagree with the narrative and I do think this punk bitch was a threat to the officers. But he was no threat lying on the ground shot armed with a knife.

Paybacks Are a Bitch

Serves him right.
Karma, paybacks, etc. are just basic physics, Newton’s Third Law in action. Let’s face it. This punk got it because of a universal law about the universe. Not a crackpot notion, not even a theory, but a damned law. Try avoiding some of the laws of the universe. You can’t. Mother Nature always bats last.
One thing that I often tell my counseling clients is that you cannot run from your fears because that is exactly what most all of them are doing. And in a similar way, I have a feeling that it is often pretty useless to try to hide, avoid or run away from your karma. Your fears, like your karma, always catch up to in the end no matter how fast you run. We have to face our karma whether we want to or not. It’s like the Day of Reckoning that’s always looming outside your door, rain or shine, day in and day out until the end. And you can’t stay inside forever.
Instant karma’s going get you, Dylan. It’s going to knock you right in the face!

Feminists Try to Ban Sex Robots

Here.

Every week it seems like there is some new outrage from these feminist maniacs. They don’t even pretend to be about fairness or fair play or equality or any of that anymore. They’ve already achieved equality in most areas anyway. Now they are blatantly trying to persecute men so they can Lord it over us, which we all knew was always the plan in the first place. None of these Identity Politics groups have ever wanted equality anyway.

The gall of these bitches. They are obviously trying to legally ban the competition. It’s also so clear that chaos and drama filled women know that they can’t compete against these placid dolls.

Bottom line is this: women use sex to control men. They always have and always will. Sex is their primary tool in controlling us. Now a competitor has come along that threatens to take away women’s primary manipulation tool. Without sex, women have basically nothing, and they have no way to control us at all. Women must be terrified of these damn dolls.

Here is the ugly truth. Women run something that I call the Pussy Mafia. It’s like a cartel designed to push out any competition. I honestly think that this is what is behind women’s increasingly insane push for crazier and crazier “pedophilia” laws, where a 20 year old man can go to prison for screwing a 16 year old girl.

What’s behind all of these laws is the sheer terror that women have for Jailbaits. These Jailbaits are some of the worst competition that the Pussy Mafia has. This is why the Mafia is trying to “put them out of business” with these increasingly bizarre and even sadistic laws. It’s called “controlling the competition.”

The Pussy Mafia works hand in hand with the feminists’ favorite tool: The Prison-Industrial complex that the feminists are in large part responsible for. This dual edifice is used by the Mafia to inflate the value of their pussies as high as possible. It’s like any other business that engages in price-fixing. Think of OPEC. The Pussy Mafia is trying to keep the Pussy Price as high as possible on the Pussy Market.

Women don’t believe in fairness anyway, and feminists are even worse. The Pussy Mafia will do literally anything to keep the value of their pussies high no matter how many people suffer. No lie is too big and no law is too totalitarian for the Pussy Mafia to use in its single-handed drive to keep the Pussy Price as high as possible.

I am absolutely convinced that the feminists will soon try to ban fleshlights. After all, fleshlights are some serious competition for the Pussy Mafia. They don’t throw tantrums and won’t call the cops on you to get you thrown out of your own home for defending yourself. A fleshlight gives you all the joys of sex with a woman with none of the bullshit you have to go through to get it.

The feminists will probably use their “pedophile” argument against fleshlights. After all the “pedophile” campaign was largely created by the Pussy Mafia in order to ward of the threat that competing business from the jailbaits would lower the Pussy Price.

They will probably make the anti-“pedophile” argument that we can’t tell the age of the fleshlight. I mean, how do we know how old that fleshlight is anyway? Sure the guy says the fleshlight is over 18, but how do we know he isn’t lying?

Maybe the fleshlight is really designed to be a 15 year old Jailbait fleshlight, in which case it’s pedophilia for fucking an underage fleshlight that is not capable of consent.

I know you are probably laughing, but most of the laws, rules and mores thought up by feminists for use by the Feminist Totalitarian State aren’t very much less insane than that.

Women don’t care if an argument makes sense or not. For women, a “true” argument is “one that makes me feel good,” and a “false” argument is “one that makes me feel bad.”

Robert Stark Interviews Bay Area Guy about the Bay Area and the Pitfalls of American Exceptionalism

Here.

Robert Stark talks to Bay Area-based blogger  Bay Area Guy of Occident Invicta.

Topics include:

Robert Stark’s recent trip to San Francisco where he met up with Bay Area Guy at Union Square.
The Bay Area as a microcosm of American Society and how it combines both the best and worst of what America has to offer.
How the Bay Area represents American capitalism at its fullest.
How SF Is the second most unequal major city in America.
How despite it’s wealth and gentrification, SF has preserved much of the historic character of the City.
How the Bay Area has done a better job at wilderness conservation than Southern California.
The Racial Dynamics of the Bay Area..
San Francisco and The Bay Area’s Progressive Paradox.
How Diversity Destroys Economic Justice.
How the elites are Social Darwinists who pose as progressive humanitarians.
Andy Nowicki’s article The Patrick Bateman Right.
His thoughts on Donald Trump and why he’s supporting Bernie Sanders for President.
How the political ideal would be to combine the best aspects of Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader.
His article The Pitfalls of American Exceptionalism.
How the Left uses the language of American Exceptionalism to justify open borders and Cultural Leftism.
How America is exceptional at obesity, anti-intellectualism, and income income inequality.
How The U.S. has the world’s highest incarceration rate.
Mark Ames’ Going Postal.

