PUA/Game: Avoid “Whore” Types at all Costs

Watch out for whores. Even if a woman you are dating says she has whored previously or would consider doing it again if she’s real broke, that’s a very big red flag.

And once she starts talking about the sex you might have with her being contingent in just how much money you are going to spend on her or just how much it is going to cost you (like there’s not going to be any sex unless you spend some money), you know you are dealing with a woman who is basically nothing but a Whore and not much else.

She’s going to lighten your wallet, and in a lot of cases you don’t even actually get laid, though you usually get some teasers, like say a titty feel or a makeout session.

Any woman who has the idea that sex = money and that each sex act = money on your part is nothing but a fucking whore. Black women are absolutely notorious for this mindset.

I really don’t know what is wrong with them. Is it genetic? Just to be safe, I will blame their culture. I think there is maybe something terribly wrong with their culture because I am convinced that a lot of Black cultures in the US simply promote the idea to Black women that sex with men is essentially a monetary transaction.

For the record, I understand that sex in urban Black Africa is profoundly transactional to the point where a lot of the “dating” is little more than glorified prostitution. I mean you go to a nightclub in Black Africa and take a woman home, and my understanding is you are paying her for the privilege of coming home with you.

Once again, I’m at a loss for reasons. People will always yell poverty but I wonder if that’s just another tautology. Why are so many Black women prostitutes? Because they’re poor. Why are so many Black women poor? Because they’re prostitutes.

Also they seem to have very little shame about being whores in one way or another. While a lot of White and Hispanic women still think being an out and out whore is pretty damned sleazy, a lot of Black women seem like they could care less, like it’s a perfectly proper and acceptable thing to be.

I always wondered why Black men called Black women bitches and whores, and I think I am starting to get it. Now, a lot of Black men act awful too, especially the ones caught up in that ghetto-type culture. They treat Black women very poorly, and I don’t blame Black women for being mad at their men.

On the other hand, it sounds like a lot of Black women aren’t all that great either. So it’s not oppressed versus oppressors anymore. It’s just a war. A lot of people in both genders of this race act pretty lousy towards the opposite sex, and there’s a lot of anger between Black men and Black women, which I now see makes sense on both ends.

I dated a Black woman for about a year. She was very classy, spiffy and even quite uptight. My brother remarked on how uptight he thought she was. She taught school and that’s where I met her. She was seriously into money like so many Black women are. She had formerly lived in Palos Verdes when she was married to the doctor, so she definitely had expensive tastes.

She was married to a physician at the time, but they were separated, and she refused to speak with him, though they met quite a bit. She had not spoken one word to him in maybe a year! He was always saying, “Why won’t you talk to me?!” And she wouldn’t say a thing. Her reason was that he was “cold.” Like she wasn’t.

This woman made more money than I did, but as usual she couldn’t be bothered to spend a nickel when we went out. My requests that she leave a tip for the $40 meal were met with mewling outraged protests.How dare I ask her to part with a nickel of her hard-earned money.

We didn’t even have that much sex. She pretty much charged me just to go over to her place and speak to her. That, for instance, would cost me a brunch meal. And probably no sex on her end. She was a prim, proper, classy Black woman who was as uptight as a White person. Yet when I described her to my friends, they all just laughed and said she was nothing but a whore.

Any women reading this just take note that we men don’t think much of whores. In fact we have no respect for them whatsoever and I don’t think we ever will. As long as  you are a whore, no man will ever respect you nor should he.

Any Black women reading this, what can I say? If you don’t whore as I assume most of you don’t, good for you! Take note of what I wrote above. No respect at all. Like zero.

As far as why so many of your sisters seem to have such a transactional attitude towards sex, perhaps it’s something you might wish to give some thought to. It’s not appealing. Black women don’t have a stellar reputation as it is, and this behavior just drags down the whole lot of them. It’s good for you or your kind.

Any Black men reading this, ok, I forgive you. I get it, I get it. I don’t know what to say. Why are so many of your women such whores? I’m thinking a lot (not all by any means) of Black cultures are just awful.

There’s not much you can do about that but get together with some high-minded sisters and set a good example. How do you set a good example? You’re not racial ambassadors and you can’t carry the whole weight of your people on your shoulders nor should you. Live your life. Live it well. Your life is your example. Live it well and hope others will follow. Step light and high and keep your eyes to the sky. There’s nothing else you do.

PUA/Game: The Varieties of Whoring Experience: Thieving Whores, Transactional Sex Whores, and Real Whores

SHI: Dude can use his girlfriend/wife as a money minting machine. I wouldn’t mind a stripper for LTR. I am as depraved as they come.

What if she doesn’t hand me over her money? I’ll just be a good pimp and beat her ass till she’s bleeding all over. I’ll fucking kill her if my ATM plans to dump me.

I wish though I were this bad though. Unfortunately I can only talk.

Those are the type of guys stripper types usually end up with, frankly. Their boyfriends are usually glorified pimps (“managers”), criminals, and often hard drug users, often dope shooters who use needles. The women’s relationships with these men are quite tumultuous, and I think they are often accused of taking the women’s money.

I very briefly dated a woman who wanted me to get her into porn and I guess be her manager. She was Black and was also a former call girl and strippogram girl.

I actually picked her up right off the street in Century City amidst the skyscrapers. Not as a whore, more as a secretary on lunch break, which is exactly what she was. She smiled and waved to me, so I pulled over. She said she was just going to get some lunch, and would I like to get some? I said sure and she jumped in. I asked why she waved me down, and she said, “Because you’re cute! I was looking for a cute guy to go to lunch with,” flashing a grin as wide as an LA freeway.

I said ok, and we had lunch on Sunset Boulevard in some place across from the Whiskey A-Go-Go. The waitress was staring at me like a robot the way they always do when you’re with a hot chick. Women are like money. It takes one to get one,  and it takes some to get some. Either way you start at zero and you stay at zero. Then we made a date for later that night.

I met her at some barber shop in South Central where she was getting her hair cut later that afternoon.

There were some old school Black men there. One had an antique Coke machine, and I engaged him about it. He told me all about it and showed me another one. He was acting pretty strange the whole time but not unfriendly at all. Maybe wary and like he couldn’t believe what he was seeing.  I later asked her about it and she told me that he didn’t like White men. He was nice enough to me but he did seem uncomfortable. I guess he couldn’t understand why I was so nice.

I talked to some other Black guy there about his dialect and suggested it sounded like Gulla. He told me that indeed he had come from South Carolina. Both of those Black men were pretty damn nice considering that White people never went there.

We went to her place where she lived with her Mom, but no one was home. She very suspiciously asked me for a contact number, which freaked me out just a bit, but I guess it makes sense, and I’m  well enough used to it anyway.

We men are always being suspected of being raping murderers. I gave her my Mom’s number because she wanted a contact number, I guess in case I murdered her and left her for dead in a ditch somewhere. Now why she cared what happened afterwards if I murdered her and left her in a ditch I have no idea, but perhaps she believed in postmortem justice.

So we took off for her friends’ apartment in the Wilshire District, an extremely mixed Black-White neighborhood at that time. She’s was talking about “rock cocaine” with this weird gleam in her eyes, and wasn’t not quite sure why that was.

We went inside and it quickly unfolded that this was a mixed group of young Blacks and Whites, apparently single and in their 20’s. They said they worked for the phone company. They were all smoking crack. This was very interesting as I’d never tried the stuff before and was curious.

This was 1986 and the first time I had ever tried crack. The drug had just come out and the press was full of all these over the top horror stories.

Well, back then I was a drug dealer myself, and most of the outlaw dregs and lowlifes I ran with didn’t believe any “drug war propaganda,” which we considered to be laughable scare stories. Sadly sometimes these scare stories are true.

This is where the War on Drug squares screwed up. They turned everything into a scare story, so we quit listening to everything they said. It was a Boy Who Cries Wolf scenario, and how did that story end? The wolf ate the lambs, and the dope ate some of us.

They were using glass pipes. One Black guy was on the carpet on his hands and knees, and he was pressing his forehead against the carpet like he was trying to be an ostrich, but he mistook a hardwood floor for a patch of sand. I’ve seen a lot of weird drug stuff, but that was disturbing. I was thinking, “What the Hell kind of drug is this, anyway?” I bought her a rock ($25) and we smoke it.

She sucked on the pipe like a deranged friend who was suffocating and grasping the last desperate breaths out of the pipe. I mean she was sucking on that pipe for dear life. That was downright disturbing right there. I mean if she wanted to suck my dick like that, she’d be a hero, but this was a Goddamned drug pipe!

I mean I had seen people jonesing and fiending before but mostly on pot, which was nothing like this. I had been a cocaine sniffer sporadically for nine years, especially in the last few years when I was running around LA with artists high on coke and weed, but they never jonesed or fiended like that, and I’d seen some fiends. Like out and out addicts.

We finished the rock and it was definitely an excellent high. Got me out of stupid neurotic self for about 15 minutes and then it was over. I was in  the bathroom pissing in a toilet and I saw her watching me in the doorway with lit-up eyes.  I was thinking, “That’s weird,” but that was when I first realized that females actually like to watch guys take a piss. I suppose to cock-watch. I can’t think of any other reason that’s not seriously twisted.

After 15 nice minutes, the drug wore off and I felt like crap. And more than anything else, I really wanted another damn rock to make the bad feeling go away. Which of course is the whole problem here, right? I caught onto the drug’s scam, and decided to just say no.

She was badgering me for another rock, but I was getting suspicious of this game already. She was acting like, “One more rock and then we can fuck,” but I was thinking this game could go on like this all night, and I was later told that it often does just that. And you never get a thing in the end no matter how many rocks you buy the bitch. It’s a heist.

As you might suspect she was the typical Thieving Whore type with a background as a Real Whore (Real Whores often double as Thieving Whores when they are feeling lazy or just more evil than usual), and I caught onto the “Buy me one more 20,” scam and ditched her. I went out to my car and sat there. She was supposed to join me but she never showed up, so I sat there like an idiot for 45 minutes holding my dick in my hand, feeling stupid, and getting increasingly angry.

These other Black people who were at the party showed up and told me that she was up there talking shit about me. I was thinking, “Ok, screw this bitch. She’s not getting a ride home. She can walk if she wants! It’s only ten miles away in the dark LA night! I’m sure she can make it without any problems at all!”

One of the group was a Black woman about 35 years old who looked pretty good. I went out and talked to them. She grabbed me and put her arm around me. “You come with me, baby,” so I went off with her. At one point we were in someone’s car she was shoving her tongue in my ear whispering dirty stuff while this other Black woman with her acted all grossed out.

We went up to their place, and it was another crack party. I bought her one too. The rock went around fast as the speed of light with everyone  hitting it like it was their last breath on Earth. It was creepy, weird, and actually pretty damn scary. By this time I was wise to the drug, and turned it down while I watched these maniacs suck it down like oxygen.

I looked around at the people in  the room. The people in there looked like zombies from a Night of the Living Dead movie, especially one Black man in his  40’s with black holes where his eyes were supposed to be. He has his head back on the couch with a thousand yard stare, looking like someone had suctioned his brains out, which is pretty much what had happened, except a drug did not and not a vacuum tube.

I was sitting there thinking, “This shit is literally the worst drug on Earth.” And this was my very first acquaintance with the drug called crack. As you can see, I’m not only not an idiot but I’m also a quick study.

Well, this other Black chick was all over me telling me it was her birthday and how we were going to get a hotel room and all this dirty stuff she was going to do to me. Then it turned into, “Buy me one more 20, and I get the room.” I had already heard that song before, earlier than night as a matter of fact. I kept shaking my head no.

At some point I was being escorted out of the apartment. The last I saw was a look of utter contempt on this Thieving Whore’s face. I was out $50 and all I got were a couple of makeout sessions. Lessons don’t come cheap in life.

Well, my Mom called me later the next day all freaked out, “Bob! What did you do to that girl!?” I had no idea what in God’s name she was talking about. I was like, “What?!” The woman’s Mom had called my Mom because that bitch never came home that night. Why?

Because I was her ride and I abandoned her halfway through a date and left her ass at an apartment in the Wilshire District when she lived in South Central. So I took her out on a date and stranded her halfway through the date with no ride home. I told you I’m a charmer. I told my Mom what happened, and I guess she called the woman’s Mom back.

I was pretty angry at my Mom for even suspecting that I would rape and murder some woman and leave her in a ditch somewhere. Not that this one particular woman didn’t deserve just that of course, but I don’t have it in me to do that, and of all people, my Mom ought to know for God’s sake. I’ll save that for my next life when I come back as a Serial Killer. Hopefully I can break Bundy’s record. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

So this is an example of a Thieving Whore. Thieving Whores are the worst women on Earth by far. I think most of them are psychopaths. Whores are pretty much psychopathic women anyway, and 45% of prostitutes are actual diagnosed psychopaths. The personality of The Whore (Histrionic Personality Disorder) is often considered to be nothing less than the female version of male psychopathy itself.

Thieving Whores dangle the sex or implied sex in a dating context, ask for money for something or other in the context of the date, get the money,  buy the stuff, promise the sex some more, and then vanish out the door without fulfilling their end of the bargain.

You’re left holding the bag on one hand and your dick in the other. You are $20-80 poorer and you got little if any sex out of it, or at least not what you were promised – you may have gotten a tit feel or a makeout session, but you were promised real sex, which is why you forked the money in the first place. These are far worse than actual whores who generally at least are not out and out thieves and at least give you something for your money.

