When Victims Rule: The History of the Jews

Ha. Jews don’t play victims. This is truth. Take it as fact. Jews ARE victims.

I know Jews and they are great. I’ve had sex with many Jewish people and I know for certain what they are like.

Yeah. Me too. I had a Jewish girlfriend for 6 1/2 years. She agrees with me 100% about Jews too. Many of my parents’ best friends were Jews, so I grew up around these people all my life.
And I will grant you that Jewish women are good fucks. They just don’t have that Catholic/Christian hangup about sex unless they are Orthodox, in which case their hangups are worse than Catholics/Christians. Assuming that the author means Jewish women when he said Jewish people? Yikes. I wish I could report whether Jewish men are good fucks, but I have no data. Maybe when I come back as gay in a future lifetime I will be able to give you a report.
Jews have twice the per capita income of White Gentiles. Jews are victims!
Jews, 2% of the population, have 28% of the income. Jews are victims!
Jews run Hollywood, the fur and diamond trades, and dominate retail trade, the media and finance banking. Jews are central to Wall Street. 45% of professors at top Ivy League universities are Jewish. Jews are victims!
Jews, 2% of the US, are vastly overrepresented on the Supreme Court and in the House and Senate. 60% of Cinton’s Cabinet was Jewish. Jews are victims!
There’s almost no accepted anti-Semitism in the US and it’s absent from mainstream culture and polite society. No country has ever been friendlier to the Jews. Instead of antisemitism, Americans suffer from Judeophilia, which is about as crazy though not as evil, but is nevertheless very dangerous (see 9-11 attack). Jews are victims!
Jews called neoconservatives run our foreign policy in the Middle East and in other places. Israel is the 51st state or maybe the only state in the US. Jews are victims!
Jews have the fourth largest military on Earth and for all intents and purposes cannot be attacked, invaded or defeated. Jews are victims!
Instead, Jews are an imperial power that dominates, controls and oppresses all of its neighbors, occasionally attacking them, killing their soldiers and government officials, flying over their countries, bombing their countries. It has stolen land from all of its neighbors, so it is also a major colonial power in the Middle East. They have settled many of these lands stolen in Nazi like wars of aggression, so that makes them one of the last settler-colonial states too. They came into the neighborhood and immediately declared war against all of their neighbors and many other nations too and it’s been like that ever since. Jews are victims!
Granted Jews have suffered and been victimized tremendously in the past and in some places, this goes on even today (see France). However, they are not victims anymore. Instead, they are rulers. They rule over the rest of us. Or it is a case of “when victims rule” which more or less sums up the history of the Jews for a long time now.
Whatever you want to say about Jews here in the US, and you can validly say many things about them good and bad, they’re certainly not victims. The very idea that they are at all is comical.
But boy, Jews sure love that victimhood, don’t they? I knew a guy, an older man, who was a critical Jew. One time he said,

Don’t ever try to take away the victim status from a Jew. Nothing is more important to the Jew than his vicitmhood. Most Jews would nearly kill to keep their victimhood status. It’s that important.

Why Trump Is a Disaster: On Civil Rights, It Is Back to the 1960's; Trump's Administration Is the Most Openly Racist Administration Since the 1950's

Zamfir: I’m surprised you have a strong preference for Democrats over Republicans. To me it seems like a hopeless choice. If you vote Republican you’re voting for one set of evil elite interests, but not explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage; if you vote Republican you’re voting for another set of evil elite interests, and explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage.
Hard to pick between those two! What is the real advantage in voting Democrat in your opinion? (I guess I’d vote for Bernie, but then again I’d vote for Trump for similar reasons… Not that I expect either one would ever do much on anything I care about.)

Civil Rights? I am a supporter of civil rights and the Congressional Black Caucus. Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, is an open and virulent anti-Black racist who is committed to dismantling civil rights as much as he can and harming Blacks to the greatest extent possible. Trump’s trying to stop Black and Brown people from voting! Outrageous. Trump ended the mandate of HUD to not discriminate in housing. That’s a direct attack on the Housing Rights Act. Trump’s saying that landlords can discriminate against Blacks or anyone else in housing all they want to!
This is the most racist government we have had since the 1960’s.
It’s appalling.

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

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

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Percentage of Homosexual People Is Acceptable To You in a Given Population?

Answered on Queera.
Believe it or not, all of the answers said that if a country’s population was 100% gay, that would be absolutely wonderful! I’m sure having all the population of your country gay would be the greatest thing since sliced bread! What the Hell’s the matter with people? It would be catastrophic for any country to be 100% gay, though we’re probably headed that way in the US at the rate we’re going here.
How could having 100% of the population of your country gay possibly be a good thing!? Color me mystified.
A given population as in for a country? 3%. That’s the percentage in the US, and it’s just fine by me.
Understand that homosexuality is bad for society in the sense that it causes a lot of costly problems for society. Furthermore, taxes paid by gays do not make up for the costs that society incurs from homosexuals.

  • Homosexuals live 20 years less than heterosexuals. This is horribly sad for gay people that they miss out on so many years of wonderful life, but it seems to me that reduced lifespan is costly to society.
  • Gays have higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders. While this causes a lot of suffering to gay people, and this is sad, at the same time, mental illness is costly to society.
  • Gays have much higher rates of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse than straights. The gay male party and play, scene revolving heavily around methamphetamine and club drugs is particularly alarming. Lesbians in particular smoke a lot. The costs of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse to gays themselves are no doubt significant in terms of disease, mortality, and the suffering that can come from excessive substance abuse, nevertheless, this incurs a lot of costs to society.
  • Gay men obviously have a very high STD rate. At 20% infection rate, the HIV rate is especially alarming. Most of these diseases remain confined to the gay community and have not broken out significantly to the straight community, with the exception of the Black community with all the down low men. But the great heterosexual HIV epidemic spreading from gays to straights never occurred mostly because HIV goes from men to women and then it stops, as spokesmen from the New York Department of Public Health said as early as the 1980’s. That’s not completely true, but it is very hard to get HIV from a woman. Hepatitis A, B, and C are or were very common in the gay community, vastly more common than among heterosexuals, most of whom only acquire B and C from IV drug use. Parasitical diseases such as shigella, ameobiasis and giardiasis are also extremely common among gay men, whereas they are quite rare among straights. In recent syphilis epidemics, up to 85% of cases are among gay men. Syphilis is quite uncommon among straights. Gay men have elevated rates of anal cancer, and the rate is rising. The rate is vastly higher than the rate among straights.I would like to point out that it is gay men themselves who suffer most from these diseases, and this suffering, although self-imposed, is often tragic, horrifying and heartbreaking in particularly in the heart-wrenching case of HIV. Lesbians have very low rates of STD’s but higher rates of breast cancer. I doubt if lesbians impose a disease burden on society. The very high gay male STD rate, in particular the HIV rate, obviously imposes considerable costs to society.
  • Tragically, gay men have a suicide rate 3X higher than straight men, even in San Francisco, the most gay-friendly place in the US. The attempted suicide rate is also very high. Gay male teenagers have a tragically very high attempted suicide rate at 8X the normal rate. Suicidal behavior causes unfathomable and heartbreaking suffering on gay men. However, attempted and completed suicides impose considerable cost on society.
  • Domestic violence rates are very high in gay and lesbian couples, especially the latter. A gay man is much more likely to beat his partner than a straight man is. A woman is much less likely to be beaten by a male partner than by a female partner. This causes immense suffering to the partners of gay and lesbian batterers. In addition, domestic violence is costly to society.
  • In gay areas, gay men typically take over all of the public restrooms and turn them into miniature sex clubs. This renders most public restrooms unusable by the rest of us. Most gay men typically vociferously support the use of public restrooms as sex dens for gays. I don’t have much sympathy here. Gay men are simply being very irresponsible with this depraved mindset. Further, this is a cost to society.

It is first of all most important to point out that gay men themselves suffer worst from most from these largely self-imposed conditions, a suffering so profound that it almost moves you to tears. Compassion is essential. Nevertheless, there is a cost to society. Some of these issues may be caused by discrimination (see the high teenage gay male attempted suicide rate), but there is a cost to society no matter what causes it. Some of these problems would lessen with increased acceptance of gays, but others would linger or possibly even worsen.
The question comes up whether gays pay for the costs they bring to society. Many gays seem to have above average intelligence for some reason, especially gay men. Gays seem more artistically talented than straights. More gays than straights seem to get college degrees, in particular gay men.
Gay men seem to earn higher than average wages and are disproportionately employed in high paying and prestigious professions. I am always hearing about a homosexual, often a gay man, who is contributing something noteworthy and exemplary to our society such that it mentions a media notice. Obviously, gay men contribute more to the tax base per capita than straights. So gays, especially gay men, offer considerable benefits to society, not flowing from their homosexuality but from other aspects of their lives.
I have not discussed lesbians here because I know little about them, but I doubt that they impose serious costs on society other than reduced lifespan.
However the question rises whether gays pay for themselves. Despite their excellent contributions to society and their higher than normal tax contributions, I still do not think that homosexuals pay for themselves.
The question then arises about whether the rest of us should be willing to carry a small burden for our gay brothers.
Personally I feel that at 3%, I am willing to shoulder the costs of homosexuals to society, as the numbers are so small that it is something we can cope with. I would be willing to tolerate up to 6% gay men in society. I think we could deal at that rate.
However, if the rate of male homosexuality went higher than that, all of these problems above would increase in scope with attendant costs.
Honestly, even when you get to 10% gay men in any country, your problems are going to go up a lot. The % of gay men in New York and San Francisco is quite high, and they definitely impose considerable costs on these cities.
Once you start heading up to 15–20% of any country’s population being gay, I think it would be unsustainable for many reasons (see above).
Homosexuality in society seems to be one of those things, like many things in life, that is best in small doses.

Tony Perkins Is an Anti-Gay Bigot, But a Lot of the Things He Says about Homosexuality Are True

I don’t have a high opinion of this reactionary idiot Tony Perkins. While the label of bigot and hater seems correct about him, unfortunately a number of things he says about homosexuality are flat out true. Others are ugly opinions, exaggerations, silliness, or untruths.
The dossier against Perkins can be found here at the site of one of the worst SJW organizations out there, the toxic and cancerous Southern Poverty Law Center. Let’s look at the charges:

contending that gay rights advocates intend to round up Christians in “boxcars.”

False. OK, that’s fanaticism.
But sometimes I wonder what sort of SJW dictatorship our SJW commissar overlords would have in store for us if they ever seized power. Looking at how hate-filled, vindictive, and out and out vicious your typical gay rights homosexual is nowadays, it’s not unreasonable to fear all sorts of bad things from these maniacs.
To give you an example, these gay activists absolutely hate me although I have supported gay rights since the 1980’s when it was dangerous to do so. That’s a good 35 years. And I work on their political campaigns, though I should probably quit based on how they treat me.
In order to be a proper gay rights ally and avoid being a homophobe, the goalposts have now been moved to positions that are so far beyond the endzone that most straight men would qualify as homophobes by default simply for having the normal opinions that straight men have towards male homosexuality (hint: they have a very low opinion of it).

“What most people either don’t realize or willfully ignore is that only 16 percent of Islam is a religion — the rest is a combination of military, judicial, economic, and political system. Christianity, by comparison, isn’t a judicial or economic code — but a faith. So to suggest that we would be imposing some sort of religious test on Muslims is inaccurate. Sharia is not a religion in the context of the First Amendment.”
— FRC email, December 2015

True. That’s probably about right, sorry.

“Those who practice Islam in its entirety, it’s not just a religion. It’s an economic system, it’s a judicial system, and it is a military – a military system. And it is – it has Shariah law that you’ve heard about and those things will tear and destroy the fabric of a democracy. So we have to be very clear about our laws and restrain those things that would harm the whole. We are a nation – let me be very clear about this. We are a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, that’s the foundation of our nation, not Islam, but the Judeo-Christian God.”
Washington Watch radio show, September 2014

Mostly true. He’s wrong as usual about the Founding Fathers, who were more deists than anything else, but this is standard fundie nonsense.
The rest about Islam is more or less 100% fact.

“The videos are titled ‘It Gets Better.’ They are aimed at persuading kids that although they’ll face struggles and perhaps bullying for ‘coming out’ as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. … It’s disgusting. And it’s part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle.”
—FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

False. The It Gets Better videos are not part of a project to recruit kids into the gay lifestyle. I doubt if they are trying to tell kids homosexuality is ok either. These videos are aimed at gay teenagers who are distraught, depressed, and have a high attempted suicide rate, showing them that no matter how much they are suffering now, things will get better as they get older.
It’s probably not true that gays cannot turn straights gay, but many straight women have chosen a bisexual orientation, and many straight men have chosen to engage in bisexual behavior, with more and more doing this all the time. And while you can’t turn straight people gay, that doesn’t stop gay and bisexual men from trying.
I can’t count how many times they have tried to seduce me, and they’ve done it to a lot of my friends too. Actually bisexual men are far worse about this because I don’t have much to do with gay men, and bisexual men are everywhere running about in typical straight society. They can get pretty verbally coercive and cajoling about trying to get you to join in their faggy fun too. You need to stop talking to them because they will never stop trying to cajole you into their faggy fun and games.

“Those who understand the homosexual community – the activists – they’re very aggressive, they’re – everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They’re intolerant, they’re hateful, vile, they’re spiteful. …. To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation.”
—Speaking to the Oak Initiative Summit, April 2011

True. This is actually true. Gay activists are out and out ugly. In fact, I am starting hate gay men (though I should not feel that way, I know) due to so many nasty and ugly interactions with them. I will continue to support them politically of course, but the less I deal with them otherwise, the better. Gay men nowadays are the worst SJW’s of them all, like SJW’s on steroids.
False. But I really doubt if homosexuality is going to destroy the country. That’s a bit much.

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
— FRC website, 2010

True. This is a bit vicious, but gay men are vastly overrepresented among pedophiles. 35% of child molestations are molestations of boys by men. Almost all of these men are homosexual pedophiles.
False. But saying that pedophilia is a gay problem is just wrong. And it’s vicious.