Female Prisoner Too Violent to Ever Be Let Out

Here.
She obviously gets some sort of a DSM diagnosis.
So what do we give her? Antisocial Personality Disorder (sociopath)? I am not so sure about that due to all the self-harm, although she is vicious. Since when do sociopaths display all this self harm? Sociopaths hurt others, not themselves, and they only kill themselves when the jig is up. They commit suicide to avoid arrest or in prison to avoid the pain of imprisonment, but only rarely in other cases, though some get alcoholic, depressed and suicidal in middle age as the sociopathy starts to burn itself out. I think she has some psychopathic traits though and would score fairly high on Hare PC-L test.
She mostly looks like a Borderline. Borderlines can be quite violent, even female borderlines. And borderlines are notorious for horrific self-harm, suicide threats and suicide attempts. They are not usually this violent though. This crazy bitch has murdered a fellow inmate and attacked guards several times, carving up one’s cheek.
Is there a syndrome called Borderline-Sociopath or Sociopathic Borderline? If there is, she might be something like that.
Whatever she is, she sure is awful evil for a female. Females are not usually this bad. Females can be evil, but their evil is more annoying and infuriating than dangerous. Male evil is much worse because it is menacing, violent, dangerous and homicidal. I have dealt with some evil females in my life and while I wanted to kill most of them at the time, obviously I never did it or even tried or plotted. On the other hand, none of them were really dangerous to me. They were just trying to be as infuriating as possible to provoke the maximum possible violent and crazed reaction from me. I call it “trying to get murdered.”
I will take female evil over male evil any day though. Evil men are terrifying. Evil men have tried to kill me, and I say that with all seriousness. I have had scenes with evil males where it was literally kill or be killed. “I either try to kill these guys, or do nothing and let them kill me.” Others have not tried to kill me but instead beat me very badly, even with heavy objects.
As long as humans are not physically dangerous, they can sort of be tolerated no matter how wicked they are. But violence and the threat of injury or death via attack is a whole other matter.
 

Robert Stark Interviews T. J. Parsell

Here.
T.J. Parsell is an author, filmmaker, and human rights activist dedicated to ending sexual violence in prison and ending the practice of sending juveniles to adult jails and prisons. His passion stems from the years he spent in prison as a teenager and young adult.
This interview discusses T.J. Parsell’s experience in prison, the U.S. prison system and its defects, racial realities inside prison, and his current film project.

Prison Rape: The Aftermath

This image is very much NSFW!
A Brazilian man was arrested for beating, raping and killing his girlfriend’s 20 month old child. He was thrown in prison into a crowded cell where he was badly beaten and repeatedly raped by up to 20 men. He was sent to the infirmary where his injuries were treated and his anus was stitched up (he may have had fissures from the rape). They sent him back to the same cell again and they tore out his stitches and raped him again.

That looks pretty bad. There appears to be a lot of bleeding in the anal region.
Click to enlarge. That looks pretty bad. There appears to be a lot of bleeding in the anal region.

Child Killer Murdered in Prison

Victim of the convict code.
I actually do not mind this sort of thing. While I am opposed to the death penalty, I feel that certain killers just need to die, period. If not die, then have lots of horrible things happen to them. I do not want the state to do these bad things, but I do not mind if other inmate scumbags administer a little justice.
One thing that keeps me from doing bad things is an absolute terror of prison or even jail for that matter. I have spent 6 hours in jail in my whole life, and if I can help it, I swear to God I am never going back to that place ever again.
And these were “easy” city jails. For a nice middle class White boy like me, those places are the worst Hell imaginable. And quite a few of the arresting officers and even jailers are mean and cruel almost beyond belief. The first time the cops threatened to murder me, and the jailer told me I was staying in there forever. The second time the cops beat my head against the ceiling of the car and then threw me up against the wall of the intake room. The really delighted in this stuff. I think most cops are seriously sadistic.
The end result of those experiences is that while I am no longer a hardcore cop hater, I am not exactly wild about police officers if you know what I mean.
I have worked with some narcotics and homicide detectives on homicide and narcotics cases though (I am not usually a snitch, but sometimes paybacks are a bitch in the law of the street). I really liked those detectives a whole lot, but that is another story.
I did have a run-in with two other detectives who were the exact opposite. I can’t tell you the details of that story, but I will tell you that that they threatened very seriously to beat a confession out of me.
“If you don’t admit you’re guilty right now, WE ARE GOING TO KICK YOUR ASS!”
I refused to admit I was guilty of the crime they thought I had committed because honestly I wasn’t, but they told me never to come back, and they told me I would never teach in Los Angeles again. The latter was not true. I was teaching the next day. I do not believe I was guilty of any crime anyway (other than disturbing the peace, which means anything a cop wants it to mean). I did something really stupid, but it was not with a malicious heart or criminal intent and, no one was harmed, other than a few people got scared.

OJ Paroled

Court ruled that he is going to be paroled.
I just went and reread the facts of this case, and this guy is guilty as Hell of murdering Ron and Nicole. There has hardly been a more obvious guilty of murder case in history without witnesses and minus a confession. The evidence against him was simply overwhelming.
If you go to White nationalist sites, you find quite a few Whites who say that they liked Blacks just fine until the OJ case. The Black reaction to that case disgusted them, and they began to realize that Blacks either are our enemies or see White people as the enemy. At that point, they turned against Blacks. Many were good White liberals up until that point. Black people really screwed up on that case big-time.
Of course the narcissist (and sociopath?) OJ could not stay out of trouble for long. He was soon involved in a complex case involving the beating and armed robbery of a memorabilia collector who was supposedly selling some stuff that was really OJ’s property. The incident took place in a hotel room in Las Vegas. This guy has one Hell of a sense of entitlement (stemming from his extreme narcissism).
OJ will serve another 18 months on a variety of weapons charges.

Great Documentary on the Aryan Brotherhood!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh8mhmf-l_E]
Interesting documentary. I do not really care about the racist nature of the gang. The gang was originally formed to protect Whites from the depredations of the Blacks and Hispanics in Western prisons, especially in California. I am not sure how seriously most of these guys take the racist stuff anyway. One of the two top leaders of the AB is part-Jewish! It is mostly about protecting Whites in prison, and beyond that it is a criminal organization involved in dealing in drugs and gambling inside and now outside prison. They also traffic in male prostitutes inside prisons.
I was more interested in the inmates profiled – what kind of people are they, what is this guy like, what is he thinking, what kind of life does he have, what are his values. The two main guys profiled in this are more or less decent guys who left the AB. One left it because the AB killed an innocent old man and a woman outside prison (he says no killing old men, women or kids and good for him!). The other guy was very much offended by the AB’s dealing in drugs inside prison which ended up killing way more Whites inside and outside prison than minorities did. He basically said we are dealing in death and killing our own people. Good for him!
I always think it is interesting when folks who are pretty damned bad do end up having some serious moral limits and are even willing to risk their lives to defend those moral values. Both of this guys are on hit lists for leaving the AB.
I will say though that the AB is one of hardest, baddest bunch of mofo’s that I have seen in quite some time. I would not mess with them at all for any reason.
 