These types are ubiquitous and they tend to be deep into ghetto culture. This is pretty much the only type of female who comes out of that culture. Obviously the Whore and Thieving Whore types are present in all races of women, but the Whore types are vastly more common among Black women, and the Thieving Whore types are drastically more common among Black women, with Hispanic women bringing up the rear of the gutter.

Yes, I have recently met a young White woman like this, but she didn’t get any money. As far as Whore types go, obviously there are White women like this, but there are a lot more Hispanic women, at least around here, which I found shocking.

Playing The Whore and the Thieving Whore is a young woman’s game. Young, attractive women play this role simply because they can. Older women do not play this role not because they don’t want to – they’d love to if they could get away with it – but mostly because they can’t. Now I love older women, but who’s going to pay big money for some 47 year old woman’s used up ass? Basically no one.

Not that a few don’t try, but they don’t charge much either. I am talking about the “Transactional Sex” Whores, not the Actual Prostitute Whores, which are another matter altogether.

I am not fond of Transactional Sex Whores because they pretend to be dating you when really they are nothing more than glorified Whores. They are all over dating sites looking to “date men,” but they are really just part-time prostitutes who engage in actual whoring and more commonly transactional dating out of their apartments.

Of the three – Thieving Whores, Transactional Sex Whores and Actual Whores – I actually much prefer the latter, as at least they believe in truth in advertising and give you something for your money. They are generally pretty straight up and honest, too. It’s a rare whore who steals from you.

The former two are thieves by nature, especially the first type. Not only that but these are female criminals who have devoted their entire lives to stealing from us men. To say they are the enemies of all of us men is an understatement. The fact that not only do these wenches exist at all, but more appallingly are everywhere you look makes the lie of the feminist idiocy that says we live in a patriarchy. I assure you that no true patriarchy would tolerate this silly crap for one second.

Apparently Facts Are Racist Now

I’ve been studying this issue deeply since ~1989. That’s 30 years or half my life. A  journal article by Richard Lynn set me off on this quest.  While it’s obvious that there are racial differences on average between the races, I’m not 100% clear about what causes them, but I doubt if it is racism.

My attitude is that Blacks are deliberately, of their own free will, creating really lousy cultures, and they can knock it off any time they want. In other words, Blacks need their shit  together. While that seems harsh, the alternate opinion, once you throw out racism, is that Black genes are inferior regarding intelligence, and this is where the test score differences come from. I think my view is a lot more Black-friendly, but that’s just me.

I am the odd liberal who even dares to talk about things like this. What is pathetic and rather terrifying is that I get pummeled mercilessly and called racist and ultra-racist for saying things like:

Presently Blacks score 13  points lower than Whites in IQ tests. I believe that IQ tests measure intelligence well and they are not biased in favor of Whites. I am not sure what is causing these differences. Obviously differential intelligence is going to explain a lot of the discrepancies between the races where Blacks seem to come out behind.

That is a perfectly noncontroversial opinion! The entire field of intelligence studies agrees that there’s a score gap.

And now nearly the entire field says that IQ tests measure intelligence well (they fought that one forever, but they caved on that one a while back). The left of this field caved on the question of whether the tests are biased in favor of Whites or not even before this latest cave.

The only argument now is over what is causing the differences, and it is raging right along. The fact is that both sides can collect at least a fair amount of evidence for their side. And at the moment, scholars of intelligence regard the question of what is causing these differences as unresolved.

The left of this field mischaracterizes this debate by saying that there is no evidence at all for the genetic side so it is a pathetic and racist argument. This is not true.

The awful nonscientific folks on the Left in the popular media are much worse, regarding  the Genetic Theory as racist pseudoscience. It most certainly is not pseudoscience and it’s not racist at all. It is simply a hypothesis, just as the Environmental Theory is also a hypothesis.

As I said, both sides have a fair amount of evidence for their case sufficient to make for  adequate scientific questions on their part. And instead of being a  pseudoscience, the Genetic Theory has accumulated a rather frightening amount of evidence for their side. However, the evidence is not yet probative, and the question is regarded as inconclusive and presently under debate.

And I’d rather sit this one out as far as conclusions go for a variety of reasons that I will not go into. But I will say that I do not regard the 15 point gap as set in stone and I believe the environment can close at least some of the gap.

So my statement is:

There is presently a 13 point discrepancy between Black and  White IQ scores (fact).

The tests are not biased against in favor of Whites (fact).

I am agnostic on whether the differences are due to environment or genetics. This is actually the official position of the intelligence studies field at the moment, so it’s hardly a racist position!

I believe that a number of the discrepancies between Blacks and Whites are due to this test score differential. This simply stands to reason. A 13 point lower intelligence score is obviously going to play out in all sorts of behavioral variables on the ground, right? I mean that’s just obvious.

So my statement above, for which I get absolutely pummeled for, is made up of two solid facts, the standard consensus of the field, and a statement that is simply obviously true.

See how crazy this is? If you state obvious, proven, scientific facts, you get destroyed for being a racist!

The Real Reason the Racist Right Won’t Shut Up about the B-W IQ Gap

I’ve been around this rightwing racists and their favorite science for a very long time now, and I know them extremely well. I have spent years on their forums and websites like American Renaissance, and in fact, I still comment there sometimes. I was for a time on an acquaintance basis with some of the top names in the field.

These were the “nice” suit and tie, classy racist types, and we emailed back and forth for a while. One thing I will tell about these people is that they are very classy. In all of our emailing, I did not hear nigger, spic, gook, or any other nasty racist slurs. The “nice racists” don’t talk like that. You see, they are too classy for that. But whether that makes them better people is debatable.

I won’t tell you any names because these people have become prominent now with Trump in office, and they are being called White Supremacists in the media and bashed to Kingdom Come.

Well, at the moment I would rather disassociate myself with White Supremacists for a variety of reasons, first and foremost of which is PR and covering my ass. Plus I don’t really believe in or resonate with that sort of yucky hardcore racism. It turns me off and it feels disgusting to even read it. It’s gross.

I read The Bell Curve and all the arguments against it. I know more about this question than probably anyone you will ever meet. I am acquainted with some of the top names in the intelligence field, and we communicate from time to time by email.

So trust me when I say that the text below describes 100% of the reasons why racist people, mostly Whites, love to jump all over the B-W IQ gap question, while the rest of us feel a bit queasy and nervous when we bring it up, as if we are being impolite (which we probably are).

These people have banners up on their websites about quests for the truth, how truth is the most important thing in science, and how all scientific truths must be examined. Well, they don’t really believe that. They are not involved in some dispassionate, non-biased, non-prejudicial search for the truth. There’s a very nasty political goal behind all of this perfectly valid yet uncomfortable science.

They really don’t give a damn about science at all. They just say they do because their race, the Whites, looks good when scientifically compared to a number of other races. So they get all sciency because the science gives them a shot of pride and boosts their chauvinism. If Whites had come out behind, these people, if they existed, would be bashing away at the science and talking about how biased it is.

The science here seems to uphold their nasty racism. Which why they suddenly love science so much!

But there’s more here than just vanity and prejudice. There is a very ugly politics lurking in back of this science. You see, these racists think that they can use this science, once it is proven mind you, to implement a variety of political projects that they are desperate to introduce. And it just so happens that all of those projects are hard rightwing conservative ideas.

Which is why, if you noticed, almost 100% of White nationalists and even garden-variety White racists are hard conservatives or Libertarians. Some of them go a lot further and say that when the B-W IQ gap question is decided in favor of genetics this will be the death of the Left.

So this is their ultimate weapon to destroy liberalism and the Left once and for all. Now personally, I don’t think even if this uncomfortable idea becomes a truth, it will destroy the Left. It will make our job harder, that’s for sure.

But one of the reasons that I founded the Alternative Left was to come up with a Left response to the uncomfortable scientific truths about race. In other words, what should be the agenda of the Left when it is determined that race is real and important (race realism)? What do we say? What do we do?

Below is a very nice summary from the Right that I found on the Internet about why the racist Right loves the B-W IQ gap thing so much. This is why they can’t stop talking about this rather rude question:

IQ differences between the races matters because it provides an alternative explanation for racial differences in education, income, social deviance, etc. that the Left would rather attribute to racism.

If IQ is primarily based on genetic factors, it also means that most Leftist policies such as affirmative action or racial quotas designed to “fight racism” are not going to be effective because they cannot close the IQ gap that is a primary cause of racial gaps in achievement.

Similarly, if low IQ is related to poverty, then Leftist welfare policies designed to “end poverty” will also be ineffective in the sense that they cannot boost the IQ that is the cause of the poverty. Thus IQ threatens the Left’s very mindset (i.e. racism explains everything) and the “problem solving” toolbox in trying to achieve their desired equality of results.

I will discuss this ugly politics which is what is really behind the racist Right pushing this controversy so hard in a post in the new future.  You hear them yelling, “Hey, we’re just unbiased scientists! Don’t be so mean!”? Well, just forget about that.

But trust me folks, this is what it’s all about. This is how the racist Right intends to use the science of race realism. Which leaves a very cynical and bitter taste in my mouth.

Why Some Women Prefer Masculine Men

First, my comment in response to a commenter who ridiculed hypermasculinity and described it in a way that made it look like a parody:

“Hypermasculine” or hyper “cartoon caricature of masculine”?

To which I responded:

I live in the hood (barrio). Normative masculinity here does look like a parody.

Sometimes I get upset with myself for being such a wuss and try to ultra-masculinize myself.

It ends up feeling like such a worst joke of a fake parody of manhood that I am sure everyone must be laughing at me behind my back. Interestingly, no one laughs at me, and a lot of super-masculine White men who never acknowledge me start giving me these respectful nods. Sometimes they even give me “shout-outs” with the nods: Yelling “Hello there!” from their cars.

And that’s the only time these Latinas around here look interested in me. Most of the rest of the time, they seem like they want nothing to do with me at all. The Black women around here are mostly ghetto, and women like that never like me. And the White women around here are working class blue collar redneck Whites, and they never like me either. They all want cavemen, and I’m not a Neandertal.

I get on best of all with White women of a certain type, especially if they’ve gone to university or have a university degree. They want a sophisticated man, not a thug. In fact, a lot of them think thuggish cavemen are gross.

I can also get along well with Asian women, who, bizarrely enough, treat me like I am hypermasculine and even a bit frightening. Asian women treat me like I’m Paul Bunyan.

My conclusion is that not only is masculinity a parody of itself, but I am also starting to think that most folks’ behavior is a parody of itself. And if you want to be successful, act like a parody of whatever behavior you are mimicking. Which is not only absolutely ridiculous but also philosophically interesting.

Here is another man responding to me. I really liked his intelligent response.

Among people who grow up around stressful environments (poor people, war zones, ghetto, hood) the men tend to prefer larger asses and thicker women, and the women prefer more muscles and masculinity. It’s a survival mechanism- I read about this years ago but can’t remember exactly where.

It’s not genetic per se – it’s like a gene turns on when you are subjected to a hard life for long enough. For example, in the Middle Ages, bustier women were considered attractive and skinny ones unattractive.

It’s mostly people who are well off that prefer skinny women and effeminate men. Even if you look at East Europe where there is more poverty than in Western Europe – there men and women are behave a little more like the ghetto stereotype.

As a result I have the opposite issue. Most middle class White women act scared of me or treat me badly. East European, Black, and Hispanic etc. women seem attracted to me. Also for some reason natural blond Nordic-type women who seem to prefer more masculine men. With Asians it’s a toss up – depends if the Asian prefers masculine men, which a lot of them do, but a lot of them don’t.

Also interesting – ugly or plain women act like they are too good for me and highly attractive women act interested in me. I feel if I went to Europe (like Germany, Poland or Russia) I would be pretty successful dating.

I am guessing I am too masculine for the typical overweight easy life middle class White American woman. However, wealth and status are important to most women, and my being dirt poor is a problem even though my poverty derives from being discriminated against, dealing with repeated crime, and corrupt cops etc. rather than some deficiency in myself.

Problems Associated with Mass Third World Immigration since 1965

Lot of interesting food for thought here.

From a conversation on the Net. I didn’t write the text below! So please don’t blame me for it. Another man wrote this in the course of a conversation I was having with him on a website, American Renaissance of all places.

What I have noticed is that you have a tipping point that changes a community. Let’s say you are in a community of 90% White and 10% Black. The community will largely reflect White values and norms. If you have 60% Black, 40% White, things shift, and the community largely reflects Black norms.

And it is similar if we use I.Q. instead of race or some other measure. What has happened is mainstream American culture has radically changed since 1950 or even 1980.

I have witnessed this myself. You have massive amounts of crime and corruption everywhere, along with a lack of professionalism, and a lack of accountability (for bad police, bad teachers, bad CEOs etc.). Even in majority White areas there is usually this culture of incompetence.

With the huge influx of Mestizos you have a blending of American culture- American society just tends to look and act a little more Mestizo, as the genetic tendencies and intelligence of the community become more like Mestizos.

In the early 1900’s you had the opposite effect in the United States, which blossomed into the 1950’s heyday.

Germans are one of the most successful people in the world. Germany is generally cleaner, less corrupt, and more prosperous than other European nations. And where Germans go their success usually follows. There was a huge influx of German immigrants to here around the early 1900’s. More Germans immigrated in the United States than any other group (although the Irish come close).