The marriage debate “is literally about the entire culture: it’s about the rule of law, it’s about the country, it’s about our future, it’s about redefining the curriculum in our schools, it’s about driving a wedge between parent and child, it’s about the loss of religious freedom, it’s about the inability to be who we are as a people.”
— The Janet Mefford Show, May 22, 2014

False. None of this is true, but I can see why these Christians are upset about it. They say it goes against their religion. Well, OK. So how do you expect them to act?

Part of the FRC’s strategy is to tout the false claim that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse children. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”

True. Yes, and the APA is flat out wrong and is disregarding all of the evidence of psychological “science” on this issue. You wonder why people say the social science are not sciences. Well, look no further. Actually gay men are 12 times more likely to molest children than straight men are.
Nevertheless, most gay men are obviously not pedophiles.

As the show ended, Perkins stated, “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children.

False. I do not think it is fair to say that homosexuals pose a risk to our children. “Keep the faggots away from our kids!” seems like a mean and unnecessary thing to say.

In late 2010, Perkins held a webcast to discuss the dire consequences of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Dubious statistics from a poll commissioned by the FRC and the Center for Security Policy – which was named an anti-Muslim hate group in 2015 – were used during the webcast.
The webcast also mentioned the FRC report, Mission Compromised, written by retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, the FRC’s senior fellow for national security. The report contended that allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would undermine morale and discipline and infringe on the religious freedom of military chaplains, who would be forced to accept homosexuality and would no longer be permitted to express their religious beliefs about it.
In addition, Maginnis predicted that heterosexual service members would be forced to take “sensitivity classes” that promote the “homosexual lifestyle.” He added: “Homosexual activists seek to force the U.S. military to embrace their radical views and sexual conduct, no matter the consequences for combat effectiveness.”

False. I believe that gays are now serving openly in the US military, and this has not affected combat effectiveness like the howlers predicted.

On Oct. 11, 2010, The Washington Post published a commentary by Perkins in which he repeated his argument that anti-bullying policies are not really intended to protect students. “Homosexual activist groups like GLSEN [Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network] … are exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda of demanding not only tolerance of homosexual individuals, but active affirmation of homosexual conduct and their efforts to redefine the family.”

Half true. Sadly, this is correct. Gay activists are indeed using the anti-bullying push to promote tolerance of homosexuals, to redefine the family, and worse, to promote out and out affirmation of homosexuality.
In fact, I would argue that it goes far beyond that, and that presently gay rights activists are promoting the open celebration of homosexuality. As a straight man, I fail to see why I should jump up and down and cheer for homosexuality. What’s so great about it? Who needs it? If it disappeared from the planet tomorrow, would that be a bad thing? It probably would not, as homosexuality offers zero benefits to society while causing a long list of societal problems.
However, obviously the anti-bullying movement is also designed to protect gay students.

In 2013, Perkins claimed on CNN that allowing gay people into the Boy Scouts would put children in danger of sexual assault. When pressed by the CNN host, Perkins again resorted to the FRC’s stock claim, as Perkins once put it, that pedophilia “is a homosexual problem.” “They [Boy Scouts] are trying to create an environment that is protective of children,” he said. “This [allowing LGBT Scouts and Scout leaders] doesn’t make it more protective. There is a disproportionate number of male on boy – when we get on pedophilia, male on boy is a higher incident rate of that.”

True. Well, of course letting gay men by scoutmasters puts boys at increased risk of molestation. Isn’t that obvious? There have been plenty of closeted gay men who were scoutmasters in the past, and they molested more than a few boys. Why do you think the Scouts had the ban in the first place? Because this was a well known long-standing problem in scouting! It was hard enough to try to sort out the closet cases among the scoutmasters, and the new policy was going to flood scouts with a lot more gay scoutmasters. Just what the Scouts need.

Despite gains made for LGBT equality, Perkins and the FRC have continued their anti-gay activities, including opposition to the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). According to Perkins, President Obama was working with the “totalitarian homosexual lobby” to sneak ENDA into law and should that happen, freedom of religion will be “destroyed.”

Opinion. Well, you know, this is just wrong. In general, I think that it should be illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in housing, employment, etc. simply for being homosexuals.
But we ought to be able to discriminate on other grounds. For instance, suppose a flamboyantly gay man applies at my store to be a customer clerk. My clientele is mostly straight men, a lot of whom are macho rednecks who will not take kindly to a screaming faggot asking, “Can I help you?” In this case, I might be able to hire a gay man if he was straight acting and promised to be quiet about his orientation so as not to scare off my clientele.
Suppose you have a restaurant. The hosts are people who greet customers and show them their seats. I have a right to turn down a flamboyant homosexual who wants to work as a host because he will scare off my diners. Instead, I would happy to employ him in a backroom somewhere, but he can’t be out there greeting diners.
Other than these minor cases though, I think gays should have the same employment and housing rights as members of racial groups or the two genders.

Perkins also has worked to keep America safe from Betty Crocker. In September 2013, he called for a boycott of the iconic brand because General Mills, which produces it, donated custom cakes to three LGBT couples in Minnesota who were married after the state legalized same-sex marriage a month earlier.

Opinion. Wow. Ugly.

In 2015, as the FRC tilted into anti-Muslim sentiment – especially with the hiring of retired Lt. General William “Jerry” Boykin – Perkins said that Islam is such a danger that Muslim Americans should not have the same religious freedoms as other citizens.

Opinion. Not sure what he means by this, but this is ugly.

After a man with radical Islamic beliefs fatally shot 49 people at an Orlando LGBT nightclub in June 2016, Perkins pointed the finger at the Obama Administration – claiming that the administration marginalized Christians and elevated Islam. “We have to deal with the underlying issue, which is an ideology that’s incompatible with American liberty,” Perkins wrote. “An ideology, tragically, that this administration has empowered through its public policy and private diplomacy.”

False. Yuck. The problem here is that this attack had nothing to with Islam. The attacker himself was a gay man, so he was not killing gay men out of hatred or bigotry. Instead, he had had an affair with a Puerto Rican gay man who he met at that bar, and that man had given him HIV. This was a Puerto Rican gay bar. So he decided to take revenge against Puerto Rican gay men in general by shooting up the bar.

In a 2016 FRC email to followers about the issue, Perkins warned: “If government can force the ‘normalization’ or even the celebration of something as universally unnatural as men using women’s restrooms and vice versa, then it can force the rest of its agenda on the American people very easily,” resulting in “social chaos” and the breakdown of all “sexual inhibition and morality.”

False. I doubt if that’s going to happen, but at 60, I would love to see sexual inhibition and morality break down a lot more. Perhaps I would get more dates.

During 2016, Perkins was part of the Republican committee as a delegate from Louisiana that created the GOP platform.
Perkins reportedly proposed a plank that supported conversion therapy for minors, though the wording, apparently revised from the original, does not specifically mention conversion therapy – a pseudoscientific practice that claims to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight, and has been denounced by every major U.S. medical and mental health association. The platform committee ultimately passed a resolution affirming “the right of parents to determine the proper treatment or therapy, for their minor children.”

Opinion. Conversion therapy is a controversial issue, and in general it does not seem to work, although it is proven that sex surrogacy can help some lesbians to enjoy sex with men.

After Trump’s election, the FRC and Perkins were heavily involved in the formation of policy for the new administration. FRC Senior Fellow Kenneth Blackwell was named the head of domestic policy for the transition team. The FRC also took steps to ensure the new administration would undo President Obama’s work advancing LGBT equality – efforts that come after Perkins’ June 2016 claim that a Trump presidency would be better for the LGBT community than a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Opinion. This sounds bad.

Male Homosexuality and Lesbianism as "Syndromes"

 Jynxi: I’m glad you cleared that up because that was exactly my conclusion. That being said, how would you go about classifying homosexuality? Would it not be a type of BDD light?

Homosexuality is not a sin and it’s not chosen anyway. I am not much of a Christian, but it seems hard to figure out if it is a sin considering that God obviously made these people gay.
Homosexuality itself is not a mental disorder. Just because a man is turned on by men and not women or a woman is turned on by women and not men doesn’t mean that that man or woman is crazy. It’s not nuts or crazy to have a sexual preference for your own sex and not the opposite sex.
And it makes no sense to call the whole homosexual syndrome a mental illness because many gay men and possibly lesbians are extremely healthy psychologically. You can’t have mental disorders where the sufferers are very well-adjusted and mentally healthy. That goes against the definition of a disorder.
Nevertheless, both male homosexuality and lesbianism, while not being mental illnesses, still resemble them. In other words, homosexuality is not a mental illness, but it looks like one! This is because there is so much pathology that seems to go along inevitably with these orientations when you look at them as groups.
The PC claim is that all homosexual pathologies are due to discrimination. However, recent surveys have found high levels of all sorts of pathologies in both gays and lesbians even in places like Sweden and most recently in the Netherlands. Gays are more accepted there than anywhere on Earth, so the gays can’t use the discrimination excuse which they always use to handwave away all gay and lesbian pathology.
Male homosexuality and lesbianism on average cut a full 20 years off your lifespan. The most recent studies showing a 20 year lifespan reduction have come out of Sweden, Denmark and Canada. Gays also say that the 20 year reduced lifespan is due to discrimination, but this is hard to reckon with in places like Sweden and Denmark where there is little discrimination against gays. Gay men who die of non-HIV causes only live a few years longer than those who die of HIV, and lesbians who are not affected by HIV don’t live any longer than gay men.
The implication is that all of the pathologies and the reduced lifespan are simply inherent aspects of this homosexual syndrome when look at the groups as a whole. There is something inherent in homosexuality in many cases that causes you to be unhappy, have all sorts of problems and die young.
However, if you believe in Natural Law, homosexuality seems to be violation of Natural Law. Obviously nature wants men and women to pair off and make babies. When that gets messed up as in women raising children alone or homosexual couples raising children, all sorts of problems seem to develop. The children have quite a few more problems than those raised by a father and mother.
A household with a father and a mother continues to be the best for children. This doesn’t really make sense unless you think that possibly Nature wants it this way, or perhaps we have evolved to raise children this way. If the latter, we might not be adapted to raising children in other ways very well.
Homosexual relationships both gay and lesbian seem to run into all sorts of problems. First of all, they usually end up caricaturing heterosexual relationships with one playing the dominant and masculine man and another the submissive and feminine woman in both gay male and lesbian relationships. That even gays end up caricaturing the basic heterosexual pattern implies once again that this is either Natural Law or we have evolved that way (possibly “Natural Law” might mean nothing other than the way we have evolved).
Gay relationships seem almost inherently pathological. They do not seem to last long. 91% of even lesbians never have a relationship that lasts more than five years, and gay men are even worse. Hell, even I did better than that. Gay male couples are 4-5 X more likely to suffer from domestic violence than straight couples are. Lesbians beat each other up so often and so badly that their rates are off charts, worse than even gay men’s rates.
Lesbians often fall into what is called Lesbian Bed Death where they have sex once a month if that often. No one knows why this happens, but perhaps lesbian relationships lack the male “charge” that may be necessary to fire up female sexuality. Lesbians try to imitate the charge by having one woman play the male role, but maybe it doesn’t work.
Gay men typically have notoriously unstable relationships which are much more temporary even than those of lesbians. Gay male life often revolves around a never-ending swirl of temporary and often one-time or even anonymous relationships. A survey out of Australia in 2000 showed that many gay men were continuing to have sex with more than 100 men per year. And this is long after the wild promiscuity of the 1970’s that preceded the HIV epidemic calmed down to much lower levels in  the 1980’s. Even at this late date, gay men are very promiscuous.
All of this wild sex for some reason does not seem to make them happy and in fact it may make them unhappy. Many gay men seem to be caught in this never ending drug and promiscuous sex cycle in which they seem to be chasing an elusive happiness and fulfillment that they never seem to find.
Many gay men seem to be looking for a father figure. Gay men’s relationships with their fathers and male peers were typically quite poor, and it has been suggested that gay men are forever trying to fill the “father hole” that never got filled in them or are forever trying to find the male acceptance and brotherly love that they never got from their peers while growing up. Gay male culture revolves heavily around the notion of the “Daddy,” and many gay male relationships incorporate the “Daddy” archetype. A number of gay men have stated that a theme of their adult lives, particularly sexually, was a search, often wandering, painful, and yearning but ultimately fruitless, for the father relationship that they never had.
Neither gays nor lesbians seem very happy. Gay men have a 3X elevated rate of suicide even in the Netherlands, which is as gay-friendly as you can get. There seems to be something inherent in male homosexuality that causes this suicidality.
One can picture heterosexual relationships in the yin and yang figure. Take them apart and they float alone, missing their other half. Men and women only become completely whole in a heterosexual relationship where the male donates his masculine element to the woman which she incorporates into herself and the woman donates her female element into the male which he incorporates into himself. They are both now whole, locked together in that perfect fitting embrace, the key in the lock of the yin/yang emblem.
Look, I do not think that male homosexuality or lesbianism are lifestyles that gay men and lesbians choose to lead in most cases, although there are some women who seem to choose to be lesbians, and there are a few basically straight men who choose to live a gay lifestyle, but the numbers of the latter are very small.
By age 15, gay men cannot be changed to straight, and they cannot even be made somewhat more heterosexual or somewhat less homosexual. Male homosexuality is incurable, unfixable, or permanent, however you want to look at it.
In early onset cases, lesbianism appears to be quite permanent and incurable too. So almost all gay men and many lesbians are pretty much stuck being gay. 
Still the lifestyles that especially so many gay men in big cities seem to live seem to be very unhealthy both physically and psychologically. In many cases the way they live is simply not a good way to live your life.
I don’t hate gays and lesbians. You can’t hate people for what they can’t help. I wish for all of them the very same happiness and health that I want for myself in life, not 1% less.
Nevertheless, I worry that all of this pathology may simply be somehow inherent in the “syndromes” of male homosexuality and  lesbianism, possibly due to their violations of Natural Law or our evolution, and that these problems may never be fixed much.
And that is quite a sad thing to believe. 

The Second American Civil War, 2016-?