Ariel Castro Is Dead

The famous man who kidnapped three teenage girls and imprisoned, raped and tortured them in his home for 10 years killed himself in jail yesterday by hanging himself in his cell, apparently with his jail-issued bedsheet, comes with every cell. He was on suicide watch, but they only come by once every 30 minutes. He had also been getting many threats from other inmates.
Inmates have a curious system of morals. One thing is “pick on someone your own size” as long as you are going to be picking on people at all, which is after all what criminals do. If you are going to rob or kill someone, rob or kill a grown man, one who can fight back against you. Inmates who victimize women and especially children are held in very low esteem, especially those who rape and kill women and children. It is considered pussy and chickenshit to prey on women and children, who are considered by inmates to be relatively helpless.
Even sex offenders have a hierarchy, believe it or not. Voyeurs and exhibitions are on top, and child molesters, rapists and guys like Castro are lower than whale shit, and that’s at the bottom of the ocean!
I heard Castro got himself into some deep sheet in jail, but he hung in there as long as he could.
As much of a scumbag this guy was, I do have a tiny mite of respect for him. I mean come on. How many of you guys have ever had a 4-way with three chicks? This guy did every single day! Impressive. I don’t think I ever had a 4-way with three females. This one time I was doing with this woman and her two dogs kept barking and jumping up on the bed, but that doesn’t count, does it?
Well, that’ll be enough Castro jokes for now…

Is Sexual Attraction to Minors "Normal" Among Males?

That is a very disturbing question, and the answer is even more disturbing. A number of years ago, I would have answered a resounding “No!” to that question. Nevertheless, recent research shows that it is more or less normal for adult males to be sexually attracted to female children on some level or another. Now that doesn’t mean it is ok for them to act on those feelings and have sex with the girl.
It’s against the law, and nowadays in many cases, the girl is harmed by this interaction. In some cases she is physically harmed, and in in many more cases, she is psychologically harmed.
The reasons for the psychological harm are up in the air – no one knows what causes them. Perhaps it is automatically harmful for an adult to have sex with a child. This is dubious because many children decide that they were not harmed by this behavior.
The other alternative is that society’s reaction is what harms the child. The debate is very complex, and there are no easy answers, but the bottom line is that kids get hurt by adults messing with them sexually. So don’t do it! If you care about kids at all, don’t mess with them sexually. It’s against the law, you may well get caught, and in many cases, the kid may well get hurt.
The harm is not limited to childhood but often extends far into adulthood. In fact, there may even be physical changes to the brains of children who have been sexually abused.
Nevertheless, the three studies I have looked at show that attraction to children is fairly normal for adult males. I don’t have the studies with me right now as I found them in my research, but you should be able to find them if you go online.
Study 1: Study 1 showed that adult males have a maximal reaction to females aged 16+ and then a rapidly descending reaction to female minors all the way down to age 7, where the curve ended. This implies that male reaction to females aged 7-15 on rapidly descending curve with a lower reaction to matures is simply normal. That doesn’t mean it is ok to act on such desires. It just means it is ok to feel that way. It’s nothing to worry about!
Study 2: Study 2 showed that 100% of adult males reacted to females aged 17+ and 90% of males reacted to females aged 2-16 on a lower level than their reaction to matures. Therefore, reaction to minors was normal but on a lower level than matures, for 90% of males.
Study 3: This study was the most disturbing, but I suppose it is correct. It showed that all adult males had a maximal reaction to females aged 13+. In addition, males showed a reaction to female minors aged 2-12 but at a lower level. The most shocking figure was that 26% of males showed reaction to females aged 2-12 at an equivalent to even higher level than they reacted to females aged 13+.
Therefore, 26% of adult males showed a strong sexual reaction to females aged 2-12. That is stunning, but I assume the study is correct. The problem is that this study indicates that up to 26% of all males could possibly be diagnosed with DSM-5 pedophilia if they were bothered by their minor attractions. That makes no sense, and it shows that the criteria for DSM-5 pedophilia are irrational.
If 26% of all adult males have strong reactions to female children, why don’t they molest them? Probably because they think it is wrong, and they have strong reactions to female matures at the same time. They simply shrug off their attractions to female minors as a feeling that will get them in legal trouble and maybe hurt the girl, and they choose not to act on them, which is the proper and legally sanctioned reaction. Thoughts are thoughts, and actions are actions. You can think about anything you want to. Thoughts are not illegal yet.
How do these 26% of all males who react strongly to female children differ from true pedophiles? The true pedophile is pretty much only attracted to female children. They have been this way since childhood or at the latest puberty. The orientation cannot develop after age 14. They have a maximal attraction to minors and a minimal to zero attraction to matures of adults. The vast majority of this 26% of all males above, while they react strongly to female children, also have extremely strong reactions to female matures or adults. Therefore their sexual needs can be easily satisfied by sex with a mature to adult female.
Pedophiles are dangerous, unfortunately, because they have a maximal reaction to children and a minimal to zero reaction to matures or adults. Therefore, in order to satisfy their sexual needs, in many cases, pedophiles may feel the need to break the law. They may acquire child pornography for masturbatory desires, and in many cases, they molest children in order to fulfill their sexual needs.
While many can go long periods without molesting children, long term studies show that after 25 year followup, 50% of pedophiles have re-offended against children, so the recidivism rate is quite high. Nevertheless, the therapy of pedophiles has shown good results. Pedophiles who go through extensive therapy are much less likely to re-offend than those who do not.
Since the criteria for DSM-5 are nonsense, what are better criteria? I think we need to go all the way back to DSM-2 and DSM-3 where pedophilia was defined as a primary or exclusive preference for children with little or no reaction to mature persons.
The ever-growing expansion of DSM pedophilia has been driven by the desire to label child molesters with a mental disorder so we can sock them away in mental hospitals forever as mentally disorder sex offenders. That child molesters are criminals is beyond doubt. That the majority of them are mentally ill is very much up in the air and is probably not true.
Clinicians should not give in to the state project to classify an ever-growing population of criminals as mentally ill so as to keep them locked far beyond their terms, possibly forever. This is a mass incarceration project with dubious psychiatric validity and clinicians should not be a party to such politically driven projects that are not validated by empirical psychological science.