This had a civilizing effect on America. The English are very similar to Germans but they had largely sent their criminals, chronically poor, etc. to populate their colonies. America blossomed into a clean, well oiled, low corruption society. After WW2 Operation Paper Clip brought Nazi scientists to the U.S., we had the greatest innovation the world has ever seen. Most scientific inventions seem to be done by white males of Germanic ancestry.

Similarly, a large influx of Yiddish Jews contributed to the financial dominance of the United States in the world and the country’s dominance in the arts (such as Hollywood).

After the 1950s, as we began to get immigrants from less successful races, we have seen the effect on our society- we are less competitive in the world of cutting edge science (although we still hold the lead), corruption is more commonplace, and academic test scores are down (although there is a lot of effort to conceal this fact).

American society more and more resembles a Second or Third World nation and less resembles the exceptional achievements you find in German or Yiddish communities.

“Head Start Doesn’t Work” – A Longstanding Rightwing Lie

There are various arguments in favor of the Head Start program. First of all, it’s not all a bunch of “niggers and beaners wasting hard-working White taxpayer dollars,” which is 100% of the reason behind all anti-Head Start arguments. I spoke to a man who lived in rural Western Pennsylvania. He worked somehow for the local Head Start program, and it was filled up with the children of low income rural Whites there. So White kids use it too.

How about this? Moneyed people get to send their kids to preschool, right? Ok, well then, as it sounds like a basic right like food and health care, why don’t low income and poor people get to send their kids to preschool too? It’s only for the rich and the middle class? You are punishing little children for the low incomes of their parents. What you are saying is that these kids messed up by picking the wrong parents, so we have to punish them by denying them this program.

How about another one? The argument against Head Start makes no sense whatsoever.

The argument says that Head Start is absolutely worthless and all benefits fade after 2-3 years, so there’s no point in having the program. It’s true that what look like remarkable gains do indeed fade after a few years, but there are lower level gains that are sustained far into adulthood as I will show below.

But let’s look at this argument itself. There’s nothing special or automagical about Head Start. It’s not some kooky program dreamed up by liberal fools. Head Start is nothing other than preschool. Preschool for children from low income and poor families. It’s no different from the preschools the moneyed folks send their super special children to. Not even 1% different.

But wait a minute. If Head Start doesn’t work or is worthless, isn’t that argument saying that preschool doesn’t work or is useless? Well if it’s useless, why do these same moneyed parents who spend good money to send their kids to preschool even bother? It doesn’t work, right?

But moneyed parents send their kids to preschool because they are convinced by many good arguments that it works, is good for their kids, and is worth the money. So preschool is necessary and it works great for our kids, except that it’s useless and fails for those other people’s kids?

Well for Chrissake. Does it work or not? If it fails, for God’s sake, pull your rugrats out and save some cash. But if it works, as moneyed folks are convinced, then they need to explain how it somehow works for their special pale kids, but it doesn’t work for those blighted duskier kids over yonder?

Preschool works great, except when it’s called Head Start, and then it doesn’t work at all and is a failed program that needs to be eliminated. I suppose they could craft an argument that Head Start works great for kids from moneyed backgrounds, but it fails for those darker Brown and Black kids, I guess because those kids are too inferior to make use of it or something.

It’s all nonsense. Preschool works. Preschool works for moneyed and lighter skinned kids when it’s called preschool. It works, apparently just as well, for poorer and darker kids when it’s called Head Start.

The argument against Head Start lies demolished before we even get to the studies. It’s dead before it’s even left the starting gate. It failed even as a hypothesis.

But just for the sake of shooting fish in a barrel, let’s look at the figures for Head Start:

Granted the grandiose claims of its supporters when Head Start was begun have not panned, but so what?

How about if we judge the program on one and only one variable? Is it cost-effective.

The kids who go through Head Start don’t end up Rhodes Scholars, but they end up better on many different variables. Less mental retardation (under 70 IQ), more high school graduation, lower arrest rates, and welfare use. In fact many studies have shown that Head Start is actually cost-effective and cheaper than no Head Start. It’s not a miracle cure, but it’s worth the money economically.

No Child Left Behind was a rightwing plot to destroy our public schools. Bush required public schools to improve their scores each and every year into eternity! Seriously. If not, there were serious punishments funding-wise.

Well, of course this is not possible, so much test faking and cheating ensued, for which I don’t blame them. My family were children of the US public schools. I do not look kindly on rightwing attempts to destroy our public schools that so many good White kids literally depend on. It’s viciously anti-White.

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

What Are the Effects of the Mulattoization of a Black Population?

Following from Jason’s piece here:

Who care if low morals, unattractive White women have sex with Black men? I mean we are going to have unattractive and low morals White women no matter what. Does it matter that they are screwing Blacks?

I get pummeled for saying this, but there may be advantages to mulatto or mixed race children.

They are much more intelligent than full Blacks. Mulattos have IQ’s of 93.5, and full Blacks have IQ’s of 87.

I am not sure if they act better behaviorally. There is some evidence that the young ones act worse because they don’t fit in with either group. Two of the worst gang members in my complex with mixed race young men, one White-Black mixed, the other Hispanic-Black mixed.

Also Latin America, which has a high number of mixed race people, has one of the highest crime rates on Earth. Countries such as Colombia, Panama, Venezuela, and Brazil have many people with mixed Black ancestry. The mix here is generally White-Black-Indian. Hugo Chavez was a mix like this. I think they are called Zambos, but that is pejorative.

Puerto Rico is the same and Puerto Ricans commit lots of crime. Puerto Ricans in fact are precisely 1/3 Black, 1/3 White and 1/3 Indian.

I just had a date with a 23 year old half-Black, half-Hispanic woman that was one of the worst dates of my life. I believe she was a female psychopath.

However, we don’t have to look far to find mulattos or light-skinned Blacks among the finest achieving Blacks in our country all the way back to George Washington Carver. Many of our finest Black intellectuals have quite a bit of White in them. You also find a lot of light-skinned Blacks among the top positions in society such as law, medicine and politics.

Although I discussed some mulattos who acted very bad, I don’t have to think very hard to find a lot of mixed race or mulatto people I have met who act exceptionally good. Many of them are completely outside of the low class – ghetto type culture, one of the major Black cultures. They are very common among middle class Blacks, and the young ones I have met typically act just like the other well-behaved young people in their environment.

Of course many dark-skinned Blacks are also part of the Black middle class, act quite good, and are quite intelligent.

Increased mulattoization of US Blacks would lead to continuing improvements in the group, with an increased number of Blacks moving into the Black middle class, and the ghetto culture possibly shrinking.

US Black intelligence would increase very slowly as measured by IQ.

We would see more Blacks in top fields such as law, medicine, academia and politics than we see now.

We would probably see more Black and mixed race people mixed in with the general population or living among Whites than we do now. Presumably these mixed race people would be less likely to be packed into ghetto Crime Manufacturing Enterprises than we do now.

Since Blacks act better when they are spread out through the population rather than being packed together in a  segregated group, this presumably would have a good effect. In other words, other than the obvious genetic effect, increased mulattoization would increase actual integration in US society, and integration of good for Black people.

Whether crime itself would go up or down is somewhat up in the air as Latin America shows that mixed race populations such as Black-White or Black-Indian-White can have some of the highest crime rates on Earth, even higher than full Black populations. When it comes to the causes of crime, there is a lot more than genes going on.

Alt Left: Insane SJW Definition Creep and the Cultural Left’s Grotesque Abuse of Language

Both Pharos and Eidolon have become the main portals for digital public scholarship on the Internet for White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. These sites are using words taken from the Greco-Roman world.

It’s an association that Bond and other scholars say they simply cannot abide, not least because far-right extremists have committed nearly three times as many acts of fatal terrorism in the United States over the previous 15 years as Islamist terrorists.

White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. Let’s look at the modern definition of those terms.

White supremacists: Someone who says “It’s ok to be White”, “I like my race, my White race”, “At the moment, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks”, “Whites commit 6X less crime than Blacks”, “The reason for a lot of anti-Black racism is the outsized amount of crime that Blacks cause.”

Those are all arguably true and a couple are simply justifiable opinions. Sentences 3, 4, and 5, although being true, are not particularly very nice things to say, so most decent people don’t talk about that.

I don’t like to talk about those things too much because I don’t think there is much we can do about any of them and they’re not likely to change. All talking about that stuff does is rile up non-Blacks and bring out a lot of hidden racism in them.

Also the non-Blacks who harp on those truths over and over are not motivated by scientific inquiry. Almost all of them are motivated by deep animus towards Black people. That’s why they keep harping on negative stuff about Blacks! Facts aren’t hate, but haters and racists can definitely abuse facts as part of their racist BS. But since when did observing facts become racist!?

Misogynists: “Women aren’t perfect.” Any criticism of women in any way, shape, or form means that you hate women. Supporting men’s rights. Disliking women who hate men which is what most feminists are. Using words like bitch and whore.

Anti-Semites: “Jews have a lot of power”, “Jews have a lot of money,” Jews have a lot of money and power and like to throw their weight around”, Jews like to play hardball and fight dirty”, “Jews are a lot more aggressive than most other ethnicities”, “A lot of Jews don’t like Gentiles”, “Israel is a shitty little country”, “I hate Israel”,

“A fair percentage of Jews have a dual loyalty issue, and this has always been a problem”. “Jews lead movements, particularly movements for social change”, “Israel is a racist country”, “Israel controls the entire US government when it comes to US Middle East foreign policy. It does this via massive campaign donations by US Jews to Congressional candidates”.

“Jews have a lot of power and control in Hollywood”, “Jews have a lot of power and control in the media.” And on and on.

Ethnonationalists: People who wish for the US to retain a White majority, as is their complete right. Furthermore, it is a legitimate political position, and it is not necessarily racist at all. While I don’t necessarily support this position, as I don’t care that the US is becoming increasingly non-White or even regard it as as good thing, it’s certainly not racist per se to have that view.

Your nation is like your home. You decide what the interior of your nation or home looks like, and you decide who gets to come into your nation or home to visit or stay.

Granted most folks with this position are openly and extremely racist, but you don’t have to be a racist to have this view. Just saying.

Oh by the way, Jews get to have an ethnonationalist state, and you’re an anti-Semite for objecting, but Whites can’t have a similar state that ensures a White majority? Israelis and White nationalists both want the same thing. They are both ethnic nationalists who wish to live in ethnonationalist states that guarantee a majority for a certain ethnicity.

By the way, I am not keen on ethnonationalism. It’s pretty horrible everywhere it rears its grotesque head, it seems to be invariably intertwined with some pretty serious racism, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle the hardcore racism from the ethnonationalism. The racism is a feature, not a bug.

Xenophobes: Anyone who wants any sort of immigration controls at our border at all, thinks illegal immigrants should be deported, believes in a points scheme for legal immigration, or thinks legal immigration is too high and wants to lower it.

Now I am not real wild about xenophobia, and true xenophobes tend to act pretty horrible towards anyone who’s not one of “the people”, but I don’t believe that merely wanting some immigration restrictions and opposing de facto Open Borders makes one a xenophobe.

I support all of the immigration restrictions listed above and I’m not xenophobe. Considering that I interact with non-Whites all day long every single day where I live, my life would be pretty unpleasant if I hadn’t made some sort of peace with non-White people.

I’m also okay with  legal immigrants. If you have a green card, good for you. If you are a naturalized citizen born overseas, good for you. I have known many good people in both categories recently.

What we see the SJW’s doing here is what I call the abuse of language. The Cultural Left has become expert at this and the correlating definition creep. For instance the definition of rape used to be fairly clear (“use of force of the threat of force” as my Mom used to sternly remind me).

Now the definition of rape expands by the day to the point where now it’s about as big as the Atlantic Ocean. You almost need to get updates on a daily basis to see how much the definition of rape expanded yesterday.

Rape is a serious matter. The feminized weaponization of the term as a nuclear weapon to shoot at the men they hate so much along with their concomitant trivialization of the term is grotesque in the former and profoundly unfair to the victims of the real deal rape in the latter, such real thing rape being unfortunately not rare.

The modern feminist definition of rape appears to be “any time a woman has sex when she doesn’t want to.”

This was precisely the definition of rape given by one of the doyens of modern feminism, Katharine McKinnon, the ultra-prude and manhater extreme who invented the concept of sexual harassment with her aider and abettor Andrea Dworkin, a hideous monstrous slug of a woman and one of the worst manhating feminist dykes that ever slithered upon the Earth and befouled its surface with her slime.

Alt Left: How Chinese See Underclass Blacks

There is little crime or bad behavior in orderly, polite Chinese society of the sort that is commonplace in the Black underclass.

In particular, the habit of many Black men of fathering multiple children all with different women and then refusing to support any of them would outage and offend any decent Chinese man to the core. That’s the ultimate non-Confucian behavior. A proper Chinese man would say that those Black men who do that are barely even human. Instead, they are akin to stray dogs that roam our streets.

Because, the Chinese man would say, that’s what an animal, especially a dog, does. A male stray dog pretty much runs around screwing any available hotted up bitch while of course refusing to support or even acknowledge the offspring.

The Chinese man would say that this is one of the things that distinguishes man from the lower animals. Male humans pair bond with one female human and the male and female human together raise any children they have for nigh unto 20 years, sacrificing much along the way.