Great post from Judith Mirville.
The country’s pretty much gone at this point in so many ways it’s not even funny. The MSM has completely forfeited its role as arbitrator of truth and instead has transformed into one of the most monstrous propaganda systems the world has ever seen.
The Republican Party is two states away from calling a Constitutional Convention after which they will rewrite the Constitution to end any government role in the well-being of the nation’s citizens. They will also finally dissolve civil rights once and for all, a project they have been whittling away at for a while now. The Voting Rights Act was just overthrown,  taking us back to the 1960’s. The Housing Rights Act is hardly enforced at all. All Republican Presidencies completely defund this arm, and the Democrats don’t do much better.
Every Republican President who comes in completely defunds the EEOC, which is the arm of the government that enforces the Civil  Rights Act in terms of job discrimination. With the EEOC defanged, businesses are very to discriminate as they wish.
The Citizens United case was a dagger deep in the heart of democracy which showed that America was a nation whose only real citizens were the rich and the corporations. The rest of us are servants, peons, sharecroppers, bonded labor, serfs, helots, prisoners or ragamuffin vagabonds.
America is the land of the 1%.
There’s nothing here for the rest of us, the 99%. We are superfluous, and I suppose with the new Trump Wealthcare Act, we are now encouraged to up and die.
The death of what was once a respectable tradition of the GOP began with Ronald Reagan and the move to the Hard Right. The country has been on a rightwing juggernaut ever since, much to its detriment.
Since 1980, we have seen endless conservative treatises to the effect that we are a republic, not a democracy. This requires a bit of shorthand. Whenever a conservative says that, he means he hates democracy.  Conservatives always hate democracy everywhere and and at all times, as conservatism is aristocratic rule by the divine right of kings. This is antithetical to democracy on its very face.
Democracy is rule by the people.
Conservatism is rule by feudal lords, kings, rajahs, czars, Dalai lamas, warlords, emperors, sultans, furhers, generalissimos, caudillos, strongmen, militarists and leaders for life. It is rule by the richest men, the aristocrats, the 1%,  over the 99%, where the money and wealth of the 99% is progressively shoveled upwards to the conservative royalists until the people become more and more impoverished.
When a conservative starts going on and on about how we are a republic, not a democracy, you need to listen very closely to that. He is showing just how much he hates rule by the common man, by the workers, by the salt of the earth, by the people. The state only exists for those wealthy enough to purchase in order to rule in their own name and for their own ends and means.
Since 2000, Republicans have stolen many elections with the use of hacking of computerized voting machines. Indeed Trump’s recent victory was stolen. Not only did he lose the popular vote but he also lost the electoral vote and we can prove it.
Jonathan Simon of Code Red says that the era of election theft from 2000-2107 will be an era of increasingly extreme politics. His reasoning is quite simple. If the Republicans are going to win elections no matter how the people vote, then there are no restrictions on their behavior. They can do whatever they want to without fear of being voted our of office.
The politicians of the aristocracy (the Republican Party) are constrained by fears of being voted out of office. When they no longer have to fear being voted out of office, they can do whatever they want without any fear of the consequences.
Hence we see the extreme Republican Wealthcare Act that throws 23 million off their health care and pulls the plug out from under millions of newborn babies, tens of millions of children, half of the elderly and almost all of the poor. It’s a death sentence for countless Americans. That’s right. A lot of people are going to die, all so the rich can get a tax cut. The Top 400 earners in the US are going to get a $4 billion tax cut with this unspeakably cruel act. Ordinarily, politicians would be afraid to be thrown out of office for voting for such a monstrosity (81% of the public opposes it), but as the Republicans have rigged elections to always win, they have to fear of being voted out so they can act and vote fearlessly.
To me Trump is the proof that the country founded by Franklin and Jefferson rebuilt by Lincoln and Roosevelt just no longer exists: there is no longer any common soul uniting it. The Democratic and Republican parties, though both equally corrupt and dangerous for the survival of humanity, no longer refer to the same country and civilization.
The only thing equivalent elsewhere in the world is the difference between India and Pakistan or between Israel and Palestine: the difference between both in unbridgeable, and the only thing that can bring both under a common government is military occupation of one by the other.
Let’s get over it: Abraham Lincoln’s endeavor never succeeded actually: the Dixieland was occupied and wrought a slow motion revenge onto the rest of the country thanks to military industries and media industries being located in it. It is a different civilization altogether, where doing productive work, or worse still, harboring a mere mental concern for the common good, is considered a shame and something that should be reserved to prisoners and dark people having committed an offence in their previous life. The only other country like that on Earth is the Indo-Gangetic plain where Hinduism and caste are the law of the land.
Lincoln tried to give a common ideal to all Americans, the self-made man, the idea that however lowly is your station of departure in life, there is no limit to your success in life as an entrepreneur, an inventor, a scholar or even a president if you put it the right amount of the right kind of personal effort.
Get over it: the Dixieland never accepted that creed, it is a blasphemy of the God they adore not only as regards Blacks and Mexicans but as regards all social classes the Whites form themselves…and most of the Western Plains conquest was done by Dixielanders even though nominally under Union flag.
Kennedy, exactly one century later, seeing that both countries never united actually, tried to respect the Southern Civilization in the framework of a grander humanistic scheme by devising Political Correctness and multiculturalism as we have been knowing them, and it has proven equally futile an enterprise as Lincoln’s. The Dixieland and the Flyoverland just pounced upon the opportunity given by multiculturalism to enclose themselves in their own cultural no-go zones and also succeeded in having allied recently-immigrated ethnic groups in their enterprise.
However diverse is India, there is just no place in it for Pakistanis, they will rather consider nuclear war rather than accepting diversity of creeds: in the same way, in Kennedy’s new diverse America, there is no place for Dixieland; they already know that multiculturalism is a Marxist scheme organized by extraterrestrials to destroy natural law as they define it.
Secession is the only solution for America.
The present state of America is a Cold War between both countries with presumed spies and traitors from the other side being submitted to punishments and exclusion from professional work as harsh as in the Soviet-occupied parts of Europe (the only thing missing up to know is a new Berlin Wall as in Eastern Germany in the 1950’s just before they built it, but it is Trump’s promise he will never recoil from).
It is also a military occupation of Democratic America by a Republican government in a sweet revenge for the Reconstruction Era: when the Republican cut social programs, they don’t even do it to make their own 1% richer but to punish and crush back down in Third World style misery the 99% of the lands they feel they occupy like the Nazis did in German-occupied France and Eastern Europe during the 1940’s, together with the local 1% as collaborators.
Like the Hitler-led Germans they are ready to suffer themselves all kinds of miseries and revert to Feudal Age renouncement to all modern comforts just to go on with what they feel is their duty : killing once for all the civilization of the Enlightenment.
All KKK-approving lands should have been realistically subject to military occupation following that of Hitler’s Germany, and American citizenship be given back to their own people only on a piecemeal basis as to meritorious Germans at that time. The Civic Rights Movement should have been a military operation with humanistic militants trained for close combat during the Sixties and early Seventies, and devisers of the so-called Southern Strategy within the Republican Party should have been put to death for high treason before the foe.
All strategic industry, especially aerospace, military and media, should have been moved out of that perimeter into friendly territory. But now it is too late: they are the occupiers themselves. It is time for the decent part of America to organize military resistance together with foreign allied countries supporting or just tolerating humanism in the world however undemocratic they are themselves.
Make no mistake about it: the people of Flyover America, now onwards to be known as Murrica, consider all forms of upward social mobility and all endeavors to make the world better as the cardinal sin against their God’s law and the ability to make money in a zero sum game as the physical manifestation of their God’s grace.
They consider that over-educated people, that is to say educated beyond their own capacity to make money and for another aim than personal financial success, have forfeited their right to life, liberty and happiness and should be treated as Indian Untouchables. They actually stick to that dogma with far more fanaticism and less humanity than right-wing Hindu Indians themselves, most of whom abide by that rather play a humorous game in comparison, and all they ask from an Untouchable is not to be educated in Sanskrit and other sciences they consider sacred. They have no problem with one who succeeds to make himself known as an English writer.

The War on Poverty Was Not a Failure

Jason Y: Sorry to be so in your face and frank, but why do you think the War on Poverty failed from an Alt Left viewpoint?

I do not think it failed in the first place and the Alt Left does not think it failed. The Alt Left supports the War on Poverty. In this way, we utterly reject the Alt Right which wants to wipe all those gains out.
How well did the War on Poverty work? I guess I would channel Deng and say, “It’s too soon to tell.”
But of course I supported the War on Poverty and I do not believe that it failed, at least not for the same reasons that the Right does. It worked great at least for a time, and we have a ton of evidence to prove it. They started Medicaid, Medicare, Section 8 housing, I think food stamps, all that stuff goes back to the War on Poverty. Of course the DNC wants to get rid of all of that. The Civil Rights Act went right along with it along with the now overthrown Voting Rights Act. The Housing Rights Act came later. The EPA was created around this time as was HUD.
It was a great thing, but they started to defund it after a while. In other words, they surrendered in the War on Poverty and quit funding it. And then to some extent things headed back in the direction that they were before.

Some Choice: Nazi or PC Nutjob

Repost from the old site.

Boy, the Left has really gotten us into a pickle here, haven’t they?

If you are on the Left, support any degree of socialism, or are even a liberal, you are obligated to go along with the whole PC nutjob package: support for the craziest notions of man-hating Western feminism, for White-hating and non-White-worshipping lunatic anti-racism, for the insanity of mass immigration, not to mention illegal immigration of all things, for the idiotic and suicidal notion of Open Borders.

I talk to regular White people all the time. The Western Left has precisely nothing to do with the realities of how most White human beings in the US live their lives. Most of them hate illegal immigration and want cuts in legal immigration. Most of them dislike mass immigration turning the US into a United Nations on every block. Most of them reject White-hatred and non-White-worship.

And fanatical Western feminism is increasingly trivial to the lives of hundreds of millions of non-Western women who labor under the horrors of misogyny and male supremacy vastly worse than what American women endure.

What I have noticed is that Western feminism seems irrelevant to the realities of how heterosexual males and females negotiate sex and relationships in modern times. It is as if Western feminism is broadcasting from some bizarro alternative universe that has nothing to do with the one most of us negotiate on a daily basis.

What I am trying to say is that the Western PC Left, as its constituted, is irrelevant.

It’s hostile to men and Whites, and double so to White men. Any White man who buys into the line of the Western Left must be out of his mind.

It says right on the sidebar that I’m heterodox. You got it. For one thing, I’m a race realist. There are differences between the races and even within the races in terms of minor races and even ethnic groups. These differences are observable on a wide variety of metrics. It is irrelevant whether these differences are due to genetics or culture, since both intertwine anyway.

To see a particularly nasty view of race realism, shot through naturally all the way with racism, check out this book by Ricard Fuerle, a PhD in Economics and a patent attorney. The book is called Erectus Walks Among Us. The premise of the books is that Black people are monkeys, or apes, or Homo Erectus, or a much more primitive type of man. I’m almost done reading it. It’s pretty entertaining, but I’m warning you, this is toxic stuff.

While most of us don’t even want to think about stuff like this, he does marshal an awful lot of data showing that there are significant differences between the races. Philippe Rushton has done something similar lately and has been raked over the coals for it.

I will say right now that Rushton, Fuerle and the rest may be correct in some of what they say: there are more differences in the races than the obvious ones such as skin color. A quick rejoinder to this argument is typically shot from the Left: that in saying so, we are classifying ethnic groups and races in the same way we classify species and subspecies of animals – as having invariable behavior.

Like most Left rejoinders, this is garbage, but many racists sadly do think this way. I’m not much of an artist, but if I was, I would draw a scatter plot for you. That is what differences, particularly behavioral, psychological, intelligence and other such, but also including athletic ability, would look like between the races if you plotted them out on a graph.

On athletic ability, you would find Blacks more likely to plot superior on certain variables. Some Whites and even Asians would be over with the Blacks. Some Blacks would have very poor athletic ability. Racial and ethnic tendencies are only averages, and there will always be all sorts of individuals who will fall outside the stereotypes for their races.

Unless you understand what a scatter plot looks like, or unless you understand averages and statistics, you can’t discuss racial differences at all.

Why discuss racial differences at all?

Because, for one, the Right keeps throwing them in our faces.

And because the Left’s reaction to any racial or ethnic differences in outcome is wrong. The Left says that all races and ethnic groups are equal, and therefore, any differential outcomes must be the result of racism.

This leads the Left into insane, decades- to centuries-long, never-to-be won wars against racism, sexism, homophobia and whatnot. These things will probably always be with us. The insanity of the Left is the folly that they dream they can eradicate these aspects of human nature.

All you can do is reduce or increase things like that. I am certain that when I die, racism, sexism and homophobia will be alive and well, and the Left will be insanely waging war “to rid them from the Earth”.

Scientifically speaking, it is certainly not true that if one race or ethnic group scores worse than another or does worse on any sort of variable, it must be due to racism. Surely there are all sorts of reasons why this might happen. The folly of the Left is its refusal to consider that there may be things other than racism causing this.

Problem is that almost anyone online taking a race realist position is simply a racist. And almost all such folks are Whites who are arguing at least for getting rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation and and at most for outright White separatism, apartheid, race war, or ethnic cleansing.

Wow. Breathtaking. You mean that if one acknowledges differences between the races on a variety of controversial variables, one must be a racist, a separatist, a fascist or a Nazi? Yes. This is what it means. Any socialist who steps outside of PC idiocy on race will find himself embraced by some other funny socialists. Almost all such persons will be sympathetic towards White racism, White separatism, fascism and Nazism.

Whew. Well, allow me to step out of the box here for a second. This blog will make the outrageous statement that race realism (a recognition that there are non-trivial differences between the races) and anti-racism can go hand and hand. Just because there are average differences between races does not mean we have to turn into a bunch of racist jerks, much less racial separatists.

There are specific, subspecific and racial differences all across the natural world of biology, and none of it necessarily leads to hating this or that brand of organism or critter. For instance, here in California, we have various threatened and endangered species that I know a lot about. We have Tipton Kangaroo Rats and California Red-legged Frogs and Alameda Whipsnakes.

I assure that all of these damned critters act different. I will assure you that a California Red-legged Frog acts a Hell of a lot different than a Foothill Yellow-legged frog, and an Alameda Whipsnake acts a Hell of a lot different than a Pacific Gopher Snake, and a Tipton Kangaroo Rat acts a lot different than a Dusky-Footed Woodrat. I, lover of nature, love all of these critters.