Tulio on Black Crime and Feminism and What to Do About Them

Tulio, a Black man in his 30’s, is a regular commenter on the site. It was nice to see him move out defensive mode on the subject and write a deep and heartfelt post about these matters which are so painfully dear to his heart. He said that he thinks about this stuff constantly, as he is a young Black man. That’s sad, but if you care, it’s understandable.
Tulio notes that the problem is now so entrenched that it seems to be intractable. He also notes the corrosive effect of a lot of the new Black music.
Even White prison gang members have remarked on how detrimental they feel this music has been to White youth in recent years. They say young White man come to prison after listening to hip hop for years and think they are tough badass gangsters going to live it up in paradise in a maximum security prison. And boy do they have another thing coming!
I would like to thank Tulio for this post. Even if these problems seem intractable, we should at least be discussing them, as the human and societal damage is of epic proportions.

Black Crime

As for Black crime, it’s a confluence of a lot of different things and not an easy problem to solve.
Single motherhood. You have a lot of fatherless homes and single mothers. While not all single mothers raise bad sons (I personally know great guys raised by single moms), most guys in prison never had a strong father in their life. Women’s role is nurture; men’s role is discipline. Boys aren’t afraid of their moms. They’re afraid of their dads. Boys need fathers first and foremost.
I don’t know what the high cause of single motherhood is in the Black underclass. I truly have no idea, and I think about this stuff all the time since I’m a Black man. It wasn’t always like this. There was a time that Blacks were known for having strong families. The explosion seems to have happened in the 60s.
I don’t think there’s anything genetic about it. This doesn’t seem to be the case in Africa, especially traditional African society. It seems to be something unique to Black Americans. I don’t know what it looks like amongst Black Latins or Caribbeans. But family in Africa seems pretty strong, so I know it’s not genetic.
Dead zones. Secondly you have a large cultural vacuum in certain parts of the country.
Do you ever read about how there are dead zones in the ocean? Certain areas where there is not enough oxygen and that part of the ocean is devoid of life?
The inner cities of America are dead zones. They are islands of misery, hopelessness, broken schools, high unemployment, drugs, urban decay. There’s very little there to give people inspiration and hope. The church is often the only thing. The people living there have just enough so as not to revolt, yet not enough for them to be functional players in the economy.
The origin of such ghettos can be traced back to segregation. Some of these communities thrived at a time and were fairly self-sufficient. The Black middle class fled these places. And all that was left behind were the poor and a crumbling society. The middle class Blacks might have served as role models to those less fortunate. The Whites didn’t care about them either. Everyone that could afford to get out, got out.
So what can be done about it? I don’t know. The problem seems almost intractable. So I guess the only real solution here would be some sort of gentrification. Concentrated poverty is a very dangerous thing. As I’ve shown before, it can turn White people violent as well like it did in NYC tenements or as it currently does in Glasgow.
Spreading the poor out a bit should help. And it should also make their behavior better through cultural osmosis.
I can imagine no worse situation than being a Black kid raised by a poor single mother where the only male role models are thuggish rappers and drug dealers. They need to see other things and get out of that box. They need something positive to aspire to.
High unemployment. When unemployment is high, it makes working in the dark side of the economy more seductive. I’m sure many of these kids coming up would like to be able to make a decent living and not have to worry about ending up in jail or getting gunned down. But the fewer jobs there are, the more it makes the risk of selling drugs seem worth it. Even fairly decent people will start acting shady if that’s the only way they have to survive.
Well one major problem is that many blue collar jobs that Blacks used to do for a living wage either went to China or went to illegal aliens. It wasn’t uncommon to see Black carpenters, drywallers, construction workers, meatpackers, etc.
Now these jobs are almost all entirely done by Mexicans illegally in the country. This was a huge issue in the rebuilding of New Orleans after Katrina. There were a lot of Blacks out of work that wanted those construction jobs, and they were livid that they were going to Mexicans who aren’t even citizens and don’t even have any roots in the city. How can anyone not feel their pain?
The gutting of solid blue collar work has had a huge effect on Rust Belt White America but it has been an utter disaster for Black America. I see no easy solution here either.
Music. I also thing the music is a problem. Now maybe it’s an issue of art imitating life, or it’s the other way around, I don’t know. But I do think it has something of a feedback loop effect. A lot or rap music, even if not explicitly advocating violence, tends to reinforce a lot of selfish attitudes, hyper-materialism, fast money, fast women, party hard, a lot of Machiavellianism. It’s pervasive, even in the more lukewarm hiphop music.
Sometimes it’s just the attitude. The anger. One rarely sees rappers smiling or seeming happy unless surrounded by money, bling and sexy women. This stuff has to stop, and if I had a kid, I’d be very careful about what they listen to.
That said, not all rap music is like that, a lot of it is positive and life affirming. Some of it is great to dance too or just enjoy in the background if you have the smarts to not get caught up in the Machiavellian stuff.
It should also be noted that not all “Black music” is like this. The majority of Black music is not rap and does not contain violent lyrics. Unfortunately though, most of the music young Black males of the inner city listen to will be rap and often with terrible messages. What can anyone do about this? Not much, as long as there’s a first amendment, rappers can pretty much talk about whatever they want sell their music to whomever they want, most of which is bought by Whites anyway.
Sorry I don’t have any easy solutions, but these are just a few things that contribute to the issue.

Feminism

As for feminism, and I assume we’re talking about feminism of the more militant variety, the Pandora’s Box is open on that one. I wish things had stayed with equity feminism, and we could’ve left it there. But it then evolved into an assault on gender roles and gender as some sort of social construct rather than biological reality. That’s what happens when people with PhD’s take over the movement.
I know it’s not realistic for every American man to find a foreign woman, but for those that can, I think that’s the best solution. Foreign women are much more enjoyable to be around.

This Is So Not Right

Here.
I realize that this kid is severe bad news all the way around, but no way in Hell can I see giving a kid an 85 year prison term for a crime he committed when he 13 years old. No way, no way, no way, no way. Put him in the youth authority until he is 25 years old. If he’s too dangerous to be in youth authority, put him in adult prison in some special wing. No way on Earth can you give someone life for a crime they committed when they were a 13 year old boy. Forget it.
By the way, I also do not believe in preventive detention, which is possibly what’s going on here. You can’t lock someone up just for being dangerous. It’s not illegal to be dangerous or even to be dangerous as Hell. That’s the price you pay for living in a free society. You have to live with dangerous people and take your chances with them.