Alt Left: Blacks: An Anatomy of a Half-Civilized People

When we talk about the amorality, uncivilized, antisocial or criminal behavior of various groups of people, we need to differentiate between white collar crime or controlled crime and the uncontrolled, chaotic nature of street crime.

After all, when I am walking down a dark street late at night in a bad neighborhood and I see a man in a suit and tie following me, I don’t suddenly think with terror, “Oh no! That guys about to commit a health and safetly violation!” Even if he’s a white collar crook, he will probably leave me alone, at least tonight on this street for sure.

But if I see a young, typical dead-eyed underclass or ghetto Black following me at the same time and place, I will be most alarmed. While it’s not true that he is sure to be dangerous, the likelihood of him being dangerous to me is much more than 0%.

While both Asians and Jews have reputations for being white collar crooks, neither race engages in much of the savagery and barbarity of street crime. On the other hand, sadly, many Blacks still do act this way.

Blacks are a half-civilized people. When I say that I do not mean insultingly that most if not all Blacks are only halfway civilized. Anyone with eyes and ears can figure out that that’s not so. Instead they are half-civilized in that maybe half of them are quite civilized in the Western sense (the American Black middle class), while the other half is still quite savage and barbarous (the underclass), though even they have calmed down and gotten a lot more civilized in the last 150 years.

We succeeded at civilizing maybe half of them, the middle class half, while the other half are still pretty savage and barbarous, especially when they are young and male. However, Blacks, even the worst Black men, tend to mellow out and become more civilized as they get older.

Even the half of the Blacks that are uncivilized are still much more civilized and less barbarous and savage than they were 150 years ago before the civilizing effort. I think US Blacks are more civilized than Caribbean Blacks, and African Blacks are still quite barbarous and savage. Nevertheless, even African Blacks have become much less barbarous and savage than they were 150 years. This is probably due to colonialism, though I hate to credit such an amoral institution.

Alt Left: Book Review: “The Negro in Jamaica: : Read before the Anthropological Society of London, February 1, 1866, at St. James’s Hall, London”

Book Review: The Negro in Jamaica: Read before the Anthropological Society of London, February 1, 1866, at St. James’s Hall, London, by Bedford Pim. 1868. London: Trubner & Company.

Great for the first half, the second half is rather boring. It concerns a report to a British anthropological society about the uprisings of the Blacks in Jamaica in the 1800’s when it was a British colony. The portrayal of Blacks here is not complementary at all, and it would be called racist in modern terms.

However, this portrayal is not racist at all. I believe it was simply observational with keen eye of objectivity. The Black man in the Caribbean and in Africa for that matter was a forlorn specimen, barbarous and savage in the worst possible way.

I will briefly add that the book is racist in the way it patronizingly defends colonialism and says the Blacks of Jamaica were not mistreated when obviously they were. The report also says that Blacks cannot govern themselves, which is dubious.  They can govern themselves. Not very well, but they can do it. They do it in the Caribbean, in Africa and even in large US cities. The only solution to this problem then was that Blacks should be put under permanent supervision of Whites until they had gradually become civilized.

By the way, this was also the colonially stated beneficent rationale for apartheid. For all I know, they may have been honest about it. South African Whites felt that Blacks had to be held under apartheid bondage until such time as they had achieved civilization enough to live on equal terms with Whites.

Be that as it may, apartheid was still immoral and had to be done away. Why? Because it was simply the right thing to do and for no other reason. The fact that South Africa has gone seriously downhill under Black rule is irrelevant. Humans have a right to self-rule, and whether they do so well or not so well is strictly up to them.

The solution advocated in this book is to continue to bring Blacks from Africa and work them on five year contracts for White plantation owners, after which they would be returned to Africa. One cannot help but notice that the endless insistence here that the Black man cannot rule himself just so happens to provide a rationale for Britain to retain the colonial possession of Jamaica. Wink win.

Although of course you can see shadows of this barbarous behavior in modern day Africa, the Caribbean and the US Black underclass, what is shocking is the growth of the Black middle class since the Civil Rights era and how they do not resemble the degraded race portrayed here in any way, shape, or form. A large percentage of the Blacks have become, in a word, civilized. The problem was not so much genetic or biological as cultural.

Via exposure to White society over 150+ years, a large percentage of Blacks, the Black middle class, have become civilized people. They bear no resemblance to the barbarous brutes in this book at all. One would be shocked if they were told that they were of the same race. Indeed the difference is so profound that the only sane conclusion is that we are talking about two different races, which is of course not true.

The message here is that integration is the way to go. The deficiencies of Blacks are not so much biological as cultural. All Blacks needed was the guiding hand of the civilizing impulse, as is the case with so many other human groups.

The other message is that White people are good for Blacks. I should amend this to say that good White people are good for Blacks. Obviously, White slavers or enforcers of Jim Crow in the US and elsewhere in the Americas was not good for Blacks, athough this book tries to make the case that it is.

It’s good for Blacks to mix with good, decent Whites or even to marry with said Whites. Left on their own to congregate in large cities, they act like crabs in a barrel, pulling down anyone who tries to escape and driving each other down to the lowest common denominator in a race for the bottom behaviorally. Large groups of Black people don’t seem to work. Blacks act best as a rather small minority, 20% or less, in a larger group of Whites, Hispanics, or Asians.

The Blacks don’t have any numbers, so they don’t influence each other much. Further, the same Blacks who would obviously degrade quickly in the hood do much better when integrated, as they try to mimic the behavior of the races around them, races which tend to set the bar higher behaviorally.

Integration works. The way to ameliorate the Black problem in the US or any other land is to thoroughly mix them in small numbers with Whites, Hispanics or Asians. This brings out the best in the Blacks. It’s good for us, for them, and for society. Everyone wins.

Integration today, integration tomorrow, integration forever!

Alt Left: A Black a Block Works

First of all this whole rather offensive “a Black a block” theory only applies to low class or ghetto Blacks who are causing all the problems. The middle class Blacks get furious every time I bring up this theory, but I’ve got some news for you: We aren’t talking about you! You are not part of the Black a block theory. We don’t think middle class Blacks need to be spread out in order to act more civilized. They already act ok as it is.

Sam: “A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em!”

This has already been tried and shown to fail. The study of this was done in Memphis Tennessee. They tore down the public housing and everyone went to Section 8. Everywhere they moved crime followed them.

Your comment is not correct. Yes crime went up in the areas they moved to but they followed the Blacks from public housing to the new neighborhoods and they did act somewhat better in the new places. They committed somewhat less crime in the new places than they did in public housing, so it was a net win for society.

In fairness to the idea that spread out they are not so bad we should note that they did seem to cluster on section 8 but it was because there was only so much lower cost housing.

So they weren’t really spreading them out so much after all.

Sam: This plague of black criminals was of course was foisted on poor Whites by the rich.

If Black crime goes up in White areas but goes down overall, is it worth it? I argue that it is. It doesn’t particularly matter where Blacks commit their crime, and 90% of the victims of Black violent crime are other Blacks anyway. I argue that if Black crime goes up in White areas it is still worth it because Black crime went down overall. We want the lower class Black crime rate going down. It doesn’t particularly matter where they commit their crimes. As long at the rate goes down, it’s all good.

Sam: The real solution is to build mass high rise housing projects. The basic idea is sort of like what they had in the Soviet Union but refined. With mass production they could very low cost.

They already tried that. Google Cabrini Green. It didn’t seem to work. Crime was very high in those high rise projects for whatever reason. There was a theory for a while that there was more crime in the high rises and the idea was to spread them out to one or two stories. Not sure how it worked as public housing in Watts such as Nickerson Gardens (puns anticipated) is very low-rise like that, and those places are Hell.

“A Black a Block, Spread ‘Em Out and Civilize ‘Em!”

Jason Y writes:

Towns full of low class Whites are not ruined, but they’re full of swindler types, thieves. Also, they’re full of drug addiction (pain pills specifically).

But you can live there. But you don’t want to get too close to many of them, and you need security.

Hispanic neighborhoods are much the same. They’re not wrecked at all really, and you can absolutely live there. Maybe you will think they are not much fun, but no man ever died of boredom.

But Hispanic neighborhoods are full of lousy human beings, not all Hispanics. There are some ghetto Blacks there too, and they are pretty lousy. The lousy Hispanics will generally leave you alone, which peace you won’t get in a ruined Black city. As long as you don’t make friends with them, you are ok.

Even the ghetto Blacks act far better in my city than they would in your typical ruined Black hellhole. That is because they don’t have any numbers, so that right there makes them act a lot better for some reason. They are still absolutely ghetto Blacks with all that that implies, but these ghetto Blacks are far better behaved than the ones in Detroit or whatever.

The reason is that when ghetto Blacks are only a small minority, they don’t ruin places and they act a lot better. The Hispanics and Whites here act a lot better than ghetto Blacks, so perhaps being around folks who act better causes these ghetto Blacks to improve their behavior via good examples the way the Talented Tenth used to provide good examples for behavior and hold down the fort in Black neighborhoods of yore.

Also for some other reasons they tend to act better. Perhaps they feel completely outnumbered, so they get a lot less bold and try to constrain their behavior due to fear. Any bad behavior gets their asses called out way more around here than in Baltimore. Whatever the reason, small populations of Blacks of any kind don’t seem to cause a lot of mess. They still cause problems, don’t get me wrong. But they don’t cause mayhem, which is what they do in Newark.

Avram Davidson was a well-known science fiction writer. You can look him up on Wikipedia if you wish. He was a friend of my fathers. He was my friend too. I knew him quite well. He was an Orthodox Jew but I hate to admit that he didn’t like Blacks. Part of it was due to fear. He was terrified of ghetto Blacks especially in his old age, which is a reasonable fear.

He used to say, “A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em!” It sounds nasty but there’s a decent argument to be made. Arguments are not bad because they have an ugly sound. Ugly noises never hurt anyone, and hurting feelings doesn’t count, snowflakes. Arguments are bad is they produce ugly outcomes. And this argument does not produce an ugly outcome.

I understand that Portugal, 4% Black, did just this, and concentrated on spreading Blacks out and not letting them congregate in huge numbers in any one place, which, upper and upper middle class Black neighborhoods aside, just seems to bring out the worst in Black people. If it works, do it. Who cares about people’s petty feelings? You don’t refuse to engage in a good project because a few babies are going to get their feelings hurt.

And yes, a Black tipping point exists. This is good for a couple of reasons. First it shows that even ghetto Blacks are not horrible per se. They are only bad when they concentrate in large numbers and start dragging each other down like crabs in a barrel. Like all human beings, they imitate other humans for good and for ill, and they are indeed capable of imitating others for good and acting better.

Second, even ghetto Blacks are not genetically doomed to horrific behavior. Even if there is a genetic component to ghetto Blacks’ acting lousy, genes are never the whole story. Environment effects human behavior too, and a better environment improves outcome of even people who may have a genetic tendency to cause problems.

Indeed, in some cases a superenvironment might even completely wipe out a genetic tendency to act bad. This is how we have African tribes of 1 million population where Blacks literally turn into Japanese people, something I always said was impossible. But superenvironments are hard to create.

Back to the tipping point. I looked into it, and it’s 20%. Detroit was fine with a small Black population. I did the research. As long as the Black population of Detroit stayed below 20%, there were few if any noticeable problems, and it was still a decent place to live. I noted that at 20% things started to decline, and the decline accelerated as the Black population increased.

The increase and behavioral decline also drives out Whites and probably better behaved Blacks who might otherwise constrain these people’s bad behavior by example or negative reinforcement. So the decline accelerates.

Not only do people who previously acted pretty good start acting worse and worse, but as the city declines, the better behaved folks of any race start taking off. Of course this makes everything all the worse, as these better behaved folks were holding down the fort so to speak.

Although this Black a Block argument sounds too awful to implement, nations have already done so, and we are already doing so right here in the US.

Under the Obama Administration, liberals at Housing and Urban Development (HUD) employed precisely this argument when they started getting rid of housing projects and instead giving ghetto Black residents vouchers to go anywhere they wanted to. Many took the opportunity to move to better neighborhoods which were often Whiter. Of course this caused a huge backlash because crime did go up in those neighborhoods as ghetto Blacks moved in.

However, a curious thing happened. Those ghetto Blacks who previously lived in projects in concentrations of poorly behaved people indeed started acting better when they were shifted out to White neighborhoods and sprinkled around. They did not act dramatically better but they did act somewhat better. And whatever people say about the crime rate, these ghetto Blacks’ crime rate indeed went down.

So the Cultural Left can scream all they want that A Black a Block is an evil racist theory or project. But the thing is, it’s already being implemented. And the people who are implementing are very liberal and progressive people of various races, including very liberal Black people.

And regardless of its ugly name, the project works. It’s better for ghetto Blacks and it’s better for society as a whole. One wonders why SJW’s would object to a project that improves ghetto Blacks, everyone else, and society but these people are hung up on words and feelings, not results. And that’s called having bad priorities.

One more reason why SJW’s suck.

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.

“Blacks Couldn’t Even Build a Boat to Madagascar”

The title is very misleading. There is a theory put out by White nationalists that Blacks could not even build a boat to get to Madagascar. Yet is appears that they did just that. Very short. Download as pdf for best experience.