Why be a speciesist, a critter racist, lining up with the Tipton Kangaroo Rats and swearing to drive the California Red-legged Frogs to extinction? I, lover of humans, love all humans. Why should I be a human-critter racist, lining up with the White human critters against this or that non-White human critters? They act different. So? So do all the other critters.

The reason for the Left’s opposition to race realism is quite simple. All we have to do is look at the agenda of those big names promoting hardcore race realism. They’re all White, and almost all, or all, of them are on the Right or the Far Right, and I haven’t found one yet who was not a hardcore racist.

Furthermore, every prominent race realist out there supports getting rid of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. The reason being that if there are average differences between races, people ought to be able to discriminate racially or ethnically against individuals on the basis of those averages.

But average differences mean nothing when it comes to individuals. Individuals are individuals, and groups are groups. You can’t tally up group stuff and use it to thumbs up or thumbs down on individuals in the group. Forget it. Group differences be damned, one still must treat individuals as individuals.

With such a bunch of ugly creeps running the show, is it any wonder that decent people run away from race realism in droves?

It’s really sad that socialists have to choose between fascists and PC airheads. There’s got to be more space in the room than that. Come on.

Do Anti-Racist Blacks Have a Sense of Priority?

Looking for answers is a smart Black guy who is one of my favorite commenters on the site:

Question for you. Is it possible that many whites do not understand what is perceived as racism by non-whites? I ask because for middle class blacks or the CBC, racism is mainly defined as a lack of opportunities, equality or feeling shut out along racial lines. If whites are really not all that racist and harbor no ill will toward blacks but tend to only hire or promote other whites, even if it’s simply a matter of staying in your comfort zone or being around people you can relate to, can you see how that can be seen as racist by those shut out? Of course many whites just feel that the decision was based on something not related to race, maybe like a recommendation, or a friend of a friend or something like that, but if you are shut out of those social circles, then you are just shut out. I think many whites tend to have a very limited or narrow definition for racism and the impact it has when added up.
I think what bothers blacks the most is that many whites don’t seem to even acknowledge an obvious advantage even when it is clear that its through no fault of their own which is where all the white privilege stuff comes from.
Personally, I don’t think most whites even think about blacks all that much, so its easy for many of them to be dismissive or a little flippant about it. Blacks perceive everything through race because we can’t escape the negative impact of it from day to day.

Indeed he is correct that most Whites don’t think about Blacks all that much. I try to mostly think positive things about Blacks personally. If a White person is thinking about Blacks all the time, there is something wrong with them. Most Whites obsessed with Blacks are simply racists.
I don’t like to think about the negative issues surrounding Blacks because I pretty much like Black people. So I tend not to think about all the stuff that the racists rail about all the time. The more you think about the downside, the more you start to dislike Blacks, and that’s not something I want to do. I actually make considerable effort to not dislike Blacks and some other non-Whites because I don’t want to get sucked into that hate thing. I don’t want to hate Hispanics either. There are ways to do this. One that I do is to focus on the good side. I also repeat positive mantras about them. I try to compare them favorably with Whites (easy to do with Hispanics actually). I try to seek out the positive in them. I ignore or mostly bury the things about them that piss me off, the result of which is that I have a lot of buried anger towards non-Whites. That’s why Whites go to sites like Chimpout, etc. It’s a release valve for all that buried anger and disgust.
As far as discrimination goes, now we are talking about the important stuff!
Whites who only hire and promote their own instead of non-Whites are indeed discriminating at some point. It is quite possible, assuming that qualified minorities were also in line for promotion or hiring. If the only minorities in line for promotion or hiring were poorly qualified compared to the Whites, there’s no discrimination.
By the way, many of the commenters on this site are segregationists opposed to integration and who want to roll back all civil rights laws. This blog is pro-integration, anti-segregation and fully opposes any and all discrimination against Blacks, period.
What bothers me is why don’t Blacks focus on the really important stuff – discrimination, whatever the mindset behind it is – instead of jokes, words, privilege, aversive racism, bla bla. It seems like Blacks don’t have their priorities straight.
They should set priorities like a hierarchy of racism – what bothers me the most. Discrimination, etc. the idiots who want to roll back civil rights and go back to segregation, the White nationalists, the really hardcore racists, are top priority. Stuff like jokes, privilege, words, aversive racism, is way down on the list. But it seems like Blacks just lump it all in together. Some guy who told a nigger joke 20 years ago is the same as the Stormfront crowd.
WTF is wrong with Black people?

Tea Party Assholes

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydyOTADrCFc]
The usual crap. This isn’t a very good video about their assholery, since it’s made by liberal idiots (Color of Change), but it’s OK.
Barack Obama does not hate White people, White culture, White America or any of that. He’s as White as a Black man gets. This is the language of White nationalism that Beck is using.
When Fat Man Rush calls Obama a “magic Negro,” this is racist language. Among White racists, the phrase “magic nigger” is common. What it means is that most niggers are at worst evil and at best useless. However, they agree that there are a few niggers who are pretty much like White people, but they are so rare, it’s ridiculous. Maybe 5%. White racist forums argue a lot about “magic niggers” and whether or not you should hate them too. They usually say that you should hate the magic niggers too.
Oh yeah. I would like to say one more thing about Rush Limbaugh. He’s fat. LOL!
I can’t believe this Jew John Stossel is arguing for getting rid of anti-discrimination laws. I hope he gets his wish and half the stores he tries to walk into throw him out for being a slimy kike, which frankly he is anyway. This guy’s really gone insane. Remember back when he was one of the most famous talking heads on US TV on 48 Hours. He was always shilling for corporations back then. Now he’s come out as a full-blown Libertarian radical. Wow.
All this shit about Obama being a Muslim and not being an American is racist too. Blacks  aren’t really Americans according to White nationalism. WN says that only Whites can be Americans. Not Amerindians? WTF. And to be a real American, you have to be not only White but also Christian. Saying that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya is just another way of saying that niggers are not Americans and can never be Americans. It’s the language of White nationalism.

Some Comments on Race and Racism

Repost from the old site.
In the comments section, Alan Lewis comments. My text is in quotes:

1. “It is irrelevant whether these differences are due to genetics or culture, since both intertwine anyway.” 
Obviously it makes a great deal of difference, whether or not they “intertwine”. Human genes cannot (at least absent new technology) be altered; culture can be.
2. “…insane, decades- to centuries-long, never-to-be won wars against racism, sexism, homophobia and whatnot. These things will probably always be with us. The insanity of the Left is the folly that they dream they can eradicate these aspects of human nature.”
Pardon me?! The Left’s largely SUCCESSFUL war against racism and whatnot, including the abolition of slavery and numerous other notable victories along the way, is “insane and unwinnable”? And since when is racism an “aspect of human nature”?
What IS “human nature”, anyway? And what basis is there for saying that either racism is an aspect of it? (Is there more basis for saying that than for saying that anti-racism is an “aspect of human nature”?)

To which I respond:
The facts are that there are differences in intelligence and other variables among the races. I wish to avoid the whole discussion of whether this is due to culture or genes, because it never ends.
Also, the racists have taken over the genes debates as far as I can tell. 99% of significant authors proposing that there are hard genetic differences between the races that are not amenable to culture are racists. Almost all of them are White, and not only that, most of them are Northern Europeans.
Why continue on and on with this stupid debate? What’s the point?
Blacks do have a 15 point or so differential with Whites on intelligence. Surely, that difference is not due to racism. They also have a crime rate that is fully 8 times higher than Whites, and Hispanics have a crime rate that is 3.3 times higher than Whites. Surely these differences are not due to racism. That’s just madness.
The problem with the Left and its lunatic anti-racism is that any and all differentials between races have to be chalked up to racism! What crap!
In truth, that 15 point differential in IQ between Blacks and Whites alone could explain all sorts of differentials between those two races.
For instance, in Why Black People Can’t Be Racist , Dr. Andrew Austin argues that Blacks have worse and lower paying jobs, worse educational outcomes, higher rates of unemployment, shorter lives, more diseases and illnesses, higher rates of infant mortality, higher rates of poverty, higher rates of incarceration, less home ownership, worse homes and so forth, and all of these discrepancies are empirically rooted in institution discrimination by Whites against Blacks.
The key word here is empirically. I do not think that it has been empirically proven that all of these differentials are rooted solely and exclusively in institutional discrimination.
If these cannot be explained by IQ, they can possibly be explained by other cultural variables or other biological variables. Other cultural variables may include things like Blacks creating a culture of failure in the Black Underclass or in general that leads to negative outcomes. It is also possible that some of these differences may be partly or wholly explained by racism and discrimination.
There are quite a few average significant biological differences between the races. You can see some of them in this perfectly horrible online book. Fuerle’s book is not horrible because it’s wrong; it’s horrible because it’s unpleasant and most decent people don’t wish to discuss such things.
Even Jared Taylor has noted that his Southern ancestors would have been offended by a discussion of such difference and would have described such a discussion as rude and poor manners, and he says that the debate has been forced on White nationalists by anti-racists continuously invoking White racism as the reason for these differences.
As Alan notes, there have been some notable successes in the war against racism in the US. Ending slavery was one of them. It’s true that the movement has been fairly successful. My point is that it is insane of the Left to wage war to end racism, sexism and homophobia.
The idiot feminists extend this to a war to end rape violence against women. Rape and violence against women will never end. Racism will surely never end. I will not see the end of sexism and homophobia in my lifetime.
Alan says that I am implying that these things are in our genome. Perhaps they are. As I noted above, I’m sitting out the whole genes versus culture debate as a rhetorical dead end and waste of time.
What has this debate accomplished one way or the other since its inception? On the one hand, you have liberal and leftwing idiots arguing that nothing is genetic and everything is cultural. On the other hand, you have a group of mostly Northern Europeans, with a few high-caste South Asians, overseas Chinese and other such elites tossed in, arguing that everything is genetic and nothing is cultural.
Both sides usually preface their discussion by making a meaningless bow to the God of fairness. The environmentalists say that of course some stuff is genetic, then go on to argue that nothing is. The hereditarians argue that it’s a mix of environment and genes, and then proceed to attack all environmental explanations.
The point here is mostly preaching to the respective choirs and a lot of people who like to get involved in insoluble and interminable nasty dust-ups. Saying that these things will be with us as long as I am alive is not the same as saying that racism is genetic, though I suspect it may have such elements.
Anti-racism and affiliation with outside groups may also be genetic. You can postulate all sorts of genetic theories for both. Kevin MacDonald suggests that males may naturally pursue outgroup females in order to improve group fitness by adding new genes to the group. I would add that it also weakens outgroups by stealing their women.
At the same time, he argues that that males naturally try to keep outgroups away from their own women. Allowing outgroups access to your women could lead to the usurpation of all of the ingroup’s females and the extinction of the outgroup. Further, males would be blocked from perpetuating their lines within their ingroup.
We can see through human history that humans have great tendencies towards altruism within group and extreme cruelty to outgroups. Ingroups and outgroups can also get along quite well for varying periods of time. Periods of relative hostility are sprinkled with outliers who cooperate with the opposing group. Periods of relative peace are dotted with incidents of group competition and even hostility.
There seems to be a lot of evidence that the racists are wrong in that all humans are naturally and normally racist as a condition of their genetics. The millions or hundreds of millions of people embracing relative anti-racism in the West and other parts of the world would argue against that. If we were naturally racist, anti-racist individuals would be rare and anti-racist campaigns would be ludicrously ineffective.
On the other hand, the continuing existence of racism all around the world despite a major decades-long project to wipe it out implies that unfortunately, like murder, rape and wife-beating, it may be something that we are stuck with to one degree or another.
No one wages wars to end crime, homicide, suicide, domestic violence, etc. It’s widely acknowledged that such unpleasantness is an aspect of the human condition. These conditions can be either ameliorated or exacerbated. They cannot be eradicated.
The folly of the Left is that it wages wars of eradication, not wars of amelioration, on things that are permanent aspects of our existence. The folly and cynicism of the Right is that negative aspects of our condition cannot be ameliorated through cultural change, and that some are permanent, and even laudatory aspects of our existence.