Prison is Good for Black Men

Repost from the old site.
Oh, I know, I know, I know, you’re all mad about the headline. But don’t go away, not yet anyway.
Do allow me to explain.
Prison is not a great place. It’s not even a good place. It’s not even a fair or ok place. I’ve been in jail for six hours in my life, and my wimpy middle-class White-boy self is still traumatized. At least the memories kept me on the right side of the law. I do not ever want to go back there, not even for a minute. If only arrest had this effect on everyone…
But Blacks, I think especially Black men (I don’t think there are a lot of Black females in prison) seem to handle it ok. Don’t ask me how they do it. Maybe you learn some real life survival skills growing up in the hood.
Black men in prison have a much lower death rate, than those living outside. Inside, it is 206 per 100,000/yr and outside, it is 484 per 100,000/yr., a 57% drop.
This is a fact. A fact that won’t go away. That stares us in the face and demands to be recognized, parsed, anything but ignored.
The lower death rate in prisons is not so much a tribute to our obviously horrible prison system, which frequently denies the heavily-Black prison population access to basic medical treatment, among other things. More than that, this is a stark, punch in the face reminder of just how deadly life in the hood really is for the Black male.
There are a million ways to dissect this data, including some really nasty and racist ones. Google will direct you to those if you look hard enough, or you can just use your imagination.
Let’s look at some real reasons why a Black man statistically stands much better chance of surviving in prison than on the street. Prison health care, crappy as it is, is maybe still better than the zero health care many Blacks get outside of prison. And it’s hard to take a lot of drugs and drink a lot inside prison. You can do a bit of both, but not much.
Despite all the talk about prison violence, there is strict gun control inside prison. Guns are deadly for Black men outside of prison, where they are six times more likely to be felled by bullets than non-Blacks.
And maybe there is plenty of time and motivation to exercise, and perhaps the prison diet is not deliberately unhealthy. In addition, one is removed from many things that can kill you, like vehicles and machinery. Black males are especially likely to die in vehicle accidents compared to other races.
As long as Black men are living longer inside prison, and as long as so many are in there anyway, can we maybe make it a nicer place to stay for them? Maybe dorm-style rooms and more conjugal visits for promising, well-behaved prisoners?
If the disintegration of Black life in the hood continues at this pace, we may even reach the outrageous point at some point in the future where Black men may want to voluntarily check themselves into prison to live a longer and more healthy life.
Let us now imagine a future world where the hood was so bleak that Black males were volunteering for prison, if only for a chance to survive.
In this theoretical case, could we make it more pleasant for the voluntaries, if there were any? Could we design special prisons for them – the voluntary prisons? Check out any time you like, prisons? And how would we make it begin to pay for itself, or at least not be a money pit?
Dorm-style rooms, TV and movies, jobs for good wages, all the conjugal visits you want…I know this sounds like sick comedy, but these are human lives we are talking about here. How could we justify the costs? Life in the hood, with Black men sick, injured and dying young, are all costs to society. Healthy Black men in the voluntary prison, capable of working, living a more normal lifespan, may cost society less.
Even here, most Black males will choose freedom over chains. More than demonstrating the humanity of US prisons, this appalling statistic is one more metric showing the utter unlivability of the Black ghetto.
For White and Hispanic men, prison is a little more deadly than life on the outside, but not much.
Great discussion here , with talk of possible bias, reasons for the disparity, etc.
Interesting liberal take on this issue, from which I may quote and agree:

While prisoners’ rights and care are imperative, it is a disheartening paradox that being in jail decreases mortality.

But the reasons quoted in that paper are somewhat absurd – the reason why more Black men die on the outside? Racism? And there is less or no racism inside prison? Sometimes liberals, to paraphrase Gallagher, embarrass me.

Interesting Comments on Sex Offenders

Repost from the old site.
From the comments section, a commenter writes:

Incest and friends of the family make up approximately 98% of all sex offenses (I think they mean child molestation and not rape, but I’m not sure). There has been estimated that 60 million individuals in this country that has experienced child sexual abuse. 50%, 30 million will go on to abuse a child. This is the crux of the problem, and we are not addressing it.Instead, law makers are creating laws that do more harm than good. For example:
The public registries: 98% of those come from the family and friends of the family. It is a fact, that once caught, 95% of them never repeat another sex crime. And that’s without therapy.
The remaining 5% are hiding in the registries. Those who did not know their victims, the violent rapists and the repeat offender.
And, approximately, 95% of all new sex offenses are committed by individuals NOT on the registries. Is it no wonder, because law makers have totally ignored the fact that Incest and friends of the family are the crux of the problem. There are 30 million abusers out there and lawmakers have done nothing to address prevention through education.
By ignoring incest and friends of the family, law makers have created a greater risk to children and society. If we do not openly discuss it, do not propose any educational models to better inform ourselves and keep ourselves afflicted with guilt and shame which washes over all concerned, perpetrators, victims, and other family members alike, we all help shield and perpetuate the crime.
These sex offender laws are being passed without advice of the experts. They are knee-jerk regulatory reaction which is just another way of saying, additional punishment is justified. Congress and the Legislatures have ignored the experts in the field.
But when it comes to light bulbs, they clamor for expert testimony. There is something very fundamentally wrong with their approach when it comes to sex offender laws.
Randy Lopp, treatment subcommittee chairman of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Management Team said, ”Most people who know anything about this are frustrated. It is just not helpful — the laws as they are now.
“I think if the general public understood the research, they would be willing to back the legislators to change the laws to make more sense and to protect children, because the laws as they are written are not protecting children,” he said. “They are doing more harm than good.”
US Department of Justice, 2003
• Sample size – 9,700 sex offenders
• Length of time – 3 years
• Re-offense trigger – reconviction (Doesn’t mean a new sex crime)
• Results – 5.3% sexual offense. 3.3% child molestation.
Arizona, Department of Corrections, 2006
• Length of time – Ten years
• Sample size – 2,444 sex offenders
• Results – 3.2% returned for a new felony sex offense, 1.4% returned for a new felony case of child molestation
• Reoffense trigger – new conviction (Any conviction)
And there are many more studies and they have the same results. Low recidivism rates for first time sex offenses.
Law makers pass these laws as non-controversial. Without debate and there is nothing I can think of that is more controversial.
Constitutional rights are being side stepped and it has been said that when you deny the constitution to one, you deny it to everyone. Please, look at the real problem. Incest and friends of the family and Prevent through education. Do away with these draconian laws that protect no one but endangers every child.