Blacks Couldn’t Even Build a Boat to Madagascar

Racism in Latin America, with an Emphasis on Anti-Black Racism

Tulio: It seems the Latin America right is mostly dominated by whites. I yet to see many dark brown Amerindian leaders of right wing movements in Latin America. They seem to be all people of European descent.

Yep. White people act pretty horrific down there.
I know you don’t like Chavez, but he is the hero of the Blacks and Browns down there. The opposition is mostly White and light-skinned. During the recent rioting, the opposition attacked some Black Venezuelans on the assumption that they were Chavez supporters and set them on fire in the streets.
The Opposition habitually called Chavez a mono or a monkey. He was a zambo, a mixture of Black, White, Indian. This mixture is pretty common in Venezuela, Colombia and Panama. I have read interviews with members of the opposition. One was an unmarried White upper class man in his late 20’s who lived at home. He said he felt so insulted every time he saw Chavez because it was like his people (upper middle class Whites) were being ruled by their maids and gardeners. The idea that this proud White man should be ruled by his inferiors was infuriating.
Peru is an extremely racist society. Now it’s mostly against the Indians, it’s true. They hardly have any Blacks. There was recently a case of a beautiful Black woman who tried to get into an exclusive nightclub in the wealthy Miramar District of Lima and she was turned away at the door. I guess they had a “No Blacks” policy.
Chile is incredibly racist against Indians, and they are supposedly one of the most progressive countries down there. I had a friend whose father had worked in Allende’s administration. He was a sociology major and he was doing some work with the Mapuche Indians who  live in the South. But his racism against those Indians was off the charts. Chileans are extremely racist Peruvians, and most of it is wrapped around the idea that Peruvians have much more Indian blood than the Chileans do, though the average White Chilean is ~25% Indian.
I’m not sure how racist things are in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia or Brazil. Some people say that Colombian Whites are extremely racist against Blacks, but others said it’s not the case.
Actually in Latin America there is the phenomenon of social race. A wealthy Latin American told me that even Black Latin Americans can be completely accepted in wealthy White circles if they only have enough money.
This phenomenon is called social race. It is especially prominent in places like Brazil. So a wealthy Black Brazilian can be effectively “White” and a poor White in a favela (there are many Whites in favelas) is effectively Black or mixed race (a wigger).
Racism is forbidden by law in Brazil but it still exists. I think there was a case recently where a White woman was in an elevator and she would not let a Black person in the elevator with her. It generated a lot of controversy. Nevertheless, there is a racial hierarchy. White women are regarded as wives and mothers but not so much as sex objects. In fact, they are too pure for that. Black women are regarded as unattractive. Their only use is maybe to be your maid. However, mixed race mulatta women are the most highly prized of all, and even White men see them as the sexiest women of all. They are sexualized as sex objects.
I had a White Brazilian woman who was my friend for a while. She mostly spoke Portuguese so it was hard to talk to her. I told her, “You try not to be racist against Blacks here, but it’s hard.” She agreed with me, and said, “Yes, I agree, we try not to be racist too, but it’s hard. We Whites have a saying here in Brazil, ‘If a Black doesn’t steal from you when he’s coming, he steals from you when he’s going.” In other words, if he doesn’t steal from you when he’s walking in the door, he will definitely steal from you when he is walking out the door. So even down there Blacks are regarded as thieves.
There’s not a lot of racism in the Caribbean because there are almost no Whites. However, the mulattos in Dominican Republic are extremely racist against the Blacks in Haiti. They still enslave them, for Chrissake.
Mexico, I am not sure, but in barrio culture here, low class Hispanics are much more racist against “mayate” Blacks than Whites are. The mestizos are openly racist, much more so than the Whites who probably think open racism is uncouth as Mexican Whites are very into being proper, mannered people. In there is open racism against Blacks in Mexico at least in the media. Further, the Mexican media is ~100% White. I have told Mexican-Americans that they are 4% Black and they don’t believe me. They also act a bit insulted. But it’s true. Every regular mestizo Mexican you meet is ~4% Black. The population just bred in with the Blacks and practically wiped them out except for a few around Veracruz. They simply bred them out of existence and everyone ended up with a bit of Black in them.

The Mysterious Incompetent Black Employee

Of course you can go on racist forums and see racists fomenting on and on about the incompetent Black employee, often offering examples of such. Fair enough. That’s their experience.
However, some of these stories didn’t have a whole lot behind them. Some just argued for a more relaxed style of working which doesn’t rise to the level of laziness unless you are a workaholic prig. There was also an idea that the employees could not wait to get out of the office at 5. But I worked at an office full of White and Amerindian employees who did the same thing. Once again this implies a more relaxed working style, which I for one don’t mind, as I am done with White workaholic bastards.
There are stories about coming in habitually late. My mother experienced a Black employee like that at the college she worked at. Her boss wanted to fire the woman but was stymied over union rules and fears of a discrimination lawsuit. You have to admit that being stymied from firing a lousy employee for reasons like that is disgusting.
I haven’t experienced much of the “incompetent Black employee.” Sure racists go on and on about it, but I have worked with significant numbers of Blacks over the years in many different occupations, and I saw very little evidence of this.
I worked in a medical coding office for a while, and we had some Blacks working there. Some even lived in the heart of the ghetto. They were all fine workers. Never saw any problems.
I worked as a security guard at one of the richest communities in the US. A young Black man worked with me. He was the “jolly Black” or easygoing Black guy type, but he did his job just fine. He was always happy and very friendly, and he had a lot of wisdom about life, including how to lead a less worried and stressed life.
Most of the rest of the jobs I worked at were in White communities, and there were only a few Blacks working there. The ones who worked there were just fine. I remember they fired a Black woman who worked night shift at my factory for no apparent reason other than to shove 16 hours of work on my swing shift. She was part of that ghetto culture, but she was basically a very good person. Many people who live in that culture are not bad people at all. This is what people don’t understand.
Of course I worked at jobs where they would not tolerate this nonsense anyway, so maybe I am looking at a self selected group.
Most of my experience was with Black educational professionals, both Black schoolteachers, Black administrators, and Blacks who worked in the district office. I saw almost no evidence of incompetence among any of these Black education professionals the entire time I worked in the field. And keep in mind that I worked in the heart of the ghetto in Compton and Gardena for a lot of that time. I met quite a few of these Black teachers and got to know some of them fairly well, especially the men. They were very nice people, and they were quite competent. I never got to know the women much for some reason.
I did work one day in Watts, and some Black kid stole my car battery. Some Black shop teacher helped me fix it. Things were extremely lax there and the students were almost completely useless, but even there I did not see evidence of incompetence among the Black school professionals. The administrators in Watts were mostly Black, and they were extremely laid back, relaxed, and easygoing. I didn’t see any incompetence and they were far less hard-ass than White administrators. The students were almost completely useless there anyway as I found in my joke of a day teaching, so why should the administrators care about much? They were keeping the ship going.
There was one Black teacher in Gardena who was apparently an alcoholic, and he showed movies all day. I suppose they had a hard time firing him for some reason. But he was so nice, friendly, happy go lucky, and easygoing that I almost didn’t even care that he was an alc. He was too pleasant of a person to hate.
Now you have to jump through a lot of educational and testing hoops to even do that job in the first in the first place, so maybe there is some self-selection.
I’m not saying there is nothing to the incompetent Black employee stereotype. I am simply suggesting that there is a lot less there than meets the eye. If it was omnipresent, I would have experienced it by now.
The way to deal with this problem to the extent it exists at all is to hold Black employees to the same high standards that you hold the rest of your employees. Fire them if they come in late all the time, screw off, or are incompetent. Hold the sword of firing over their heads at all times. Many Black adults, if held to high standards and demands and powerful threats of firing, will perform remarkably well on the job. Relaxed standards don’t help any race or group of people.

Black People Have to Act Better Than Whites to Get the Same Goodwill

Phil78: Funny thing is I just roamed through the posts of Irish Savant, a common name you’ll see in Alt Right Blogrolls. One of his “plans” is to be basically return African Americans to Second Class status due to their “pathologies” nudging on science.
The obvious problem here, even accepting this, is determining the degree of said setbacks, and often these are verified mainly with the Black population overall, not just crime statistics. That just captures how much they contribute and just generalize comments sprung from their intuition.
JAY is one who I’ve made familiar with my displeasure, same with others who I felt some confidence in even they wouldn’t go this far.
Going back to the Alt Right, the big problem here is that though the monolithic opinion is that these pathologies exist along with a contributing genetic link, it’s honestly a mishmash of what “they” want to do. It becomes one of those issues where the “Cucks” and “Betas” need to be sorted out if they are not gung-ho on 18th century solutions of deportation, eugenics, or removal of rights.
No matter how much you can point out the dangers this poses to the individualist positions many claim to hold, you’ll find many how either flip or just flat out reveal they couldn’t care less if it was authoritarian or “fascist”, White makes Right is the reduced maxim.
Racist: “Why can’t blacks be individuals, not defend thugs, be honest, and stop obsessing over ‘White supremacy’.”
Black Guy: “I don’t agree with your views, and I am openly offended as this attitude to why I conduct myself as I do. How can I be an individual when you set me to different standards beforehand and act like I’m wrong?”
Racist: “Fuck off, you hate Whites, brainwashed by Marxism, you are my enemy, and I want nothing to do with you. My people’s rights are all I care about, and you should be lucky to be in this country.”

You are held to a different standard though, aren’t you? I mean I have to act “X good” to get most people to say I am all right guy. But the Blacks on my site have to act much better than I do to get that same pass. I can act bad sometimes, throw tantrums, and do stupid or even sometimes evil shit, and it’s ok, Bob’s just human, he’s good most of the time.
So I have to act X Good, and you all have to act much better than that – “X+5 Good”, in order to get the same pass as I do.
I mean if Tulio wants people to say he’s an ok guy, just as ok as Bob, he has to act much better than I do to get that same break, right? Tulio can hardly even risk a tantrum. Hell, he has to watch raising his voice. The slightest misbehavior and it’s 100% evidence of his inner nigger coming out.
Jesus man, what a burden.

The Lie of the Incompetent Black Affirmative Action Professional

The racist argument – which I just saw again on Niggermania today (as I said you need to know what your enemies believe) – is that due to affirmative action and whatnot (which is a racist White Whale that barely exists anymore anyway), Blacks are held to a lower standard.

Well, they’re Black, so we don’t expect much of them, so we will pass them with lower grades than the Whites, and we won’t expect as much of them at work, we will not expect them to do as much work. and we will let them get away with more bad behavior.

I have no idea how true this is. Yes, some law schools do lower standards for Blacks at admission, but there’s no evidence that they grade Blacks at a different standards than Whites. Even if they can fudge a bit to get them in, Blacks in professional schools still have to do just as good as Whites to pass in class. No one’s cutting them any slack on law or med schools, at least not yet.
And if the Blacks really can’t cut it because they slid in on lowered affirmative action standards, they will flunk out anyway, especially at a place like Berkeley. So the lowered standards in a sense are a non-problem. A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing if you will.
And even if they somehow do not flunk out, they still have to pass the bar. If a Black gets admitted to law school and graduates and then somehow passes the damned bar, they’re competent. It doesn’t matter whether standards got lowered for them to get in or not. The Bar doesn’t believe in affirmative action, at least not yet.
Medical school is the same thing. Ok, they lower standards of admittance, but 35% drop out anyway, and 7% out and out flunk out. So if they were admitting unqualified people, they will bomb out one way or another anyway. And if they do graduate, now they have to pass their boards. Boards don’t believe in affirmative action or not yet anyway.
Tests like the Bar and the Medical Boards are the Great Equalizers. If a Black person can get through law or medical school and pass the bar or their boards, Jesus Christ, how bad of an attorney or physician could they possibly be?
The Bar and the Boards are so difficult that they make it so that anyone who miraculously passes them is absolutely qualified at a minimal level to practice law or medicine. So the idea of all these incompetent Black  professionals everywhere that the racists bring up doesn’t pass the smell test. There simply cannot be lots of incompetent Black professionals as long as they have to pass murderous tests to get the job, and the workplace holds them to high standards.
The notion of the incompetent Black professional affirmative action hire lies in the dust.

Anti-Black Racism Limits the Freedom of Black People by Holding Them to a Different Standard Than Whites

Christopher Donnellan: No, you’re wrong. ‘Racists’ see that that patterns of behavior or traits tend to predominate within certain groups. Such behavior is the result of many factors, including genetics, which you seem to play down or disregard. As with humans, there are always individual exceptions to such factors, but its important to keep such things in proper perspective.