Californian Racial Neurotics

Repost from the old site.
As usual, this blog has been accused of being incoherent on race, and furthermore, I’ve been accused of being a racist myself, as usual. The person doing the accusing is apparently himself a White racist of the White Nationalist variety.
He says that any anti-racist would never call a Black man a “nigger” (Yes, I did this once about 15 years ago or so), and an anti-racist would not care anything about his neighborhood, city, county, metropolitan area or state being turned from 80% White into 90% Black or Korean or whatever, or the United Nations, even overnight. He also said that since I talk about race all the time, I must be a racist.
That’s a pretty strange definition of anti-racism. I suppose that the typical anti-racist crazies would not care about such a thing, but your average White Californian is not too happy about replaced and displaced and turned into a minority in his state.
At the same time, he’s usually not that racist himself, and he will often say that he opposes racism. He gets uncomfortable to irritated at any kind of overtly racist talk. He hates White nationalism, not to mention White Power Nazis. He hates segregation, the Indian Wars and apartheid in Africa. He’s not too happy about colonialism.
He’s in favor of interracial marriage and relationships often has friends or family who are in one. At the same time, he thinks that the standard PC anti-racism of the activist variety is completely insane, and he regards people who push this as radical nutcases. He has a low opinion of illegal aliens, but he may want to legalize them because he thinks it’s cruel to send them all home. He hates racial slurs.
He supports all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws but is often dubious about affirmative action. He’s typically pretty much indifferent to the whole topic of race and racism and finds the whole subject unpleasant and distasteful and doesn’t want to talk about it. He thinks xenophobes who dislike all foreigners and want to stop all immigration are Know-Nothing Idiots.
He believes that there IQ differences between the races, but doesn’t necessarily want to talk about it too much, though he regards the topic as fascinating.
He will often defend Amerindians, Filipinos, Aborigines, East Indians, Africans, Negritos, Gypsies, Blacks, Hispanics, Papuans, Melanesians, Polynesians, Micronesians and just about any other minority group that is often the subject of scorn. He will regard them as interesting people who are being oppressed and he wants to defend them.
At the same time, some of these people are racists, but only about certain people. I know some White Californians who are racist against Hispanics, especially illegal aliens. At the same time, these same people have Hispanic and even illegal alien friends and acquaintances because they believe in treating everyone as individuals.
White nationalists paint a bizarre picture of anti-racism that fails to describe how people really are. Either you’re a crazed PC anti-racist radical, or else you’re a racist White nationalist. You’re one or the other. But people are complicated and most California Whites don’t fit into either category. I suspect that many people of other races and ethnicities have similar conflicting views.
When it comes to race, as with many things, people are complicated, conflicted and all over the place. It’s not just race. Humans are like this about all sorts of subjects. That’s just the way people are. People don’t necessarily have coherent views about many things, or about much of anything.
I admit to writing about race and racism all the time and even being obsessed with it. I’m also very interested in White nationalism for some reason, but the movement is repellent. If you go to antifa forums, you also find a lot of folks who are pretty obsessed with race. On sites like Humanbiodiversity , you find much the same thing. I doubt if this makes me a racist, but maybe it makes me a nut. Oh well.
Let me give you an example.
A friend of mine was over there the other day. Older White woman. I was showing her the website of Erectus Walks Among Us, and she thought the guy was a complete idiot. She said, “Why does he care? Why did he spend all this time writing a book on differences between the races?”
I said, “He’s a White nationalist. That’s all they think about all day long. That’s all they care about. Black people are destroying America and the world and this is the most important issue of our time.”
She shook her head and said, “Well! He’s a nut!”
Then I asked her if she thought there were differences between the races of the type the guy is describing. She said I’m sure they exist. I asked her if she thought that most Whites thought there were differences between the races, and she said I think they do.
I then said that a lot of these people move to try to get away from Blacks and Hispanics. She said, “Sure? Of course they do. So? What’s wrong with that?” I asked her if that’s racist and she said, “Of course not!”
Later she was reading the paper and pointed to some morons who keep crashing cars into canals and drowning around here. These idiots drive with full carloads along the edges of canals and then fall in the canal and drown. I said, “They’re all Hispanics.” She laughed and said, “Of course they are! No one else is that stupid!”
But this woman totally hates White nationalism and all overtly White racist movements, supports all civil rights laws, supports interracial marriage (her son is married to an Asian), and hates segregationists, neo-Confederates, apartheid-lovers and supporters of the Indian Wars. She even defends illegals and wants to make them all into citizens.
She loves Obama and worries that the opposition to him is racist and that a lot of Whites voting against him are racists. She also harbors no illusions about other races. She thinks there are IQ differences by race and regards this as a fascinating though forbidden topic.
This is pretty much your average older White Californian.
Let’s describe another fellow.
He’s 45 years old and White. This guy will defend Blacks and the whole Black agenda, and he’s voting for Obama too.
He’s been known to use the word “nigger” but usually as humor. He saw Cynthia McKinney once on TV and started making monkey noises and laughing. We were talking about South Central LA once and he described it as “land of the silverbacks”.
On the other hand, he thinks Whites who hate Blacks are idiots, and he’s turned off by anti-Black racism. He supports reparations for Blacks, but he also says that a lot of Blacks are rapists and thieves, and Whites should be careful about getting involved with them. He often uses typical pro-Black rhetoric when describing Blacks and talks about how horribly we have treated them.
At the same time, when I was dating Black women 25 years ago, he said, “You’re sick! How could you date a Black woman! You’re a nigger lover!” And then he laughed.
He describes himself as a racist, but only towards Jews, Hispanics and South Indians. He thinks Whites, especially Northern European Whites, are superior to all other groups. The guy’s basically a Nordicist and he’s been known to read proto-Nazi literature by German authors. He has no amimosity towards anyone else.
He’s furious about being made a minority in his home state and he blames Hispanics. He’s mad at South Indians for “taking over all the 7-11’s and gas stations.” He’s dated Amerindian and Japanese women. At the same time, he has Hispanic and even illegal alien friends. Nevertheless, he also openly states that Hispanics are an inferior race and that Amerindians are stupid.
Let’s look at one more guy.
He’s 48 years old and White. This guy who used to go on and on about the need for White people to procreate, as they are going extinct. He’s also very racist against Blacks, as he used to work as a security guard and then a prison guard, and has lots of White cop friends, and White cops in California are extremely racist against Blacks, even if most others aren’t.
He loves to quote statistics about Blacks and crime, and once, when I had bad experiences dating some Black women, he chided me and that’s what you get for associating with Black people. At the same time, this guy dated a Black woman a while back (!) and he married a Vietnamese woman a few years ago and just fathered a Hapa kid (!). Does any of this make sense? Not really.
I’m sorry if people find these folks “incoherent on race”, but that’s just the way a lot of people are out here. Race is a complicated subject and it twists minds in some pretty interesting ways. That’s what makes humans and life so interesting.

What Would a Sane Pro-White Movement Look Like?

Repost from the old site.
A pro-White movement (whatever that means) could go somewhere in the US. Recall my quote in an earlier post from a Time Magazine poll that found that 77% of US Whites were ethnocentric and felt that White culture was valuable and deserved to be preserved.
Now I don’t know exactly where these folks stand, or what policies they would support, but I assure you that even out here in California, among liberal and even Leftist and Communist Whites, there is support for the 77% fraction of that poll.
A reasonable pro-White movement would be expected to speak for those 77% of US Whites who are “ethnocentric, and think White culture is valuable and is worth preserving”, without offending them or turning them off with a bunch of racist crap.
The problem is that there is no such movement. When any group or webpage says “pro-White”, prepare your gag reflex and get ready to take off running. Even if they aren’t praising Adolf Hitler, they are surely praising Bull Connor. The pro-White movement in the US is not moderate – it’s only extreme. Even the most moderate elements are far too extreme for even the ethnocentric Whites that I know.
Let’s look at what the pro-White movement in the US supports, who they like and who they dislike:
The WN movement supports segregation, hates MLK, Obama, Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks, loves apartheid, cheers the genocide of the American Indians and pours scorn on the Indians defending their land, loves White colonialism and praises it to the skies, supports White separatism, cheers on the South in the Civil War and Jim Crow, minimizes lynching, hates civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws, hates Blacks and almost everyone who isn’t White except for maybe some Asians, and hates interracial dating, sex and marriage as “race mixing” or “miscegenation”.
Further, many even moderate WN’s support throwing out all non-Whites from the US, and especially sending Blacks back to Africa. And it’s standard White nationalism across the board that the only real Americans are White people.
Jesus man.
Do you have any idea how that resonates with the ethnocentric Whites I know? Like a lead balloon.
Let me tell you where they stand, who they like and who they hate:
They hate segregation, love MLK, Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela, they’re voting for Obama, hate apartheid, hate the conquest of the American Indians and support the Indians’ defense of their land, hate White colonialism (in general – anyway, they don’t praise it to the skies), think White separatism is idiotic and laughable, hate the South in the Civil War and side with the North even if they had relatives on both sides, hate Jim Crow, think lynching was “terrorism against Blacks”, support civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, are indifferent to interracial dating and marriage, though they were initially dubious about it (because so many young Whites are doing it, including their relatives), don’t hate other races or groups – even Blacks, find even primitive groups in the Third World fascinating and are sympathetic to them, and will give you a hate look and walk out of the room if you even say the words “race-mixing” or miscegenation.
If you start talking about throwing non-Whites out of the US or sending Blacks back to Africa, they will probably swear at you, may try to hit you, and might either throw you out of the house or just walk out of the room. If you tell them that only Whites are real Americans, they might try to hit you in the head with a frying pan.
And yet, they are ethnocentric, feel White culture is valuable, and feel it should be preserved. Who will speak for them? Apparently no one. Way to go, guys.