I don’t really know what to say to any of this stuff. I don’t have much personal interest in it.
I’d be interested to see how these laws are endangering kids and doing more harm than good.
Surely life is often Hell for these sex offenders. And you can see here that these insane laws are being used against all sorts of 18-21 year old guys messing around with 15-17 year old girls. The guys are totally normal, and now their lives are fucked forever.
They’re on Sex Offender Lists, it’s hard to work anywhere, they go to jail and get threatened by other inmates as “pedos” (that’s weird, I figured most prison inmates would gladly fuck a 16 year old girl if they could get away with it). They can hardly live anywhere and often have to move back home.
Their career dreams are shot, and the military won’t take you (I guess fucking a 16 year old girl is evil, but actually killing human beings, albeit towelheads, is cool). Lots of guys are also going down due to lying little girls telling tall tales of fake molestations and teenage bitches screaming rape.
I thank God I’m not on one of those blasted lists! I have enough problems as it is; I couldn’t imagine what Hell my life would be if I was on one of those things.

Sex Offenders: Second Thoughts

Repost from the old site.
After I posted a couple of pieces on child molester mass hysteria, they got linked to some sex offender support groups and I got some comments. I started doing a lot more research, and I must say, I am not impressed with the sex offender support groups or their research. One of their favorite papers claims to show only 5% recidivism rate over 3 years or 10 years or 15 years or whatever, but apparently that’s fraudulent.
One good study did find a 25% recidivism rate after 15 years. This is the same study that the RSO (registered sex offender) supporters quote as having a 5% relapse rate. At that’s only for re-offenses.
While at Fresno State University in the early 1990’s, I did a ton of reading in journals. I liked the psychology journals a lot.
In one I found a study that used confidential interview procedures to determine the true rate of recidivism, because a lot of these guys reoffend and don’t get caught. Anyway, these guys can admit to molesting kids online or in an interview, and there’s usually nothing that can be done, since we don’t know who the victim is, when the crime occurred, etc.
That study found a re-offense rate (not a re-arrest rate) for child molesters of 50% over 25 years. I think that’s about right.
There’s tremendous debate about what constitutes pedophilia, but this site, Wikisposure, ought to give you a pretty good idea. It’s an anti-pedophile site set up the To Catch a Predator folks (Perverted Justice), and it profiles lots of sex offenders, most of whom are out and out pedophiles. Looking through the profiles gives you a pretty good idea of what these guys are all about.
I’m even listed in the “articles to be done” category, which is either scary or hilarious, since I signed a petition calling for reform of these crazy laws. So anyone who wants to go there and say a bunch of evil stuff about me, just get yourself an account and log on .
According to the FBI, a large number, possibly a majority of cases, are not committed by opportunistic non-pedophilic molesters, but by males who are actually pedophilic in one way or another. To what degree, I’m not sure, but most of those profiled at Wikisposure are obviously preferential molesters.
The sex offender propaganda says that 90% of molestations are just opportunistic crimes by non-pedophilic males. Apparently that’s just not true.
However, all normal heterosexual adult males are maximally attracted to females aged 16, 17 and up into adulthood, so I strongly disagree with calling men who have sex with these girls pedophiles or even sex offenders. It’s not called “pedophilia”; it’s called “fucking a teenage girl.”
All males also have very high, though not maximal, attraction to girls aged 14 and 15, so that’s not really abnormal or pedophilia either. Once you get into girls aged 13 and below, no adult of any age should be messing with them, period. They’re just too young, and at some point, it is out and out child molesting. However, I do not think that persons under age 18 having sex with a 13 year old is abnormal.
Main thing about pedophiles, if you look at Wikisposure, is that it’s obvious that the vast majority really don’t have much interest in adults. A few do, but those are the minority. What turns em on is kids, and they usually have a preferential AoA, or age of attraction . It’s usually phrased something like, “My AoA is 6-11.”
A few of these guys are completely out and well-known in the community. Some have admitted to molesting kids and just got away with it. That’s not enough to arrest or convict someone. A number of the older ones are roaming around the world. Mexico seems to be a favorite place. Boylovers do seem to dramatically outnumber the girllovers, despite the gay rights protestations.
I’m very sympathetic to teens going down for consensual sex and to young men aged 18-21 going down for sex with girls 14-17. The Romeo and Juliet cases are the most tragic of all. I’m also sympathetic to guys aged 21-29 going down sex with girls aged 15-17. The latter is surely illegal, and you’re a fool if you do it, but whatever it is, it’s not pedophilia.
I would prefer to see the age of consent lowered to 15 for both sexes.
For 14 year olds, sex with 14-21 year olds should be legal. Adults having sex with those 13 and under would be a crime. For 13 year olds, sex with 13-17 yr olds should be legal. These are Romeo and Juliet cases.
I’m primarily opposed to the conflation of this sort of sex with actual pedophilia and child molesting.
I also find the whole Child Molester Mass Hysteria thing very alarming. People are being accused of being child molesters merely because others regard them as odd or eccentric, for trying to make pleasant conversation with teenage girls, even when the girls have jobs that require them to interface with the public, or for ogling older attractive teenage girls.
These people have not been convicted or accused of any sex crimes whatsoever, and these are the most tragic cases of all. It’s normal to try to talk to anyone who has a job interfacing with the public. All normal males are attracted to pretty 16-17 year old females. In this way, utterly normal behavior is insanely conflated with “child molesting” by a puritanical, man-hating public.
Teens trading naked pics of themselves on videophones are going down on child porn trafficking charges. 15 year old girls take crotch shots of their pussies and send them to 18 year old males, and the guy goes down on child porn charges.
How bout the girl? One thing I noticed about all this stuff above: it’s always the boy who goes down, never the little teenage slut running to the cops. Some justice.
Nor do I think pics of naked 14-17 yr old girls, having sex or not, is the same thing as “child porn”. I imagine your average male would like to look at something like that. But please, if any of you guys out there have any such pics on your computer, get rid of them. Society has gone insane about this stuff these days.
I still think that the residence and lifestyle restrictions for these guys is absurd. Screw a 15 year old girl, and you can never be in any place where “children” are present! That means Starbucks. That means the supermarket. That means anywhere. What a bunch of police state bullshit. GMAB.
I think Perverted Justice, which puts real adults behind fake profiles of mostly 13-15 year old girls, is silly. Most of these guys aren’t “pedophiles” anyway. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin when he was in his 20’s.
They arrange a meeting with the guy, the guy shows up, and he gets busted, and he never bopped any girl, and there was no girl anyway. The guy gets 3-16 years (WTH?) in prison. Entrapment anyone? Adult males, don’t talk sex to teenage girls on the Net. Don’t go meet them for sex. There are traps everywhere.
But I’m not particularly sympathetic to guys who committed what I consider actual sex offenses. You guys messed up, and a lot of you have got a problem. You need to get it under control, quit blaming the victims, and try hard to make sure you don’t do that again. Yeah, it’s a witch hunt, but there’s also a bunch of twisted idiots out there we need to watch, and a bunch of others who fucked up bad and need to clean up or else.