There’s no good reason to put it in quotes. The term exists although it is horribly abused. I assure you that there are definitely still humans here in the US who more or less out and out hate Black people. That means they are racists, not “racists.” Now you can argue about whether or not their racism is a valid belief. Believe it or not that’s what I am trying to do here.
The behaviors don’t predominate in Blacks. None of them do. They’re much more common, but they don’t predominate.
And the exceptions are more than individual. In the case of Blacks, most of the behaviors we really dislike are probably displayed for the most part only by a minority of the group.
Sometimes I think that it is even a minority of low class ghetto type Blacks who act bad. We have some around here and while they are caught up in that culture, I can’t say that they are bad people at all. They don’t engage in any of that frightful rudeness, manipulative, using, callous or inconsiderable behavior that so infuriates me. I am friends with some of them, and I struggle to see how there’s anything terrible about them. Now granted these are all Black women, and most are young Black women.
I am getting my information on anti-Black racists and what motivates their hatred from Black humor sites like Chimpmania and Niggermania. Those are not White nationalists. Those are everyday folks who hate Blacks, and I mean hate them. I especially look at the Introductions pages and the unfortunately named Coontacts, in which members discuss recent encounters with Blacks and why they were horrible or evidence of reasons why Blacks should be hated.
I don’t want to read the other sections although I have to admit that those people are pretty damn funny sometimes. I went there the other day with this notion of, “Ew yuck! These people are horrible, nasty evil racists! I’ll have to take a shower after I leave this site!” That should inoculate me against the jokes, but even that didn’t work. I still found myself laughing even though I didn’t want to.
Fair’s fair. I would say that if Black people set up a White-bashing site to make fun of us, I might go to it. It might be painful to read, but funny is funny. Paul Mooney rips White people a hundred ways from Sunday, and I can’t stop laughing at his shtick. One some level, funny’s funny.
It’s important to read sections like that on those sites because those people are flat out stating why they hate Black people. Shouldn’t Black people know what motivates racists? The argument is no, racists are crazy and evil, why do I care about why they hate me? But does that argument really make sense? And if antiracists get the reasons why racists hate Blacks completely wrong, how can they possibly due battle against something they completely misunderstand?
Those people are not flat out evil like Stormfront and Daily Stormer, and that’s part of the problem. They’re not filled with hate like those people. You read their introductions and most are just like the regular people I grew up with. And they’re not all White. Quite a few are South Indians, Hispanics, and Asians.
It’s rather sad that Black people are hated pretty consistently across the board by quite a few people of a number of races. That’s also alarming. If it was just one race, you could say there’s something wrong with that group of people. But when you see all sorts of races and nationalities disliking them, you can’t say that anymore. The reasons the different races give for disliking Blacks are all pretty much the same.
Most have little to do with the way Black people look or certainly the color of their skin. I have seen Blacks say that they are hated because of the color of their skin. That’s not really true. That White person is not saying

Ew your Black skin is ugly. I am going to throw a bottle at you because your skin color is so ugly.

I mean maybe a few think that but not most. Instead they are probably thinking

I have had a lot of contacts with people of this skin color (who are part of a certain race). These contacts were not pleasant and I thought these people acted pretty bad. Here you are, and your skin shows you are part of that group I had unpleasant interactions with. I assume that you act bad just like they do.

But notice that that Black guy you are throwing a bottle at – you haven’t even met him! You don’t have the faintest idea of what sort of a person he is. Sure you the bottle thrower are making up a fake theory about the whole race being bad, so that means this guy you heave a bottle at is bad too because that’s the only way you can justify throwing that damned bottle. But as I have pointed out, that theory is completely erroneous. We can shoot it down right at the hypothesis stage. We don’t even have to bother to test it out.
As I pointed out in another post, this is a cognitive error because even if you can produce evidence that a lot of Blacks act bad, it’s not all of them, and I don’t even think it’s most of them. It’s a minority, but it’s a large majority, and their bad behavior tends to be worse than the bad behavior of other races. I once said that Blacks have six times more bad actors than Whites and the bad actors tend to act six times worse than White bad actors. I don’t know if it’s true, but that’s my impression. Still it’s wrong to hate the whole group because of the behaviors of a minority. It’s irrational and according to Moral Philosophy, it’s a moral error – it’s immoral. So it’s both crazy and wrong. 
Thing is no one wants to say, “I hate Black people because 40% of them act bad.”
That starts to twist your mind in a lot of weird ways and causes a lot of cognitive conflict.
On those Black humor sites, all of them say that all Blacks are bad. Even they can figure out that a lot of Blacks are not obviously bad and seem just like anyone else, so this belief is automatically in jeopardy. So they come up with the Magic Negro Theory to explain how these seemingly good ones are really just niggers deep down inside too, one blowup away from having their niggertude manifested by some TNB.
This is of course wrong. Even if there are genetic links to Black pathologies, it’s not going to affect all of them because Black genes are extremely variable.
If you plot these behaviors on a graph, it will look like a scatterplot. If you plot Whites doing these behaviors on a graph, you will get another scatterplot.
I’ve never done this, but I assure for any “Black” behavior, you are going to get all sorts of overlap. First, not all will display it or to the same degree. Also there will be a lot of overlap and quite a few Whites will display this “Black” behavior.
If you look at the White graph, it will be skewed towards the better behavior, but even here you will have a vast number of Blacks, perhaps the majority, over there in the White plot acting more or less fine, just like White folks. So there is no “Black” behavior. There is no “White” behavior. There’s simply human behavior, some of which we label good and other of which we label bad, with plenty of folks in either race in both the good and bad sides of the plot. If there is no “Black” behavior, then there is no “inner nigger” waiting to manifest itself. There is no “Black essence” of Black people other than rather obvious things about skin color and whatnot.
One more thing about the Magic Negro Theory is confirmation bias. What does this inner nigger behavior look like? No one knows as it is undefinable.
So Tulio and Greg pretty much can’t have a temper tantrum, can’t blow up, scream, yell and throw stuff around. I have no idea if they do that, but I doubt if they act perfect all the time. The problem is that I do things like that too, to this very day even. Every single White person I know throws wild tantrums which the racists call chimpouts. But see, when I throw my tantrum, I’m just Bob, a White guy who’s lamentably losing it for a moment, though it’s probably for a good reason because I know Bob and he doesn’t blow up lightly. No one would say I am accessing some inferior inner core when I do that. If asked, a racist would just say,  “No, Bob’s not chimping out. He’s just throwing a tantrum. Humans do that, you know.”
But see, people like Alpha and Malik are actually limited in their behaviors. I can throw tantrums and probably do all sorts of stupid shit without it being a manifestation of my inferiority. People will just say I am acting human, and humans sometimes act bad.
But the Blacks on my site don’t have that freedom. If Phil blows up exactly like I did, even copying my behaviors to a T, he’s not just acting like a human, and hey, humans do that. What’s happening when Phil does that is that even though Phil acts great most of the time, this tantrum is an example of his “inner nigger” essence manifesting itself. So Phil’s a Magic Negro and he’s really just a nigger like all the rest of them after all. He just hides it well. But you still can’t trust being around him because you never know when that inner nigger is going to come out. Better play it safe and only hang with Whites.
Alpha has told me that she deliberately monitors her behavior due to anti-Black racism. She deliberately tries to keep her anger toned down. I know her and she’s not a very angry human anyway, especially for a Black person, as they do tend to be angrier. I’m probably angrier than she is. She told me once that when she blows up and loses it, it’s a lot more problematic for her than it is for me. She told me that if she blows up, people will look at her and say, “Well she’s just a nigger anyway.”
Now it’s good if anyone acts better for any reason, and if this racist bullshit makes Alpha act less angry, I  suppose that’s good. But she’s also less free. She’s being held to another standard. I can blow up and be human, but if Alpha blows up, it’s proof she’s a nigger.
Just look at that theory for a second. I don’t even have to test it out to see that it’s wrong. When Alpha blows up, if she does, the truth is she’s just being human, just like me. For a human, she’s rather calm anyway, even compared to most Whites. There is no inner nigger. There are no Magic Negroes whose good behavior is only covering for their inner nigger hiding down inside. It’s bullshit.
But it’s interesting that the racists are bothered by hating an entire race if only 30% of 40% act pretty bad. Their mind is saying, “What about the other 70%?!” This upsets their conscience so much that they decide against all evidence that 90% of Blacks act bad. They need to say this in order to hate the whole group!
But it’s interesting that this still nags at their consciences and this is a reason why I say most racists are not stone evil psychopaths. Instead they are more or less good, decent people with morals, guilt and consciences, who unfortunately have taken a stroll down an immoral path. As I said earlier, stone evil psychopaths don’t have consciences, guilt, and morals.
Antiracists portray all anti-Black racists as stone evil literal psychopaths, literally Hitler if you will. Not only is it not true but it’s bad politics. Call someone evil and they will get their back up. Call a basically good person evil, and he will really get his back up. Call a racist evil, and this lie will make his back rise, and he will probably react by doubling down on his racism.
The way to reduce racism is to appeal to the humanity and basic decency of racists. It starts by saying they are not the evil people, and we are not the good people. They’re people just like us, with morals, guilt, consciences, the whole nine yards. They’ve gotten off on a crazy and immoral racist mindset, yes, but nobody’s perfect, and the fact that they still have morals, guilt and consciences means that you can theoretically pull them out of it.
Furthermore, there’s nothing to be gained by saying your enemies are something they are not. I remember a famous general in a war had photos of the general on the other side all over his desk, staring at him every day.  People asked him why he did that, and he said he wanted to know his enemy.
People asked him if he hated the other general and he said, oh no, he had tremendous respect for him. He was just another man just like me, the general said. He simply had the misfortune of being on the other side. It’s hard to defeat an enemy if you don’t even understand them at a basic level. It’s even harder to deal with enemies if you don’t have the faintest reason why they hate you or if you have the reasons why they hate you entirely wrong. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer is the dictum.

A Look at the Mind of the Anti-Black Racist: The "Magic Negro" Theory

A lot of them do admit that some Black people seem good. They call these the magic niggers or magic Negroes. It’s 10%. The good Blacks on this site like Tulio would be called magic niggers because he appears like a good guy. But then would say that Tulio is still a nigger deep down inside, and sooner or later something will happen, and his lousy inner nigger will come out. I don’t believe that Tulio or the other Blacks on here have some lousy nigger inside of them. They’re just people like or me. There is no lousy “nigger essence” inside of every Black person. It’s nonsense, and even worse, it’s immoral nonsense.
But you see even these racists can figure out that some Blacks (they underestimate 10%) act good. This shows that not only are they moral, but they are also sane. To look at all Black people and decide they are all lousy stretches the credulity of the sane mind. This violates their theory so they have to explain it. They come up with the Magic Nigger Theory. This states that no matter how good they seem, magic niggers still have that awful Black nigger essence inside of them like all of their race, and sooner or later it will come out.
The Magic Nigger Theory allows them to accommodate the fact that even they, since they are basically sane, can see that millions of Blacks seem to be just fine, while still allowing them to hate the whole race. If millions were just fine, then it would be a moral quandary to hate the whole race. What about the magic ones? Do you hate them too? Well, why? How can you?
They can’t, and they are decent enough to recognize this. So to assuage their guilty consciences, they come up with the Magic Nigger Theory that says that even the ones that act good are really just lousy niggers deep down inside, and sooner or later their lousy inner nigger nature will come out. The theory’s completely false, but it shows the lengths these people will go to try to mollify their obviously guilty consciences.
As long as we see racists are pure evil sociopaths and not simply regular moral people like you and me that have gone astray on some immoral belief system, we will never understand these people. Racists feel guilty about strolling down this immoral path as as they properly should, so they devise all sorts of fancy cognitive strategies to deal with their guilt.
And it’s important to note that if anti-Black racists were truly evil, they wouldn’t have any guilt in the first place. The fact that they feel guilty at all shows us that we are dealing with good folks who went astray rather than pure evil sociopaths.
If you want to fight racism, at first you need to understand your enemy. Anti-racists fail on this front by not even bothering to understand why racists feel the way they do and what sort of people racists are in the first place. The first dictum is always To know thine own self is the rule, but the second dictum ought to be about how important it is to know your enemies.

A Look at the Mind of the Anti-Black Racist

They have bad experiences with quite a few people of the race and then they just decide to hate the whole race. Anti-Black racists make a deliberate cognitive error. They say that all Blacks suck. They have to say this because when you are that racist, saying that 40% or even 90% of them suck and therefore you hate the whole group seems morally wrong. But if the whole groups sucks then even I would agree that you should hate all of them.
These people still have consciences. It would bother their consciences to hate the whole group if only 40% were bad. In order to clear their conscience, they say the whole group is bad, and now they can hate the group in good conscience.
Seeing racists as evil is an error. Most are not evil. If they were evil, they would not have guilty consciences. They are moral people with consciences like you and me, but they have taken on an immoral view, so they have to justify this to their own guilty consciences, and they jump through some moral hoops to do so.

Moral Philosophy: How Low Does a Culture Set the Bar as Far as Acceptable Behavior Goes?

Alpha Unit: Human beings are good at figuring out who they should defer to (or at least pretend to defer to) and who they can take advantage of. “Low class” people are probably very skilled at detecting weakness in other people, and once they know they can get away with treating you like crap, any respect they might have had for you takes a nosedive.