Transcript of Reason Radio Interview with Me on October 13, 2010

Since the sound quality was so poor, I decided to make a transcript of this interview available for you all. Enjoy it.
Robert Stark: We’re going to be discussing California issues, how the states have changed, and how it affects trends facing the rest of the nation, but first of all, I came across this article on Robert’s site called Some Sensible Positions for Liberal Race Realists and White Advocates. Your first point is to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing. Very sensible position that most Americans would support.
Robert Lindsay: I don’t know if they could get it through Congress and pass it as a Constitutional amendment, but all White advocates should be supporting this move. It is a very reasonable position to take. My position is that White advocates should not be taking crazy positions – almost all of them are taking these crazy, loony positions like “freedom of association” that are simply never going to fly.
This move to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing is a reasonable position. Your average reasonable person, especially White person, says, “Sure, why not? Good idea.” The Left is trying to portray this as racism, but hey, let them scream! Because your average normal American, at least White people, and even some Black people, looks at this and says, “What? They’re calling these people racists? Because they want to amend the Constitution to get rid of these stupid anchor babies? That’s not racist, that’s just rational.”
Robert Stark: I think that even liberal European countries don’t give out citizenship to anchor babies.
Robert Lindsay: Some countries may allow it, but I think most of Europe has gotten rid of it. Ireland recently had birthright citizenship, but they just got rid of it. We’re one of the last countries around to have this.
Robert Stark: Ireland has only been getting a lot of immigration recently because of their economy.
Robert Lindsay: There has been a recent trend for at least White countries to get rid of birthright citizenship. As far as the rest of the world goes, I don’t know, but I would be surprised if there is much birthright citizenship. Most countries don’t agree with the concept. Why should you get birthright citizenship? If you’re born in some foreign country, you get citizenship of whatever country your parents are citizens of.
Robert Stark: Yes, it should be based on the parents.
Robert Lindsay: You’re still a citizen of some country! You have a right to be a citizen of some country in the world. If a female American citizen and I go over to…Peru and have a child there, why is that kid a Peruvian citizen? That kid is an American citizen. It’s born of American citizens. Despite the fact that we are living in Peru now, we are still just American citizens living in a foreign country.
Robert Stark: What are your thoughts on dual citizenship?
Robert Lindsay: I understand that there is a lot more dual citizenship going around than people think. I mean, the anti-Semites go on and on about US Jews being “dual citizens” of the US and Israel. But my understanding is that there’s a lot of dual citizenship going on here in the US and in other countries as well. Immigrants from many different countries the world over who are here in the US actually have dual citizenship – US citizenship and citizenship in their home country. So apparently it’s not just a thing with Jewish Americans having Israeli citizenship – they are not the only ones.
Robert Stark: I think the Israeli issue is not so much the dual citizenship – a lot of immigrants have that – the main thing is that many people in positions of power in the government and politics are more likely to have dual Israeli-US citizenship.
Robert Lindsay: The real concern is that, say, your average person who has Irish and US dual citizenship is not some sort of virtual agent working for the Irish government. Your average person with Israeli and US dual citizenship is practically an Israeli agent! And that’s the whole problem right there. That’s the whole problem with dual loyalty and the Jews.
Robert Stark: Yes, the dual loyalty is a problem. And due to multiculturalism, it’s tolerated, when we really should not be tolerating dual loyalties.
Robert Lindsay: Dual loyalty is a problem with Jews due to the nature of Judaism and the Jews. Most other ethnic groups are not so ethnocentric as the Jews so we don’t worry about dual loyalty much with them. But due to the nature of Judaism, Jews are loyal to the Jews first and their native land second if at all. That’s why this dual loyalty thing keeps cropping up with the Jews – it’s inherent in the Jews themselves. It’s not an anti-Semitic canard.
Robert Stark: Yes, it’s just how they are.
Robert Lindsay: With the Jews, dual loyalty isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
Robert Stark: Your next recommendation is to avoid overthrowing civil rights laws. Can you go into detail about what some of these civil rights laws are?
Robert Lindsay: The White advocates want to get rid of all civil rights laws! Every White advocate I have heard of wants to get rid of every single civil rights law that we have on the books in this country. They hate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They hate the Housing Rights Act, they hate the Voting Rights Act. They want to get rid of all of them and all anti-discrimination laws too. It’s true that Rand Paul is running for Senate now, and he agrees with that position, but nevertheless, that is a very fringe position to take. The day to get rid of civil rights laws has come and gone! The civil rights laws are here to stay!
Robert Stark: So you think that would be a very difficult idea to sell to your average person.
Robert Lindsay: Worse than that. It’s not going to happen! Those days are gone. That was maybe doable in say, 1980 or so…
Robert Stark: I think the real big issue is immigration…You’re critical of people who want to get rid of non-White immigration. Instead, you are calling for IQ tests.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, this would actually be a very interesting thing for White advocates to support. They were actually suggesting this in Germany. I don’t have any problem with that at all, but I don’t want it for spouses of citizens. If you marry someone from another country, they don’t need to take the test. But it’s a good idea, especially with these problematic immigrants. Some of these immigrants are a real problem.
Robert Stark: What groups do you see as most problematic?
Robert Lindsay: The Hispanic immigrants are a problem. Especially the ones from Mesoamerica. The ones from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras…And to some extent, those from the Dominican Republic.
Robert Stark: Is it because they are coming here illegally? Or is it legal immigrants as well who are a problem?
Robert Lindsay: I don’t think that all of the problem Hispanic immigrants are illegals. I would think that with Hispanics, the problem is IQ-related. If you said we are only taking Hispanics with an IQ of 98, which is the US average, therefore, all Hispanic immigrants, no matter how many you allow, are not going to cause an IQ decline in the country. I would imagine if you set it at 98 – your average Hispanic and their offspring who are causing problems – their IQ is below 98. The ones who are not causing problems, who are assimilating well, who act like you and me, their IQ’s are 98 and above. It’s a pretty good cutoff. It’s the dumber ones that are causing all the problems.
Robert Stark: How would this plan deal with the numbers of immigrants coming into the US? Do you think there should be a cap per country? Because right now, we take in I think almost 2 million people a year legally.
Robert Lindsay: Is it really 2 million?
Robert Stark: I think it’s maybe 1.5 million, but anyway, it’s pretty high.
Robert Lindsay: Sure, White advocates should advocate for a cap. 200,000, or 400,000…some kind of a reasonable cap.
Robert Stark: Isn’t this what Pat Buchanan has been advocating?
Robert Lindsay: I think that is a salable position. A lot of Americans might go along with that. And it really puts the pro-immigration, multicultural, PC crazies on the spot, because it forces them to say, “Terrible! They want to limit immigration to 400,000 a year! How awful! We need 2 million billion zillion a year instead!”
Robert Stark: As opposed to advocating for zero immigration, they won’t be able to play the card saying you are racist.
Robert Lindsay: Sure. You sound like some kind of a nativist nut if you say, “Yeah! We want zero immigration!” And it’s never going to happen anyway – zero immigration is not doable. Instead, you say, “Hey, we just want limits.” Then people have to stop and think, “Wow! 400,000? That’s a lot? How many do we actually let in every year, anyway? 2 million billion trillion zillion? Wow! Well, that’s way too many.” And it puts those idiots on the spot. They have to defend those insane high numbers as the only way to go, and they will have to say that those limiting immigration to say 400,000 a year are part of some evil racist plot, and that’s not going to work.
Robert Stark: And focus on the overpopulation issue as well. That’s important to bring up.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, I also wanted to say that in 1991, there was an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that dealt with something called “disparate impact.” And this, in contrast with the rest of the civil rights laws that need to stay, has got to go. Thing is, most people don’t even know what disparate impact is. No one’s heard of it, no one understands it.
But for instance the Ricci case, the firefighters case in New Jersey, was a case of disparate impact. Disparate impact says that if you give tests to a bunch of applicants, and the Whites pass the test, but the Blacks flunk at a higher rate, then there must be something wrong with the test. And you have to go back and redo the test or dumb down the test. It says that every time you have a racially disparate impact in any outcome, it’s always due to racism or bias in the testing, and that’s not necessarily true. Maybe the Blacks just could not pass the test.
Most people would be in favor of getting rid of disparate impact. And you would really put the PC idiots and the Black groups, etc. on the defensive because they would have to defend disparate impact and these crazy cases like the New Jersey firefighters, and most White people, and even a lot of Blacks, thought that case was an outrage. The goal is to push the PC-multicultural people into a corner and force them to defend things that sound really bad, and make us sound like the reasonable people. You see?
Robert Stark: The next one is getting rid of US colonies. I don’t think we need to go into too much detail here. It’s pretty simple, but in a nutshell, the US colonies are places like Puerto Rico and American Samoa. And they are big sources of immigrants. And because they can’t really be screened like foreign immigrants, they can simply come in in large numbers.
Robert Lindsay: Yes. They are unscreened immigrants, and they cause tons of problems. Our legal immigrants don’t really cause a lot of problems, to be honest, because we screen them really well. But the Puerto Ricans and the American Samoans can come here just like that. For them to come to the US is like you or me moving to Nevada. It’s like moving to another state. And it’s because they are unscreened that these groups cause so many problems. And there’s no reason to have colonies anyway!
Robert Stark: It’s ridiculous. We should let them secede. It doesn’t make sense.
Robert Lindsay: Why do we have colonies anyway? What are we, an imperialist country? Ok, we’re an imperialist country. Let’s have a conversation about this. Do Americans want to be an imperialist country? Let’s put these imperialists on the spot. Let’s force them to defend US colonialism!
Robert Stark: I think that Puerto Rico is a product of the Spanish American War. And I think the same with Samoa. So in a sense it is imperialism.
Robert Lindsay: I don’t know how we got Samoa. There’s also Micronesia, but Micronesia is not so much of a problem. But Micronesia is a colony too. We should not have any colonies. No country should have any colonies. And this is a Left position. Only the Left is totally principled on this position and says no nation should have any colonies. So by doing this, White advocates would be lining up with the hard Left, but that’s OK! Because the Hard Left takes a very principled anti-imperialist stand on this. Let’s force these elites to defend US imperialism! I want to see these guys on TV defending our imperialism and colonialism. You see, the Puerto Ricans and the Samoans and the rest don’t want to go – they don’t want independence.
Robert Stark: They want it both ways. They don’t really view themselves as Americans, but they still want the benefits of being American at the same time. That’s the problem.
Robert Lindsay: They like it the way it is. And if they become states, it is not going to be so good of a deal economically for them. But the way it is now, as colonies, it’s basically just a total scam for the colonies. But if they go on their own and become independent, they will probably just become ordinary 3rd World countries, and they will have a lot of problems as far as that goes. Why are we coddling these people?
Robert Stark: Another issue that is very important is schools. You are talking about these White advocates who are so fixated on Brown vs. the Board of Education, that it’s basically a done deal, and they are wasting their time.
Robert Lindsay: Brown vs. BOE is a done deal, right? Are they going to get rid of it? Even this crazy rightwing Supreme Court, are they actually going to get rid of Brown? It ain’t going to happen!
Robert Stark: So your main focus is on busing and that kids should just have to go to their local schools.
Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t say it’s evil or anything like that. “Oh! They’re busing Blacks into White schools! That’s terrible!” The main thing is that busing is just stupid. I mean, why are they doing it?
Robert Stark: And it ruins good schools. Like the schools I went to in LA public schools – they used to be decent schools, but they got completely ruined. And both the middle school and high school I went to were in fairly wealthy parts of LA. But they’ve both basically turned into ghetto schools through the use of busing.
Robert Lindsay: Well, sure, but I don’t want to say that because that sounds racist. Instead, I would just say that it’s a complete waste of money. And I would say that there is nothing wrong with a White school. They act like a White school is some sort of pathological thing. “Oh! Look at that school! It’s too White! Oh, we can’t have that! We need to make it half Black!” There is nothing wrong with a White school. It’s perfectly acceptable for a White school to be a White school and a Black school to be a Black school.
Robert Stark: The multicultural and diversity types, they use diversity as a code word for non-White. For instance, true diversity would be a school where each ethnic group would be say 20%. But on the other hand, they claim that 90% Hispanic and 90% Black is diverse.
Robert Lindsay: It’s ridiculous! The diversity thing has become like a fetish. I’m an integrationist, but we don’t need diversity everywhere. If some town is naturally a White town just because a bunch of White people went and moved there and few non-White people decided to move there, well, that’s OK! We don’t have to go fix it up by say, importing 20,000 Black people. If some town is naturally Black, well, that’s OK! Maybe a bunch of Blacks wanted to move there, and maybe non-Blacks did not want to move there.
There is nothing wrong with naturally segregated places, as long as it’s voluntary and we still have laws in place to ensure that anyone can go live anywhere they want to. And when you say that Blacks can’t learn in a Black school, and the only way that Black people can learn is if they’re around a bunch of White people, that’s very insulting to Black people. It really insults them. It says they’re inferior, and it’s a real burn on Black people. And I don’t know why Black people want to believe this insult about them. What’s wrong with a Black school?
Robert Stark: You’re right, that’s what busing implies – that Blacks are inferior, and they need to be around White people in order to learn. And affirmative action implies the same thing. Most of your proposals are pretty reasonable, but saying we support affirmative action? California, which is a liberal state, actually voted to end affirmative action. I don’t see how saying we support affirmative action would appeal to most of the public if the majority of people are opposed to it.
Robert Lindsay: Well, you could always say you support affirmative action but only if the non-Whites are just as qualified as the Whites. But the point is that that pretty much rules out most affirmative action right there! This was how affirmative action was supposed to be, but it’s never been that way.
Robert Stark: But that still is reverse discrimination against Whites – if they are equally qualified, choosing the non-White. I think the best strategy would be to have economics based on economics or geography. It would benefit a lot of middle class Whites in middle America. If you look at the Ivy League universities, they are really dominated by the ultra-wealthy and then a few slots left over for affirmative action. And this is your last point – say we have no problems with well-behaved Blacks who wish to fully integrate into White communities.
Robert Lindsay: Right, that’s a good idea, because almost all of these White advocate types are segregationists, and they push things like freedom of association. That’s what this Rand Paul is pushing. It’s not going to happen. You’re not going to get freedom of association back in where White communities can have housing covenants that say we don’t want any Black people, or we only want White people. Ain’t gonna happen. Ain’t gonna happen! Instead, we should say that if there are Black people out there who wish to move to our communities and are willing to assimilate to the values of our White communities and White culture – welcome to our city!
Robert Stark: Then you say that this will force the PC crowd into the dubious role of defending Black culture.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, because then they will say, “Oh! They only like White culture! Racists!” To that, we should respond, “We like White culture. We’re White, we like our culture. There’s good and bad about it, but we prefer our culture. And personally, we feel that a lot of Black people would be better off adopting White culture or assimilating to White culture than in getting into their own Black culture.” And then the PC crowd will scream, “They’re saying White culture is better than Black culture!” But your average person, especially your average White person, hears that and thinks, “Hm. You know what? White culture is better than Black culture!”
Robert Stark: The one point that we left out is to support the immigration of White Hispanics into the US. So, how is that really practical? You’re saying our immigration policy would have to explicitly address race, and do you think that would be practical?
Robert Lindsay: Well, White advocates are already saying that they only want White immigration coming into this country.
Robert Stark: What are the White advocates’ position on White Hispanics?
Robert Lindsay: They never discuss it. The only thing they say is that we will only accept immigration from Europe. And that’s never going to happen. We may as well branch out and say, “Well, we’d like the White Hispanics to come here.” Because then it would be a lot harder for the PC Left to accuse the White advocates of racism. “They hate Hispanics! They hate Hispanics!” And people would look at that and say, “Are you sure they’re racists? They don’t seem to mind the White Hispanics.” And then the PC Left will retort, “Sure! They like the White Hispanics, but they don’t like the non-White Hispanics!”
Robert Stark: They would still be able to play the race card, but it would cause division among Hispanics. It’s interesting, because on our last show, we were covering the Rick Sanchez incident. Rick Sanchez is basically White, but because his family is from Latin America, he takes this view that he’s somehow a minority, and it’s sort of our own fault, because in Latin America, the Whites down there in many cases are fairly racist against the non-Whites down there. But we classify everyone from the region as effectively non-White, i.e., Hispanic. It’s ridiculous.
Robert Lindsay: The White advocates in the US are almost all Nordicists. They don’t like the White Hispanics very much. They tend to label them as non-Whites. And the only Whites who they think are really White are from Northern Europe.
Robert Stark: Well, the first immigration act in the 1920’s was a Nordicist thing because it favored northwestern Europeans.
Robert Lindsay: It was, true. White racism in the US has always been Nordicist, but your average White person in this country is no longer a Nordicist.
Robert Stark: I think this Nordicism thing has pretty much died out…
Robert Lindsay: No, no, no…
Robert Stark: Because if you look at these pro-White forums, there are Italians, Greeks, or Eastern European descent, but you are personally into that Pan-Aryanism philosophy.
Robert Lindsay: It’s a good thing, Pan-Aryanism, because once you get into Pan-Aryanism, it gets harder and harder to call White advocates racists. Because the PC Left says, “Oh! They’re racist!” Sneer sneer. Then people say, “Hey, wait a minute. They like Moroccans, right?” Then the Left says, “Well, yeah, but they’re still racists!” Then people say, “Wait a minute. They like Syrians. They like Iraqis and Lebanese…” The Left says, “Doesn’t matter! They’re racists!” Sneer. Then people say, “Hey wait. But they like Turks. They like Armenians, Chechens, Iranians…”
Robert Stark: David Duke is into that Pan-Aryanism stuff, because he visited Syria and Iran, and he pointed out that he saw people who were so called Aryans when he was there.
Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t be saying that. We should instead be saying something like, “All Iranians are White.” We shouldn’t say, “Well, there’s a few of them who are real Aryans, but most aren’t.” Grumble grumble.
Robert Stark: All of them? Do you consider Ahmadinejad White?
Robert Lindsay: Yes! Absolutely. If you look at Iranians on a gene map, they’re right next to Norwegians, Danes and English. They’re White people! And if you look at them, they look White. The people I talk to are California racial liberals, but they almost all say, “Iranians? They’re White! They look like White people.” And if you talk to Iranians, they all claim White too. So this whole idea that Iranians are non-Whites is just kind of a fringe concept. It ain’t gonna fly.
Robert Stark: People assume that all Middle Easterners look alike, but there are some big distinctions. Someone from Saudi Arabia is completely distinct from someone from Lebanon.
Robert Lindsay: Well, yes, but I think Saudis are mostly White. Yet some of them, like Prince Bandar, he’s a pretty Black looking guy. Some of those Gulf types, they have so much Black in them that you can’t really call them White anymore.
One thing I wanted to go back and talk about on my list here. We need to get serious about throwing seriously disruptive students out of school.
Everybody wants to know, “What do we do about the schools?” For the whole White advocate crowd, and many ordinary Whites, the overarching racial question often is, “What about the schools?” The White advocates look at the mess in mixed schools and scream, “Re-segregate the schools! Black schools for Blacks! White schools for Whites! Get rid of Brown versus BOE!” Well, you know what? That ain’t gonna fly.
Robert Stark: I agree. The way you deal with these kinds of racial issues is you go around the race aspect by just dealing with people based on their behavior. And the anti-racist types, they’re still going to call you racist because they make excuses for bad behavior. But screw them. All we need to do is to say that students who are continuously disruptive should be send them to separate schools. And if they get their behavior under control, then they can go back to the regular schools. But it’s unfair for students who want to learn to have to put up with that crap.
Robert Lindsay: They’re destroying the schools. I hate to say it, but it’s especially true with the Blacks. There seems to be a tipping point of around 13% Black, and then things start going downhill. And just like Fred Reed said (I got this idea from him) when these Blacks start acting really bad, just throw them out! Throw them over to Psycho Kids Central High or wherever where they can screw off all they want. That is a completely reasonable position. Most people, especially most White people, would support it. I don’t know about Blacks, whether they will support it.
But once again, the PC crowd will be backed into a corner, and they will be forced to defend these students who act absolutely horrible, and just flat out destroy schools. They destroy Black schools, they destroy mixed schools, they destroy all kinds of schools. And in response to their charges of racism, we will say, “Well, it’s not just for Blacks. We will throw the bad Whites out. We’ll throw anybody out.”
Robert Stark: Yes, anyone. You can’t call it racist, because it’s a colorblind solution.
Robert Lindsay: And once again, we will force these PC characters to defend the worst acting, most horrible students in the whole country, total brats, that are destroying schools for everybody else. And that’s a terrible thing to defend. I want to see them defend that behavior. See, that’s a reasonable thing that’s actually doable. Getting rid of Brown versus BOE, getting rid of integration – those are not reasonable goals.
Robert Stark: Yes, these people, they’re just living in a fantasy. Like on immigration, they want to shut it all down, but in reality, we will be very lucky if we can even stop amnesty.
Robert Lindsay: Agreed. We probably can’t even stop amnesty. We can’t even throw these illegals out of here.
Robert Stark: Yes, we can’t even throw out the illegals.
Robert Lindsay: First things first.
Robert Stark: Practical solutions that are doable…
Robert Lindsay: I don’t think we can deal with legal immigration at all right now. First things first. First of all, we need to deal with illegal immigration, and we can’t even deal with that! These PC crazies want to legalize all the illegals, for Chrissake. Let’s deal with that first. Politics is the art of the possible. And these people, these White advocates, especially these White nationalists, they are advocating positions that are totally unreasonable. They are completely non-doable, fringe, ultra-radical positions. I doubt if these folks have the support of 5-10% of the population for these radical things that they want to do. And what’s the point of that? What’s the point of being a total loser? I don’t get it.
Robert Stark: Well, if you look at the new A3P Party, most of their platform is pretty reasonable stuff that sounds similar to the stuff that you’re advocating here.
Robert Lindsay: It’s a good idea! It’s a good idea to come across like a moderate. One of the goals of politics is to come across as reasonable and to force your opponent to take crazy positions and defend those crazy positions. Fine. Put crazy words in their mouth, and then make them defend them.
Robert Stark: These issues all tie together, but originally I intended to discuss California, and we still have a decent amount of time. To start off, we are both from California, and we are both originally from the LA area, and both of us have moved up to Central California. And Robert, can you tell us, what are the changes that you have seen throughout your life and that have happened to our state and what are some of the biggest and most negative changes that you have seen?
Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m not going to call for a return to White California. That’s an era that is done and gone. And I did not mind growing up in a multicultural California. When I was growing up in the 1970’s, California was about 70-80% White. It was 80% White in 1970, and it was 70% White in 1980. So it was about 75% White during that era. I spent most of my time in a White community, but I was totally comfortable with a California that was 25% non-White. That was normal to me, it felt good and OK.
I don’t have to live with all White people. We can have some non-Whites around. We grew up with the Mexicans. The Mexicans are a part of this state. They’ve been here from the very start. This state used to be a part of Mexico. The Mexicans – they’re part of the neighborhood!
Robert Stark: But the problem is the sheer numbers. Because the PC, Open Borders types try to say, “Oh, you hate Mexicans. You’re scared of Mexicans.” But most White Californians are pretty used to being around Mexicans. They’re part of the landscape. It’s not really an issue that they are here. Instead, it’s an issue of numbers.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, right. The Mexicans in this state assimilated really well back in the 1970’s. And now, there are a zillion of them, they’re not assimilating, and they’re causing tons of problems. And they were not causing tons of problems back in the 1970’s.
Robert Stark: You wrote that Mexican-Americans are assimilating into low class White culture.
Robert Lindsay: The assimilated Hispanics, the ones that are second and especially third generation, a lot of them are assimilating to a sort of a White trash culture. Like the lowest of the Whites, the worst of our people.
Robert Stark: I saw that a lot at the Wallmarts in Fresno. Not so much in LA.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, it’s not a good thing that a lot of them are assimilating to. One thing that I have noticed is that the Hispanics who have a deeper connection to Mexico – first generation immigrants and some of their children – now I don’t really like the illegals all that much, but we have a lot of them around here. But actually the ones that have a really deep and intense connection to Mexico, who are still into the Mexican culture, a lot of them tend to act pretty good. They have a tight-nit family structure.
Robert Stark: Yes, I noticed that when I was in a public high school in LA, the recent immigrants minded their own business, but there were others who emulated the whole gangta rap culture. They wore baggy jeans and listened to rap.
Robert Lindsay: Those are not the recent immigrants!
Robert Stark: Yes, the gangbanger types are children of illegals or in some cases, even grandchildren of illegals.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, they are the children of the illegals. And now we are getting into multigenerational gangbangers. But around here, the ones that are still deeply connected to Mexico, they generally act pretty good. They act like Mexicans, people from Mexico itself. They act like peasants.
If you go down to Mexico – I used to go down there 25-40 years ago – your average Mexican generally acts pretty good. They are conservative, traditional people, they have a very tight-knit family structure, and they keep a close watch on the girls. And for instance, the traditional Mexican girls, they don’t try to sleep with every guy in town. It’s dishonorable to be a slut or to be a prostitute and sell your body.
But I see these Mexican Americans who are assimilated, 3rd generation, and they start selling their bodies on the street and shooting heroin and just sleazing out to the max. And the ones around here that are deeply connected to Mexico, a good, proper Mexican girl, she won’t do that! To them, the worst thing on Earth is to be a whore. And, you know what? I’ve got to respect that. There is something valuable about that.
The family is often very protective of the girls. They have good, strong role models. The male has a strong role model. The female has a strong role model. The Mexican women are very feminine, they’re very nice to men, they’re very friendly. I don’t really have anything against the peasant culture of Old Mexico. There’s a lot to be said for peasant cultures. In many ways, they are good, traditional.
Robert Stark: You also said that you have seen the cultural decline of the White middle class. You wrote an article about that. Can you explain some of the things you have observed about the White middle class over time? They also seem to be assimilating into lower class culture and they seem to be getting less intellectual.
Robert Lindsay: Part of what is going on is the wiggerization of White people. Things are just getting a lot trashier. Back in 1970’s, White culture, if you had tattoos, you were considered to be a sleaze. Especially a woman, if a woman had tattoos…we knew women who had tattoos, and people hated them and treated them like they were whores. The only people who had tattoos were people like bikers or maybe Marines.
For a White middle class person, that would be considered a totally sleazy thing to do, to get a tattoo on your body. White people were supposed to be like these White bread, upper middle class, well-mannered types. Now, just about every White woman you see is decorated like a cannibal! They have all these piercings all over their bodies. I don’t want to put them down too much, but it seems sleazy to people from my generation. It seems as if there has been a trashification of our people.
Robert Stark: That sort of thing used to be seen only in lower class Whites, but now it’s seen in middle class people too. It’s due to the TV. People don’t value intellect so much anymore.
Robert Lindsay: Maybe, but White culture has always been anti-intellectual. You can go read Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life where all the way back in the 1950’s, he was talking about this sort of thing. I think that what’s going on is that White middle class people, especially young people, have decided it’s cool to look and act like a low class person.
Robert Stark: We have been talking a lot about race and demographics, but I would like to talk about the issue of the environment in this state and the over development and urban sprawl that the state has been seeing, and how both liberals and conservatives deal with this issue. It’s fascinating because liberals are promoting all this immigration, and business interests go along with them, but the conservatives – they’re apologists for this urban sprawl and this horrible overdevelopment.
Tom McClintock, who is this anti-immigration politician in the state…I knew this woman who was running for state assembly, and she was complaining about all of these tract homes going up in Ventura County, and his attitude was that they could do whatever they wanted to with their land. But I see that mentality as the same mentality as the people who are for Open Borders or defend job outsourcing. It’s really just as bad.
Robert Lindsay: Well, you see, he’s just a typical Republican. I don’t get the Republicans or the capitalists’ point of view. For instance, on housing, their POV is that…we have to keep on building houses? What? Forever? How long are we going to be building these units called “housing starts?” That can’t go on forever. We have to keep building new houses, new houses. And in order to keep building new homes, you need an increasing population. This is the whole growth-based economic mentality. And I don’t think it’s sustainable – endless growth forever. You can’t.
Robert Stark: So the immigration issue, it’s basically the same mentality. If you look at the places where the elites live like Marin Country or Malibu or Carmel, they’ve done a great job of conservation and low, sustainable growth with lots of open space there. They want to keep their own places beautiful. But if you look at the big money interests, they profit off an increasing population because that means more consumers. Some of these people are Democrats, some of them are Republicans, but it doesn’t matter. Instead, it’s just all about growth is good for making a profit.
Robert Lindsay: Endless growth. But isn’t that kind of crazy? Isn’t there ever going to get to be a point where people have enough money, and we don’t need to keep on growing forever? Apparently, you can’t have this endless growth without having endlessly increasing population. And more and more houses. And more and more cities. And more and more roads. And more and more everything.
Robert Stark: These neoliberal types, they say we need to keep bringing in more and more immigration as a way to grow our economy. It’s insane because it’s not sustainable, and you can’t have an economy that is based on that model.
Robert Lindsay: What’s going to happen? At some point, the whole world is going to look like New York City. What are we going to do? Are we going to start building cities on top of cities? Are we going to start building cities underground, or on top of the ocean, or under the ocean, or up in the sky? And this endless growth thing, it can’t possibly be an environmental position. If you’re an environmentalist, you can’t take this endless growth position. Why do we always need new houses in the US? I don’t understand why. Obviously because our population is growing, right? Are we going to start building second homes? Why does everyone need a second home? Do people need third houses? Do they need fourth houses?
Robert Stark: Or the size of the homes. They want these gigantic homes on one acre lots, and it’s wasteful of space. It’s not at all resourceful. And these same types – they claim to be fiscal conservatives and fiscally responsible. But this endless growth is not fiscally responsible because it’s very wasteful of natural resources.
Robert Lindsay: Those huge lots are not so great. It would almost be better to pack people into cities and then have big open spaces. But people like those big lots. I was living on a one acre lot up in the Sierra foothills. It’s not bad, there are still a lot of wild animals out there with 1-5 acre lots in the country, with those rural ranchettes.
Robert Stark: It’s fine if people have big lots up in rural areas or in nature, but the main problem is suburbia, which is a disaster.
Robert Lindsay: There are no living things anymore in suburbia. The only animals are the humans and their pets. There are a few animals that are adapting to suburbia – the raccoons, the skunks and the opossums. In some of the suburbs now, you have some coyotes.
Robert Stark: Thank you for being on, Robert.
Robert Lindsay: Sure.