More Sex Offender Mass Hysteria

Repost from the old site.
Good article, and the comments are great too. The article and comments go beyond the sex offender bit into other ridiculous and absurd excesses of law enforcement and punishment.
Reading stuff like this, I am starting to understand why the libertarians and anarchists hate the state so much. It seems we do have an out of control Injustice System in this country. It’s not just sex offenders, it’s all sorts of offenders. Little did I know that a felony conviction nearly screws you for life.
Little did I know that the system is set up for the purpose of making money – that the entire law enforcement, corrections, treatment, monitoring and parole system is designed to milk money out of people who are mostly too poor to pay for it. As if the conviction wasn’t bad enough, the system extracts profit from you like a slave on a plantation.
When I lived in the mountains a couple of years ago, a friend downstairs did 6 weeks in jail. For what? For being poor. He had some old DUI, and he had to pay all these $1000’s in fines, and I guess he was just too poor to pay them. He got pulled over and hauled into jail essentially for the crime of being poor .
There’s a fellow here in the complex who has a similar mess. He was driving a car without a license. Why? He didn’t have the money to pay for the license. He kept driving the car anyway, because he needed it to get to work. He got a ticket for driving without a license. Now he’s apparently got a felony conviction.
Both of these guys are White. I shudder to think of what Blacks and Hispanics must go through.
We are one of the world’s leaders in imprisoning people. You can say what you want about that, but that the criminal justice system has been turned into just another capitalist industry, making its money off convicts and parolees, is downright sickening.

Another View of Sex Offenders

Repost from the old site.
From the comments section, a commenter answers my question, “Can you all please explain to me why these new laws are making these worse, and endangering kids even more? That doesn’t seem to add up from the data that you have given to me.”
Magister:

The experts tell us that offenders need stability, a home, a job, a support system and a feeling of connection to a community. Stress affects offending behavior. If one feels helpless and hopeless it, of course, increases stress levels to an unbelievable amount.
There have been hundreds, if not thousands of studies looking at offending behavior and the conditions and circumstances predating it. America has a world record amount of people in prison. It is like a revolving door.
It does not take much imagination to realize that if you warehouse people in a prison with people even worse than they are, in an antisocial environment, release them back to a society where they have no home or job, their offending behavior is likely to occur again.
Now, add to that, for sex offenders the fact that they are dehumanized by society, called garbage, monsters, they are being killed, beaten, their families are shunned, their children are picked on mercilessly, they have to pay an exorbitant amount of fines for probation, sex offender treatment, GPS monitoring, all while greatly restricted on what kind of job they have.
Many states are now putting their employers on the Registry which pretty much guarantees that no one will hire them. Residency restrictions make it almost impossible to find a place to live. NIMBY is rampant. When they do find a small area to live in, a great hue and cry goes up about “clustering” and the problem starts all over again.
They are denied many of the social services that our other poor citizens have. They are not even allowed in a hurricane shelter!
I would think being treated like a monster, told over and over again that you are a monster, would make any person likely to commit desperate acts. It amazes me that in the present circumstances, there ares not more re-offenses than there are. I think the fact that re-offense is still low, shows just how repentant the vast majority of these people are.
There is not one study that shows that residency restrictions work, not one. In fact there are multiple studies that show that they do not work. Again it just takes common sense to tell you that if a person is going to re-offend they are going to go away from their home, the area they are most likely to be recognized, to offend.
Studies prove this out. Several states, which bothered to listen to the experts and do comprehensive studies of their own, declined to implement residency restrictions.
Iowa, which has statewide 2000 ft restrictions, is a perfect example. The prosecutors ‘association and the sheriffs’ association have come out against these restrictions. They see that they do no good, and have caused many offenders to abscond because of the conditions.
The police and parole officers cannot find the homeless men and women. So instead of allowing for increased monitoring of those who are most dangerous, there is less monitoring of everyone.
But the people of Iowa, who have been fed false information like everyone else will not allow these restrictions to be stopped. That just boggles my mind.
Everything that the experts tell us reduces re-offense, we do the opposite. We stubbornly hold on to our misinformation like a life raft in the ocean. It is like we need a group of people to hate and denigrate.
Most states have expanded the definition of crimes to be called a sex offense until almost anyone could fit into the category. The registries are so watered down by no risk, low risk offenders until our law enforcement cannot keep up. The state of California just did a recidivism study that mirrored the one the Department of Justice did. They got the same results. Re-offense rate overall between 3.5 and 5%.
The American people do not know this! Either that or they stubbornly refuse to believe it. Yes, there are groups or types of offenders who have a much higher rate of re-offense. We have experience and tests to know which ones these are.
To me, that means that those who are not in any of those high risk groups have almost no risk of re-offending and even the high risk groups have a lower rate of re-offense than other types of criminals. Treatment does work. Treatment has been refined over the years and there is a success rate of over 40%. Some studies show success in the 90% range.
When all our attention and resources are being focused on once caught offenders we are developing a false sense of security and ignoring the 90% of the population that are the next molesters of our children. Who are they? They are family and friends who are not on the registry. We are not learning how to recognize warning signs and keeping our eyes focused on the Registry.
What a disservice we are doing our children. Victim advocacy groups and child protection groups, are saying the same things, residency restrictions and making monsters of these people do more harm than good.
Victim advocacy groups are getting involved in creating transitional housing and mentoring for the higher risk offenders. This is how we create a lower recidivism rate. It only makes sense. This is such a complicated issue that one could talk for hours and not make a dent in the truth and the harm our society is doing.
All I can say is the Internet is a fount of information. Studies from the professionals and our own government can be found just by Googling. You can find many studies here .