No problem. But then if I am such an obvious sucker or mark,  why don’t White people take advantage of me then? And I would argue that any culture that  habitually sizes up others to figure out if they are marks or not is frankly sociopathic. Because that’s exactly what sociopaths do? So I’m going to argue that this low class or ghetto Black culture is  somewhat sociopathic, certainly more sociopathic than White culture, even poor or working class White culture.
Sure, White people, no matter how low class, yes, treated me like that, but in general, they never stooped to those lows. This “take advantage of this person” idea seems to be rampant among this group of low class or ghetto Blacks as Tulio calls them. I haven’t seen it a lot among Whites. Whites don’t usually take advantage of me like that, and in White culture, even poor and working class White culture, there are extreme rules about politeness that disallow a lot of the manipulative behavior that those who take advantage of others engage in.
I mean I am not even talking crime here. I am talking very low level offenses more properly seen as politeness or manners violations. But even there, the differences between low class or ghetto Black culture and even low class White culture are stark and dramatic.
Low class or ghetto Black act pretty bad from a White person’s perspective. I am not going to say it’s genetic.
Let’s try culture.
White culture, even poor White culture, has deep and profound politeness, manners, and proper behavior rules that result in the White culture we White folks like.
I am looking at this low class or ghetto Black culture, and I am thinking that these people were raised in a permissive culture that set the bar way too low on behavior. They simply did not demand that these people behave in a proper manner. Proper manners and politeness rules were simply not instilled in them.
Now by saying this, I am hopeful. I suggesting that this behavior is not genetic but is instead caused by a crap culture that lacks proper rules for decent behavior. Obviously a culture that sets the bar far too low could theoretically be taught and teach their children and fellows to behave better. If you are going to argue that this culture has the same politeness and manners rules of proper behavior as White culture does, I am going to call bullshit. If they instill these same values in their kids as we do, why do the people in this culture act so awful? And what’s wrong with saying that this is a crap culture that needs to instill better rules about behavior? Is there something wrong with saying that? I mean it’s a modest proposal, right? We can’t even say that this is a culture that needs to shape up?

Why Typical Low Class Black Behavior Is So Offensive to White People

Tulio: To some degree all groups become defensive when their group is criticized by an outgroup. Especially an outgroup that they’ve had a long and bitter history with, And especially, especially if that outgroup spent centuries as their oppressor.

Think of it like this, would Palestinians trust criticism of Palestinian behavior coming from Jews? Would Sunnis trust criticism coming from Shias? Would Korean accept criticism coming from Japanese? Hell, even the left and the right in this country within the same race won’t listen to each other. A Trumpist does not want to hear criticism of his tribe from some west coast liberal far outside of his bubble. No matter how valid the criticism is they will plug their ears and deny it just the way you guys accuse blacks of doing when presented with facts and evidence.

Robert…question for you. What are some examples of bad black behavior that you feel the majority of blacks are guilty of?

You may find this hard to believe but I would say in general, nothing!

For Black women, I would say that far too many of them have a whorish, prostitute-type attitude towards sex to where they think there are price tags on the vaginas and they should charge men for every sex act. I am not even going to say this is genetic. I am going to pin it on Black culture having this permissive attitude towards prostitution to where this culture apparently thinks it is perfectly acceptable for Black women to be literal whores in one way or another. Now obviously many Black women don’t do this. Alpha doesn’t have this mindset at all. In fact, she has the opposite mindset. But far too many Black women do. And that would be my complaint about them right there – a whorish and transactional attitude towards heterosexual sex.

The majority? Tulio, it’s not even the majority! That’s the problem. It’s not so much that the majority of Blacks act bad! I doubt if the majority of Blacks do act bad. But it’s more that there is a minority of them who act bad and that minority is far too many of them.  There are just far too many people in this ethnic group who act bad compared to other groups. The high rate of bad behavior ends up making dealing with the group as a whole something of a minefield.
Of course there are plenty of Black people who act fine but there are so many bad actors that you have tread very carefully to sort out of the good from the bad, and it’s not completely obvious who is a good actor and who is a bad actor.  At some point one tires of walking through minefields sidestepping human landmines, and you start to think that the whole group is too much of a risk because of all the bad actors.
And if you are a like me, you mostly just don’t have much to do with Black people anymore. Of course I sympathize with them, I wish to help them, and I even work on their political campaigns where their demands are reasonable. My favorite group in Congress is the Black Congressional Caucus. I am on the mailing list for several Black political groups, and I am happy to participate in their campaigns. Overt racism and discrimination against Blacks in housing, jobs, voting, and so many other things outrages and infuriates me on a primal level, and I resolve to work to right these wrongs. But as far as dealing with the group, I often just think they are too much trouble and too risky to deal with, so I just opt out of dealing with them much. I’m willing to help them completely from a distance, but getting too close to them seems to risky.
The problem with Black people isn’t with the Black middle class, which is now quite large. I’m not aware that they act bad. In fact, the ones I knew, mostly schoolteachers, seem to act very good. Most Blacks I worked with were competent, friendly, good workers, and generally good, decent people. I haven’t seen much of the Black incompetence or slovenliness in the workplace that you hear so much about, but then Black schoolteachers and administrators are a pretty select group.
The problem is what Alpha calls the low class Blacks, who are more or less what we call ghetto people, even though most do not even live in the hood. Yet they have “hood” behaviors. We Whites hate most Blacks with that “hood” attitude, period! They’re infuriating, most simply because to us they are unspeakably rude. I am not even talking about crime or serious bad behavior. I am talking about very low level stuff, but these are such politeness violations for Whites that they send us through the roof.
Low class Blacks borrow money and never pay it back. They borrow very small sums like $5-25, and then never pay it back. In White culture, this is considered to be an outrage. In my complex here there was a young White man who was for all intents and purposes a complete wigger. He was poor and he lived with his Hispanic wife and their little kid. Now and again he borrowed some very small sums of money from money. He always paid me back! He told me, “This is how I was raised. You always pay back.” Sometimes it would take him a month or two to pay me back, but there he would be, two months later, at my door with $25 in his hand.
At my previous location I lived with poor and working class Whites. Now and then some of them borrowed money from me. One woman borrowed $25 and then paid it back a month later with interest! There was one White woman who was a very trashy person who had descended pretty low. She borrowed $5 from me and then never paid it back. That is considered horribly low in White culture. If it’s your last $5, you pay it back. With the Whites I hang out with, that White woman would be called a nigger.
We would essentially throw her out of the White race because one of the qualifications for being White is paying back when you borrow, especially small sums because they can be easily paid back. If you can’t do that, we say you’re not White anymore, and we will refer to you disparagingly as a nigger. Not even as a Black person. That’s too good for them. We call them niggers, which just means low class or ghetto Blacks of a particularly obnoxious type who we really despise. It’s not a word we use much because it seems like such an ugly word, but if there is a Black person who know and  really despise on a personal level, we will refer to them as that word. But at the same time, referring to the whole race with that word outrages us. It’s a grotesquerie, so backwards, hick, cracker and racist that it’s profoundly offensive.

Rudeness

The main problem is absolutely grotesque rudeness. This type of Black person is unspeakably rude. They are manipulative and they only show up at your house if they want to obviously use you for something. In White culture, that is grotesquely rude. A White person who did that, once again, would be considered a nigger and would be essentially evicted from the White race. You don’t get to be White automatically just because of the color of your skin. Whiteness is considered an honor and ideally it is something to be earned. You earn Whiteness by adhering to some rather stringent moral standards. If you can be decent enough to do that, then you are rewarded with Whiteness.

Violation of A Man’s Home Is His Castle Principle

They come into your house and immediately start pointing out stuff and saying, “Give me this” or “Give me that.” I can’t even put into words how rude that is! I’ve known thousands of Whites in my life, and no White person has ever been that rude! You can’t do that. A man’s home is his castle. You have no right to ask for anything in a man’s house. I believe you can request a glass of water, but you can’t really ask for anything else. If your host is drinking something, you may ask for some of what he is having, but you have to ask in a very kiss ass, submissive sort of way. And this type of Black, as soon as they set foot in the door, immediately demand that I give them a drink of whatever alcohol I had.
The one woman I knew who did this most of all was a former schoolteacher, and two of her daughters were at university. One graduated and the other was still in school. So she’s a middle class Black. But even she was horrifyingly rude. Alpha likes to claim she’s an outlier, but I didn’t get that impression. Instead it seemed that this was just typical behavior in her culture. I don’t think she’s all that different from the rest of her ilk. I have met others on her level, and they acted about as bad as she does.
As I said, I have never met one White person who has ever done that in my entire life. I asked around to my friends, and they said a lot of Black people do that. You invite them into your house, and they start saying, “Give me this,” or “Give me that.” Or they say, “Sell me this” or “Sell me that.” and then they offer far too low of a price. This is often done by a young Black male and is accompanied by a sense of menace. It’s basically a shakedown because he’s offering you way less money than the thing is worth.

Use of Seduction To Steal from You

A Black woman came up to me at the store and acted very seductive. She asked me to buy her a bottle of booze. I didn’t really want to, but I ended up buying her an $8 bottle of booze. The implication was that there would be something in it for me.
Then she wanted a ride. As I said, I wanted something out of it, so I tried to get my end of the deal. As I was driving, I tried to feel her tits, but she freaked out and kept knocking me hand away so it turned into a bit of a wrestling match. Fortunately the #metoo police were not called, and I did get to cop a feel. We got to her house and she pretty much ran inside. I felt like she completely ripped me off.
No White woman has ever done anything like that to me in my entire life. For a White woman to do something like that would be the lowest of the lowest of low behavior. It’s on the level of snails that crawl on the ground. That’s how low it is.
Even if a White woman stooped so low as to ask you to buy her a bottle, she would be expected to invite you in, share the bottle with you, and not necessarily have sex with you but maybe let you cop a feel or make out with you on the couch, something like that. There’s a sense of reciprocity with Whites. With Blacks like that, there’s no reciprocity, and often it just feels like an out and out ripoff. They more or less shamelessly steal petty amounts of money from people and never pay it back and it doesn’t bother their conscience one bit.

Abuse of Asking for Rides and Favors

The Black woman upstairs and her friend asked me a for a ride and then completely used me. They ignored me the whole time and talked in ghetto dialect which might as well have been Greek. They went inside some store and didn’t invite me and then left me in my car waiting for an hour. There was no sense that they imposed on me. I forget what happened but I think I finally just left, and they were furious. They also borrowed $5 which was never returned.
I later saw the neighbor’s friend out in front of the local market with another Black woman, both dressed up like prostitutes on a Saturday night. The neighbor herself was said to be a former call girl, and her former boyfriend was a pimp. Her current boyfriend beat her up on a regular basis. You could hear wild fights a lot, and the mother would come over and shout it out with the boyfriend. Later I heard he was in jail.

Pimping

One day parole officers came to the neighbor’s house looking for the neighbor’s boyfriend. The PO’s told me, “He’s just a pimp.” I have met two Black pimps since I moved here. Blacks are 4% of this town and 100% of the pimps. Those were two of the slimiest, sleaziest, oiliest men I have ever met. I’ve never heard of any non-Black pimps in this town.

Prostitution and General Whorish Attitude towards Sex

Although Blacks are only 4% of town, they make up ~75% of the streetwalkers. No Hispanic woman walks the streets here. Some whore but they do it in a very sly level that more akin to transactional dating. Or they operate out of bars in what also looks like transactional dating. It seems like no decent Hispanic woman would ever walk the streets. But these Black women walk the streets here utterly shamelessly without a care in the world, like there’s nothing wrong with it.
I met a number of Black women in dating sites, and over and over, they turned out to be prostitutes. Some even wanted to date, but they also did prostitution. Others wanted to trade me dirty pics for fancy clothing. I got quite a few offers to be a sugar daddy if I had the money. I can’t do it because I am broke. Maybe 75% of the sugar baby offers were from Black women. These were much more civilized and better acting Black women. Two were at university. Yet there was this same attitude that being a whore is a perfectly respectable thing to do.
I had a Black girlfriend once and she practically charged me every time I had sex with her. I almost wanted to leave a $20 bill on the bed stand after I was done. After a while, she cut off the sex, but she still charged me just to come over and talk to her. I always had to take her to dinner or brunch or whatever. She made more than I did, but I had to pay for everything. I told my White friends about her, and they said, “She was nothing but a whore.” This was a very respectable Black woman, dressed well, schoolteacher, graduated from university, married to a physician when I was dating here, but she was for all intents and purposes nothing but a whore.
I wrote an article on this previously that I have never seen a race of women who shamelessly whore themselves out in one way or another as much as Black women. It’s disgusting. I’m going to say that Black culture simply tells Black women that it’s perfectly ok to be a whore. It tells them that their pussies have price tags on them and that they should charge men every time they fuck a man. I’m not going to say this is genetic. I’m simply going to argue that this culture apparently thinks being a goddamned whore is a perfectly respectable thing to be. And I would argue that a culture that does that is a lousy culture and it offends me on a very deep and basic level.
I don’t think you realize how disgusting White people think whores are. They are the lowest of the low to us. There’s nothing lower than a whore. It’s a like a human slug crawling along the sidewalk, leaving slime in its trail. No self-respecting White woman whores herself out openly. I have known White women that worked as strippers, but even they could not be call girls. And they had friends who did it. It was just too low, too below their morals.
In US Asian culture, there’s nothing lower than a whore.
In US Hispanic culture, your average self-respecting Hispanic woman thinks whores are disgusting. A decent Hispanic girl would rather die than be a prostitute. They even have a saying in Spanish called, a woman of the streets. An Hispanic woman will call a low-class Hispanic woman a woman of the streets. She’s calling her a street whore. It’s the lowest things you can be.
So with low-class or ghetto Blacks, which in my estimate are over 50% of the population, they are rude, low-class petty thieves who grotesquely use and manipulate others, borrow money with no intention to pay it back, ask for rides and then treat the driver with utter callousness and inconsideration, prostitute themselves openly, often as streetwalkers at very high levels, and make up an outrageous overrepresentation of the pimps. They walk into your house and outrageously demand that you give them your stuff for free! They also demand drinks, alcohol if you have it.
What this all boils down to is unspeakably rudeness!
Black men, I don’t really deal with them too much. The ghetto ones are nothing but trouble, so I won’t deal with them at all. I won’t get involved with them, so they don’t affect me, but from afar, their behavior doesn’t look real good. Obviously if you look at statistics and hear stories, these Black men act pretty bad, but I don’t have enough personal experience with Black men to make any serious critique of their behavior. The Black men I have known all acted good because I was very selective about the ones I befriended. The non-ghetto or middle class Black men seem to act quite good. I’ve mostly had good experiences with them. I actually think they act better than the women, many of whom are nothing but glorified prostitutes.