Some Sensible Positions For Liberal Race Realists and White Advocates

The problem with White advocates, even those who are not explicitly White nationalists, is that far too many of them are simply out and out racist assholes. Be that as it may, but you won’t get a lot of support for those views here in America. White advocates need to take reasonable stands that the majority will support. People will look at that stance and say, “Hey, that makes sense.” The Left will still scream racist on and on, but it will sound increasingly silly. Your average person will look at the Left screaming racist and say, “Why are they calling this guy a racist? He seems reasonable to me.”

  1. Amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing. The Left is playing this up as super-radical, but most sane Americans think it’s perfectly reasonable.
  2. Avoid overthrowing civil rights laws. Aside from the moral question, it’s pretty clear that the major civil rights legislation is here to stay, Rand Paul and the Tea Party notwithstanding. Instead, we should focus on the 1991 amendment to the Civil Rights act that deals with disparate impact. The concept of disparate impact is insane, and most reasonable people hate it once they learn about it.
  3. On immigration, instead of saying we want to get rid of non-White immigration (ain’t gonna happen), instead call for IQ tests for some immigrants. The test could be waived for spouses of citizens. In particular, focus on problematic immigrants who cause lots of trouble. Call for IQ tests for Hispanic immigrants for starters. Say Hispanics need to have 98 IQ to come to the US. The average IQ of the US is 98. It’s quite probable that the Hispanics that cause so much trouble fall below the 98 IQ cutoff. Those at 98 IQ and above will generally be good, productive citizens of the type most Americans could be proud of.
  4. Support immigration of White Hispanics to the US. This will drive people insane, because it will be hard to call us racists since the anti-racist nuts keep implying that Hispanic is a race. In addition, it will drive a wedge between Hispanics.
  5. Call for getting rid of US colonies! This is great because no one in the US advocates this except for the hard Left. That puts White advocates in bed with the Left , but that’s not so bad! Call for independence for Puerto Rico, Micronesia, American Samoa, etc. One problem is these places are the source of many problem immigrants because they the immigrants are unscreened, as moving from Samoa to the US is like moving from New York to California.We also come off as anti-imperialist, which once again puts us in bed with the Left, but that’s not so bad! This stealing of the Left’s principled positions will drive the PC Left insane. They will either be forced to defend colonialism in the PC or..? Or what? Or I don’t know. Mostly it will make the PC crowd very confused and angry.
  6. On schools, forget fighting Brown vs BOE. Done deal. Instead focus on busing. Say it’s ridiculous, a waste of money, and it insults Blacks by saying they can’t learn with their own kind but only with Whites. Say we support neighborhood schools. If a neighborhood is mixed, the school is mixed. If the neighborhood is White, the school should be White. If the neighborhood is Black, the school should be Black. The PC folks will be forced to attack this totally reasonable position and will come across like fanatical ideologues.
  7. Say we need to start getting serious about throwing out seriously disruptive students. This is Fred Reed’s view. They can all go to The Psycho Kid’s School for all we care. They have no right to ruin it for everyone else. If Blacks get tossed out more than others, as long as its racially fair (should be investigated), oh well. Maybe Black students should start acting better to not get thrown out of school.
  8. Say we support affirmative action, but only if the Black, etc. is just as qualified as the White he is competing with . This will drive people crazy. Of course, the whole problem with affirmative action is that less qualified non-Whites replace Whites. This will force the PC folks to defend what they have been defending all along, which is the hiring of less qualified non-Whites in favor of more qualified Whites. It’s seen as pretty indefensible, and rightly so.
  9. Say we have no problem with well-behaved Blacks living with Whites who wish to fully integrate into White communities and adopt White culture. Promoting “freedom of association” will get us no where; it’s doomed. Point out that Black culture leaves much to be desired, and Blacks benefit from adopting White culture. This will force the PC crowd into the dubious role of defending Black culture (ahem) while paradoxically attacking White culture as somehow pathological, which is ridiculous. They’ve been doing this all along, but this will force the point.

Most of this stuff will make White nationalists furious, but so what? We will more than make it up with new more moderate followers. Right now, White advocates preaching to a tiny choir.
These positions will drive our enemies insane! They will be totally confused by these views, and they won’t know what to make of them. It will throw a monkey wrench into the whole “White advocates are racist” thing.

Can Private Schools Discriminate Based on Race?

There is a discussion in the comments about whether or not private schools may discriminate based on race. Co-author Alpha Unit writes:

I was curious about this, too, so I checked to see what federal law has to say about this. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination in all public schools and in any school receiving federal funds. Title IV, which addresses education, wouldn’t apply to privately funded schools.But each state might have its own anti-discrimination laws.