I don’t really know what to say about all this. This isn’t exactly my favorite subject, but the purpose of this blog is to piss people off, and nothing pisses people off more than being soft on pedos. Obviously, it’s a position I just have to take. It’s just too irresistible.
I’ve noticed that if you know anything about pedophilia and child molesting, as I do, people get really, really worried and think you must be one. It’s like if you know anything about homosexuality, you must be a fag. If you know about heroin, you must shoot dope. If not now, you’re going to do one of these things in the future.
The only thing you can say about child molesting in polite company is “Kill all the pedos!”
I got most of my information from John Douglas’ books and writings. I figure if he can get interested in this stuff from a criminological point of view without going out and molesting kids, hey, so can I.
I don’t think we are going to get anywhere as a society with this issue as long as all rational conversations about it are shut down with a horrified look of, “You’re not a pedo yourself, are you!?”
If it’s true that 90% of child molesting is a family member or friend of the family, that 90% of those on the Registries are this type of molester, that’s very interesting. The 60 million molested figure and 50% of them (30 million) are going to do it themselves is fascinating. The notion that residency restrictions don’t work and may do more harm than good and that only 5% re-offend over 10 years is also fascinating.
It’s important to distinguish between pedophiles and non-pedophilic child molesters. Non-pedophilic molesters are probably the vast majority. They have no particular interest in kids; they are just opportunists who do it for various reasons.
Probably 10% of molesters are real pedophiles. These guys either prefer or require kids to get off. Some may never act on it, but I bet most will. These people will be impossible to cure. All you can do is get them to not act on their urges, and that may be quite difficult. The conflation of pedophilic molesters with non-pedophilic molesters is unfortunate and makes no sense scientifically or societally.

Myth: Whites Are More Likely to be Pedophiles and Child Molesters

There is a long-standing myth perpetrated by Blacks and White anti-racists like Tim Wise that Whites are more likely to molest children than any other race. This goes back to some stereotype of the creepy, nerdy, weirdo White guy who can’t get laid so he molests kids.

About time we shot this myth full of holes like it needs to be.

First of all, let’s look at child abuse in general, including sexual and all other types of abuse.

Stats:

% of total child abusers:

White                            51%
African American                 25%
Hispanic                         15%
American Indian/Alaska Natives   2%
Asian/Pacific Islanders          1%

Relative to their population, likelihood of child abuse compared to background population rate:

American Indian  +100%
Blacks           +92%
Hispanics        no difference
Whites           -35%
Asian            -67%

On an individual basis, American Indians are most likely to abuse a child in some way or other, then Blacks, then Hispanics, then Whites, then Asians.

The high Amerindian rate is probably due to the utterly collapsed nature of Amerindian families and societies as a whole. The high Black rate is because, well, Blacks have elevated rates of most crimes compared to Whites, Hispanics, Asians and Amerindians. Low Asian rate is probably because across almost all crime stats, Asians typically have the lowest rates of them all.

As you can see, not only are Whites less likely to abuse kids than Blacks, they have one of the lowest child abuse rates of any ethnic group in the US, surpassed only by Asians.

The argument that Whites are more likely to molest children uses these statistics:

Those inmates who were convicted of committing violent acts against children were more like to have been White, a percentage of nearly 70%, than any other race.

The figure is from the Bureau of Prisons, 1991. In 1991, Whites were 74% of the population, and they were “nearly 70% of those convicted of child molesting.” In other words, Whites are about 7% less likely to commit child molestation than an average American.

The problem with the 1991 report was that, as usual, Hispanics were lumped in with Whites in terms of crime perpetrators, artificially inflating the White rate. The 1994 Justice Department report finally disaggregates Whites from Hispanics.

We can compare the BJS Report to the 1994 Census. According to the 1994 Census estimate, the US population is broken down thus:

74% White
11.9% Black
10% Hispanic

Extrapolating the Census data above to the BJS Report, we find that the Hispanics are broken down thus:

26,077 Hispanic molesters =

23,743 White
1,480 Black
303   American Indian

The results, % of total child molesters by race:

Whites    56.2%
Hispanics 23.5%
Blacks    19.4%
Other     1.7%

Now compare to their presence in the general population for likelihood of being a child molester as opposed to an average American:

Race     Molesters Population Ratio

White    56.2%     74.0%      - 24.0%
Black    19.4%     11.9%      + 63.0%
Hispanic 23.5%     10.0%      + 135%

This lines up with anecdotal reports of high rates of sex crimes in areas overrun with illegal aliens from Mesoamerica.

The myth lies shattered.

Hispanics are 2.3 X (135%) more likely to molest children than Whites.

Blacks are 63% more likely to molest children than Whites.

Additional evidence comes from child abuse reports which were reported to authorities, which honestly are better because excellent anecdotal evidence from Black websites and interviews with Black women who grew up in the ghetto inform us that sexual abuse of girls is rampant in the ghetto. Some of the women even say things like, “All girls are molested in the ghetto.”

However, in the ghetto, sexual abuse of girls is considered so shameful that it may not even be discussed, and hence is seldom reported and there are few arrests. The whole affair is covered up with massive denial. This rings quite true with me as pathology of all sorts is elevated in ghettos, so why would child sexual abuse not be so.

This may also explain the relatively high percentage of White men imprisoned for this crime since White men who commit this crime are much more likely to be arrested and Black men often just get away with it and are never caught. So victimization surveys ought to clear this up for us.

According to this study at The Root (Drake et al 2011), Black children are reported to authorities for all types of abuse 75% than White children are. For sexual abuse, Black children are reported to authorities 26% more often than White children are. Interestingly, Hispanic children are 14% less likely than White children to be reported for sexual abuse. It is interesting to note that the study only compared children from from 2 parent families. If we included Black women from single parent families, the rates might be even higher.

Black children are 25% more likely to be reported to authorities for child sexual abuse than White children are.
Black children are 26% more likely to be reported to authorities for child sexual abuse than White children are.

Where did the myth come from? It’s not certain, but for most crimes, especially violent crimes, Blacks have rates that are up to 6-9 times higher than Whites. For child molestation, these wildly elevated rates for Blacks are not seen; instead, the Black rate is close to double the White rate, not 6-9 times higher. So in child molestation, Whites much more approach parity with Black crime rates. This greatly increased White rate vis a vis Blacks compared to other crimes may have given rise to the illusion that Whites are more likely than Blacks to commit this crime.

References

Drake, Brett; Jolley, Jennifer M.; Lanier, Paul; Fluke, John; Barth, Richard P. and Jonson-Reid, Melissa. February 7, 2011. Racial Bias in Child Protection? A Comparison of Competing Explanations Using National Data. Pediatrics 2011 127:3 471-478.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.