Alt Left: IQ Differences as Small as Five Points Can Be Easily Observed in Populations

Is there even a difference between 2 IQ points? Is there even a difference with 5-8?
I’m not sure if there is a difference with 2 points. There is a difference with 5-8 points. Asian IQ’s are 5 points higher than White IQ’s, and it is very noticeable on a macro scale for sure and often on a micro scale. On the low end, there is a 5 point difference between Blacks (IQ 85) and Hispanics (IQ 90) and you can see it as clear as air, definitely on a macro level and to some extent on a micro level too. Most of the Black women I meet on dating sites can’t even spell! You don’t see that nearly so much or to the same degree with Latinas.
At 8 points, the difference is even clearer. The difference between White Gentiles and Jews is probably ~9 points, although studies vary a lot. If it is as low as 9 points, that 9 point difference is starkly obvious on a macro scale (to the extent that groups of Jews can even be observed on macro scales) and definitely on a micro scale.

Alt Left: Black People and Anti-Racists in General Will Never Understand Anti-Black Racism

I said in an old post that Blacks and antiracists in general should go to racist sites like Stormfront or racist humor sites like Chimpout or Niggermania to see why people really hate Black people. Actually, Stormfront would be a bad choice because they’re not very rational. The people at the other two sites make a lot more sense. Look through the Introductions section on those sites where new members introduce themselves and tell, well, tell why they hate Black people so much.
Blacks and anti-racists in general think the dislike, wariness, or out and out hatred of Black people is the height or irrationality. It’s crazy and it’s evil.
Now I would argue that if you are a Black person who acts just fine and you are still a victim of racism, this is serious moral error. I have some great Black folks on my site. I don’t personally know Alpha, Tulio, Greg, Phil or the  other Blacks on my site, but what I’ve learned about them is that they all seem like great people. In particular, they behave quite well. When I think that these people, my Black friends, will suffer racism, prejudice, unfairness and hate because of things that other people did, it almost makes my blood boil. It’s so wrong.
Specifically, you are being held responsible for the behavior of the other members of your race when you have done absolutely nothing wrong at all. It’s basically collective punishment. Why should that Black person over there, who acts as decently as any other citizen, be subjected to racist hatred because a lot of his racial brethren act terrible?
That’s immoral on a deep and powerful level, but it’s also understandable. The problem with Moral Philosophy is that a lot of immoral behavior is understandable. Humans are not wild, slavering, drooling, crazed beasts of the field. Even people who act bad often have some pretty sensible reasons for doing so. The problem is that behavior that is sensible (not irrational) and understandable is often nevertheless morally wrong.
Black people and antiracists just don’t get it. Racists don’t hate Black people for no reason.
Few people hate Black people “because of the color of their skin.” Actually, if they did, it would make it a lot easier for people to hate anti-Black racists because hating someone due to the color of their skin is pretty awful.
Few people hate Black people because of how they look. Asians look pretty funny too to us Whites, and it doesn’t seem to bother anyone. If Blacks acted like Norwegians or Japanese, I think anti-Black racism would be at a  pretty low level.
Which brings us to the cause of almost all anti-Black racism: It’s the behavior of Black people. Period. If you go to the sites I listed above, you will notice that almost immediately. On the Introductions section, over and over, you will see almost everyone there say that they hate Black people because of the way they act. Then they will list a lot of very negative experiences they had with Black people.
And in a way, you can’t blame them. It’s wrong to go so racist due to these types of experiences, but I see why people do it. I’ve had many of the same negative experiences with Black people, and it is only with conscious effort that I have kept myself from falling into the racism hole. Not because it’s wrong, although it is. Mostly because it’s a hole that I don’t want to fall down into. And it is wrong to hate well-behaved Blacks because so many of their tribe act terrible. To me, that’s a moral error on a very serious scale. It would be hard to live with myself if I felt that way.
Blacks and antiracists simply refuse to believe that this is the reason why Blacks are disliked. They get very agitated and angry if you so much as mention it. According to them, Black people don’t act bad at all. They act just fine. Except anyone who has spent a lot of time around Blacks knows that’s just not true. Yet Blacks keep insisting that Black people act just fine. People say Blacks act bad, and Blacks say well White people act bad too. Yes…but…the difference is the numbers.
Compared to Blacks, the number of White people who act bad is quite low, and the degree to which they act bad is on a much lower level. Looking out at a population level, there’s much less bad behavior, and what bad behavior there is is typically at a lower level. Now you go over to a Black area and the bad behavior is everywhere. There are far more folks acting bad, and they are acting bad in a far worse way than Whites do.
Actually there are behaviors that low class Blacks engage in routinely that you will almost never see a White person engage in, simply because in White culture, that behavior is regarded as unspeakably low. Even poor and working class Whites often have strong moral and behavioral codes and stringent rules of behavior. I don’t think these Whites act better because of their genes. It’s probably culture. But there is something in even pretty low White culture that is above even average level behavior of low class Blacks. So when Whites see Blacks routinely doing things that are absolutely outrageously rude and disgusting beyond all comprehension, we are outraged. We are outraged on a moral level. We are morally offended at what to us is outrageously bad behavior.
Black people won’t have any of this. They jump up and down and yell, “Why do you care? Why do you think about us anyway?” It’s simple.
These Blacks have never studied Moral Philosophy. Behavior that is so outrageously bad that it is almost never seen in one’s culture because it’s universally regarded as the lowest of the low outrages people on a moral level.
People who get outraged on a moral level are often not bad people. At worst they might be too good – i.e., prigs like my late father. But Black people get furious at good people who are morally outraged by people acting awful and say that these outraged folks are bad people. No they’re not. If they were bad people, they wouldn’t be so outraged by terrible behavior. Only good people get outraged by people who act awful.
Good people have relatively high morals, and when they see lowly behavior, it sets off a sense of moral outrage in them. Black people say that these people are evil for having high morals and a sense of moral outrage for despicable and low behavior. This is so wrong. No one is evil for having high morals and a sense of outrage over anti-civilizational behavior. It’s never evil to come from a place of elevated morals.
The problem is that Black people will simply never admit that Black people tend to act worse, a Hell of a lot worse, than other races, such as White people. They’ll go to their graves insisting that this is not true. Yes, there are people in every race that act bad, of course there are.
But humans are smarter than that. Humans are intelligent enough to play the odds game.
In my youth, I had many encounters with my fellow Whites whom I lived with.  Of course these were a mixed bag, but I had many good encounters, and I was able to make many good friendships. Sure, I ran into some bad White people who harmed me, but their numbers were not large. In general, you could make friends with a White person and be pretty well assured that they would treat you right.
My very first encounter with Black people – on the street outside my father’s school in Watts at age 12 – was terrible. My father was inside working in  his classroom and he had foolishly left us outside. Two very young and very feral Black boys asked us to play some game with them – I forget which – and very quickly they were trying to steal from us and there was a wild fistfight in the streets. My little six year old brother took on both of those little ratfucks. This sort of thing would almost never happen with the White boys our age, and we had dealt with some pretty bad White bullies. But even the worst White bullies weren’t that bad.
My next encounter was with JD, one of the few Black guys at my school. He was friends with my group of friends so I became a sort of friend of his, although he was always a bit of an ass. One night he left me in a park for 45 minutes for absolutely no reason at all, just for a joke. Somehow he came back around later and my friends in the car with him saw me and picked me up. My other friends were all laughing but none of them would have done that to me. In fact, very few Whites I knew at that time would do that to me. JD simply thought that was a hilarious joke.
JD had a brother named MD. He was a former football player, and I rather liked him. He had parties at his house, and the 14-16 year old high school kids in my crowd would hang out there, drinking cheap wine and smoking weed. He was a good jolly fellow, but he was later arrested for having sex with teenage White girls.
There was a Black man named Mr. Matthews at my school. He was the only Black teacher. He was also a jolly good-natured Black man. While I was there, he was arrested for having sex with a 15 year old White girl student. People said it was racism, but I doubt it. I think he did it.
Ok, now I am in high school, and I’ve met a whole five Black people.

  • Two tried to steal from me and then picked a fight with me.
  • One left me in a park for 45 minutes as a joke.
  • Two were grown men who got arrested for having sex with teenage White girls.

5-5.
At least two of them were in jail and another two should have been.
All five acted pretty damn bad. Their rate of bad behavior was far higher and an order of magnitude greater than the Whites I knew.
The statistics prove that Black people as a race act pretty damned horribly no matter how you slice the cake. Line up any number of statistics on any number of behavioral variables, and there are the Blacks, leading the charge in the bad behavior brigade.
Why do we care? Because morals are important to us. Because we have deeply held moral belief,s and people who violate our morals in an outrageous way offend us to an incredible degree. Moral outrage is a thing. It’s a normal thing. A rational thing. A morally outraged person is not usually a bad person.
Black people can huff and puff all they want to about how evil Whites are for feeling morally outraged. “Well, don’t think about us then!” That’s not helpful. It’s Blacks who are acting awful. The solution to people acting awful isn’t to call the people who are offended by them evil and order the offended to look the other way and mind their own business.
The problem that keeps circling back around itself is that Blacks refuse to believe that Black people act bad. You can throw anecdotes at them, and they will cry, “Anecdotes!” You can throw impressions and intuition at them, and they will cry “Impressionistic!” and “Unscientific!” and demand scientific studies. Then you throw scientific studies at them, and they order you to shut up and take down the damned studies, and then they yell that the studies are wrong.
The Emperor’s walking naked down the street and everyone is looking at him and laughing, and Black people are jumping up and down and screaming that he has clothes on and screaming that the people who see that he’s naked are evil. That never works very long. You can scream at people all you want that their eyes aren’t seeing what they see, that their ears aren’t hearing what they hear, that their very senses aren’t sensing what they sense. People will get confused for a bit and believe you and think maybe they are hallucinating after all, but then they will revert right back to sense and reason.
And this is the saddest part of all. As long as Black people keep acting so terrible, anti-Black racism will never go away. The antiracist project will be forever doomed. This is heartrendingly sad to me because at its root base, at its core, the antiracist project is a noble one. Wouldn’t a society with a diminished degree of racism be a wonderful thing? It would for me. It would be like a dream.
But the antiracist project will keep crashing back on itself because anti-Black racism is driven overwhelmingly, especially at this late date, by bad Black behavior and little else. This is very depressing, and I don’t know what to say about it, but hollering that Black people act just fine isn’t going to cut it. People will believe a lie only so long until reality keeps coming back and smashing them in the face and wakening them from their socially drugged slumber.

Alt Left: Is US Immigration Dysgenic?

Sami: Very good points, Thinking Mouse.
The majority of our immigration comes from Latin American, average present IQ 90-95, and from East Asia, average present IQ 100-107. This averages out to close to 100 as it is, if you look at those two groups in combination. And this doesn’t take into account the Flynn Effect (though, unfortunately, I doubt Mexican American Barrio culture, as it presently is, at least, is something that would do much to accelerate the Flynn Effect, sorry to say.
And we get smaller input from places like the Middle East, present average IQ 84-90, if Richard Lynn’s methods for assessing this are valid (highly questionable, at best). However, Arab Americans and Iranian Americans both have average incomes and average levels of educational attainment — both considered to be rough proxies for average IQ — than the White American average. So, it is clear, that within American culture (in stark contrast to the case with Europe) those groups seem to be Flynn-effected upward.
In short, I am unconvinced that our present immigration policy is dysgenic.

Instead of simply not being Flynn-effected, I would argue that barrio culture is actually IQ-impairing. I don’t have any evidence for that, but I can hardly think of a more aggressively, belligerently, arrogantly ignorant culture in the US. Even US Black culture is more educated and intellectual than US barrio culture. Isn’t that pitiful?
Latin America does NOT have an average IQ of 90-95. Most of the immigration is from Mexico, IQ 90. The rest is from Central America, IQ 85-90. Average IQ of Hispanics in the US is ~90. We don’t get that much immigration from East Asia. China is where most of it comes from, IQ 105. Combined together, you get IQ 96, but there are many more Hispanics, so that lowers it to ~93. At the end of the day we don’t know what the IQ of immigrants, legal and illegal, is in the US.
Hispanic IQ in the US is not undergoing any Flynn rises compared to Whites. It just stays at 90. Arab and Iranian IQ is not high, but in the US, they may be selected. Anyway, they appear much smarter than Hispanics here in the US, whatever their IQ’s are.
You have only to look at large Hispanic communities to see that the IQ is not the same as a nearby White town. This Hispanic city here may have an IQ of 93. I came from a nearby White town which probably had IQ of 100. The differences were so stark it was shocking. So you can see that even seven IQ points at a macro scale like that has a huge effect on the intelligence of a city. You can really see IQ differences when you look at whole cities full of people of different IQ’s.
US IQ has always been 100. In recent years it has fallen to 98. How did that happen?