Private schools are in fact covered by most federal anti-discrimination laws.
Private schools with 15 or more employees are covered by Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Title 7 forbids discrimination based on race.
However, religious schools are exempted from the requirements of Title 7. Nevertheless, if they are tax exempt religious schools, they can have their tax-exempt status revoked.
If they have 20+ employees, they are covered by the Age Discrimination Act. Almost all private schools are covered by the Equal Pay Act protecting women.
I would imagine that almost all private schools have 15+ employees, so nearly 100% of private schools may not discriminate based on race. It’s a violation of federal law.
As it ought to be.

Liberal Race Realism: Clearing Up a Few Things

Liberal Race Realism is very much misunderstood. See the first word there? It’s liberal. We have conservatives, reactionaries, fascists, racists and White nationalists constantly trying to get us on board their ships. We’re never getting a boarding pass. Never! Ever! We will never join you!

You know why? Because we are liberals, with a capital L. Liberals don’t do conservatism, reaction, fascism, racist hate, or White Supremacism/White nationalism.

Here is the conundrum for Left-liberalism:

Just supposing that there are differences between the races that are not caused by oppression, racism, etc. This is painfully obvious to anyone who will look. The Left refuses to look, because the reality of the whole mess is bad for the Left. So we say it doesn’t exist, unscientifically. We wish the reality away.

The question of my site is, given that these differences exist, how do we build a Left response, Left theory and Left project that takes this stuff into account? The Left can respond to any reality, any truth, that exists on this Earth. If it’s fact, we can deal with it and work it into our theory somewhat. By running away from these facts, the Left says that these facts are incompatible with Left theory and practice.

Reactionary race realists (most race realists are reactionaries) are already gleefully predicting that the facts of race realism, when they become too obvious to be denied and are widely believed by the population, are going to spell the death of the Left and liberalism for the foreseeable future. Why? Because the facts of race realism tear asunder every presumption of Left theory and practice, I suppose, namely, that we all have equal abilities and temperaments.

Let’s take this one horrible step further. Let us suppose that race realism means that there are genetic differences between the races that societal intervention cannot alleviate.

That means that Blacks will always have lower intelligence than European Whites, no matter what. This means effectively that Blacks will always have, under the present capitalist regime, lower educational outcomes, lower occupational status, lower incomes, poorer housing and neighborhoods, poorer health care outcomes, less wealth accumulation, etc. than Whites, much of this deriving directly from lower intelligence.

As lower intelligence leads to lesser educational attainment, so it leads to less success in the work arena. Lower income and wealth accumulation follows from this, as does poorer housing and neighborhoods and poorer health outcomes, since we must pay for health care in capitalist America.

Ok, so how do we deal with this reality on Left? What do we do, given these facts, if they are facts?

Because the typical response to saying that Black intelligence will be lower than White intelligence for the forseeable future, with all the negativity to follow, is to move to the Right, specifically towards reaction. Most everyone who explicitly adopts this POV is White, and sooner or later they become reactionaries. Usually they start calling for dismantling civil rights protections. Often they go further into advocating a return to segregation or explicit White nationalism/White separatism. They typically become some sort of Libertarians and advocate ending all social spending.

It’s possible that they take this extreme stance because only in the arena of reactionary thought are views about race realism allowed to flourish.

Why can’t Left-liberalism incorporate these facts into its theory and practice?

People are people, no matter what. A human being is a human being, no matter their IQ.

We educate everyone here in America. No one ever said the purpose of education was to raise people’s IQ’s, and anyway, the evidence from the 3rd World is that education does in fact raise IQ via the Flynn Effect. The purpose of education need not be to remove all racial gaps in IQ and achievement, and if they are genetically mediated, which is possible, then the effort will fail anyway.

Surely a Black person with an 85 IQ benefits a lot more from a 12 years of K-12 education than if they received none at all, correct? Are the reactionaries so insane as to believe that all education is wasted on anyone with an 85 IQ? What about White people with 85 IQ’s (16% of the White population)? Would they do better to get zero years of school as opposed to 12 years? Are 12 years of schooling really wasted on them?

If someone is born with lower intelligence, why must this person suffer in poverty their whole life because of what God ordained? Why must they live in inferior housing and an inferior neighborhood over something that’s not their fault? Why should they have poorer health outcomes and less ability to go to the doctor simply because of how they were born? Because this is where the reactionary race realist argument leads to.

Let’s try something else.

Suppose Blacks had the same abilities as Whites, genetically. All of the problems, including low IQ, were simply due the fact that they are fucking up, often on purpose. If this were true, and strangely enough, this sort of follows from liberal beliefs about genes and environment, I would argue for a harsh response to Blacks. Not necessarily cutting them off altogether, but I would certainly be a bit less likely to help them.

But there’s no evidence that that is true.

If Blacks do have low IQ due to things they cannot control, then, as a socialist, I would argue that there is no reason that the higher IQ group ought to obtain dramatically higher income, wealth, housing, living spaces and health than the lower one.

As much as possible, socialists should try to attempt to more equalize incomes, housing, living spaces and health care access for both groups, the higher IQ and the lower.

It’s not going to be possible to equalize educational access, since that would require fudging the test scores, dumbing down the curriculum, or marking up Black scores due to their being Black and marking down White scores due to their being White.

Wealth will be hard to equalize due to the variable of spending and saving.

Why should Whites be allowed to become dramatically richer, healthier, better housed, and live in better places than Blacks, simply because of how the genetic dice got rolled?

Answer: They have no such right. If both groups were equal, and Whites got that way by simply trying harder, then we could make the argument that the White position is just.

Why should Blacks be forced to become dramatically poorer, less healthy, worse housed, and live in worse places than Whites, simply because of how they were born, a variable that they had no control over whatsoever?

Answer: This is not right. It is not just. They should not be forced into these outcomes, and that they are is an outrageous injustice.

If you look at the bolded statements above, you can see that far from being a reactionary or racist movement, Liberal Race Realism is actually progressive, even very progressive.

The Jew Beats the White Man with the Nigger Stick

This is the anti-Semitic lie, common among White racists and especially White nationalists, that Bay Area Guy is promoting in the comments section.

I’m quite sure that’s it’s a bunch of lies.

The line goes like this: Jews promoted civil rights for Blacks for the reason of dividing the White race, unseating them from power and taking the White Gentiles’ place as the head of the US elite.

Bullshit.

We must remember that deep into the 1950’s and even the 1960’s there was institutionalized discrimination against Jews in many places in the US. Many hotels did not let Jews stay there. There were signs in parks and on beaches saying No Jews or Dogs Allowed.

The Jews probably promoted civil rights not just for Blacks but for themselves. The Civil Rights Act banned most overt and de jure discrimination, not just against Blacks, but against anyone. Surely Jews benefited from this. Jews had been very active in the US Communist movement for a long time. The Communists had long pushed civil rights before anyone else did as a way to get the Blacks to support Communism. Also the USSR was promoting the notion that the capitalist West, led by the US, was racist and therefore evil. It was a propaganda war.

Jews always oppose any racism in the White Christian Diaspora. Racism there is bad for the Jews, since such racism usually targets Jews at some point or another. Many of the Jews involved in the civil rights movement were young idealistic Jews in college or fresh out of college. Hardly conniving political operatives.

Sure, Jews were the first to move out of the neighborhood when the Blacks moved in, as Malcolm X states. In some cases, it was surely true. Most sane people don’t want to live with a bunch of Blacks. Hell, even sane Blacks don’t want to live with a bunch of Blacks. Sane Africans don’t want to live in Africa. As soon as they get some money, they scoot off the to West.

But Malcolm’s accusation is not true in many cases.

In many places, especially large cities back East where there were large numbers of Jews such as Detroit and New York, Jews stayed in their neighborhoods while large numbers of Blacks moved in. The Blacks caused the usual crime and trouble they usually do in large numbers, and many Jews were victimized. In particular, many older Jews kept living in these neighborhoods, and they were hammered hard by Black criminals.

The upshot was an increase in racism among Jews from these cities as into the 1970’s. This is the rift that Cornel West confronts in his lecture series, Jews and Blacks, Let the Healing Begin. John Podhoretz of Commentary Magazine wrote a famous essay along the same lines, My Negro Problem and Ours, which is frankly one of the canonical works of early Liberal Race Realism, though no one called it that yet. This rift is also what helped create the neoconservatives.

The worst racists I knew in the 1970’s were Jews who had come from Detroit and New York. They had a shocking vicious and visceral hatred for Blacks that was the worst I had ever seen in anyone.

BAG’s theory is just wrong. More White nationalist bullshit and lies.

"Who Owns the Restaurant?" by Alpha Unit

Go into almost any business, particularly a restaurant, and you might see a posting that reads, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” This is perfectly lawful.
But you can’t refuse service for just any old reason. The government said so. You can’t refuse to serve someone because he’s Black. Or Jewish. Or White. Or because she’s a woman. Or disabled. Or Muslim.
The federal government says that you can’t refuse service on the basis of:

  1. race
  2. color
  3. religion
  4. national origin
  5. age
  6. sex
  7. familial status
  8. disability status
  9. veteran status

You can’t. That’s all there is to it.
“Well, I own the restaurant!” you declare. “Why can’t I decide who I will and won’t serve, however I want to?”
You own the restaurant, but the government lets you own it, you see. The government decides what you have to do to be able to own it and to keep owning it. Government-created infrastructure and government-mandated regulation of commerce make it possible for you to be in business.
The government’s got its hands all over and all into your restaurant. (It’s got its hand in the till, too.)
It gets to tell you how you can run your restaurant. That includes laying down the rules for refusing service.
“This is government going too far!” you and Rand Paul might insist. Maybe. Government has a way of doing that.
Somebody is always thinking that the government’s gone too far. And somebody is always thinking that it hasn’t gone far enough. One act of government can create both criticisms!
No matter what it does, somebody’s not going to like it. Guaranteed.

“Who Owns the Restaurant?” by Alpha Unit

Go into almost any business, particularly a restaurant, and you might see a posting that reads, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” This is perfectly lawful.

But you can’t refuse service for just any old reason. The government said so. You can’t refuse to serve someone because he’s Black. Or Jewish. Or White. Or because she’s a woman. Or disabled. Or Muslim.

The federal government says that you can’t refuse service on the basis of:

  1. race
  2. color
  3. religion
  4. national origin
  5. age
  6. sex
  7. familial status
  8. disability status
  9. veteran status

You can’t. That’s all there is to it.

“Well, I own the restaurant!” you declare. “Why can’t I decide who I will and won’t serve, however I want to?”

You own the restaurant, but the government lets you own it, you see. The government decides what you have to do to be able to own it and to keep owning it. Government-created infrastructure and government-mandated regulation of commerce make it possible for you to be in business.

The government’s got its hands all over and all into your restaurant. (It’s got its hand in the till, too.)

It gets to tell you how you can run your restaurant. That includes laying down the rules for refusing service.

“This is government going too far!” you and Rand Paul might insist. Maybe. Government has a way of doing that.

Somebody is always thinking that the government’s gone too far. And somebody is always thinking that it hasn’t gone far enough. One act of government can create both criticisms!

No matter what it does, somebody’s not going to like it. Guaranteed.

The Agenda of the Racial Hereditarians

Almost all of the leading hereditarian race researchers have come out saying that they want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. The reasoning is clear. If it can be proven that Blacks are genetically stupider than Whites, then clearly, people ought to have the right to discriminate against them, right? Anyway, that’s how their thinking goes.

A lot of these folks have recently been taking this further. Jason Malloy of Gene Expression spent some time trying to put together an argument that lower Black IQ made Blacks inferior employees. The conclusions are ominous. If we can scientifically prove that Blacks are worse employees, then the logical thing to do would be to discriminate against them.

But their arguments are not as good as they seem. Let’s take a look at them. First of all, are South African IQ scores valid? Yes, it appears that they are.

In South Africa it was found that job performance correlated with IQ. A Black with a 70 IQ performed the same as a White with 70 IQ, and a White with 115 IQ performed the same as a Black with 115 IQ. That is, based on this study, IQ scores for Black South Africans appear to be valid.

This study is used to claim that Black-White job performance differences are caused by lower Black IQ.

But this is not what the study proved at all. Black job performance, if caused by low Black IQ, would have to be over 1 Standard Deviations (SD) (maybe 1.3 SD) below White. Instead, Black job performance is .33 SD below Whites. Black lower job performance is not very much lower than Whites anyway, does not correlate well with Black IQ. In other words, Blacks perform far better on the job than would be predicted by their IQ scores.

From the study:

Black-White differences on job performance are rather small and much smaller than would be predicted based on IQ differentials.Main Effects

The results of this study reinforce some beliefs and change others. For Black-White comparisons, the overall results show a standardized ethnic group difference for job performance ratings of approximately one third of a standard deviation (when corrected for criterion reliability), and this is quite similar to Kraiger and Ford (1985).

We also had similar results for one of three types of performance measures used by J. K. Ford et al. (1986). Specifically, we found larger d’s associated with objective measures of job knowledge than with subjective measures of job knowledge.

Furthermore, Black-White wage gap is far worse than predicted based on B-W IQ gap. This is important because the hereditarians are going to say that Blacks make less money because they are worse workers, and they are worse workers because they are stupid. However, as you can see, the wage gap is far worse than would be expected by IQ, not to mention Black job performance, which exceeds Black IQ.

Nice try guys, trying to justify paying Blacks less, but it didn’t work. This study implies that there are other factors behind lower Black wages beyond IQ and job performance. One of them may be discrimination.

The hereditarians, whether they are right or not, do not have Black people’s best interest at stake. In fact, they are trying to provide scientific evidence to justify racism and discrimination. Blacks have every right to be skeptical about these people.

“Caucasian Law Enforcement Defends Minority Rights,” by Alpha Unit

Harris County, Texas, is the site of the latest push for civil rights in America. The minority in question are Caucasians.

In Harris County, sheriff’s deputies seeking solidarity with like-minded others have their pick of civil rights “flavors” – the Mexican-American Sheriff’s Organization, the Afro-American Sheriff’s Deputy League, and, now, the Caucasian Law Enforcement Association.

Its founder, deputy Daniel McCool, is concerned, he says, with hiring practices of Sheriff Adrian Garcia, who was elected a couple of years ago as the county’s first Hispanic sheriff.

McCool doesn’t claim to have evidence of hiring malfeasance, but he believes that hiring is now based not on merit but on that old standard of “who you know” or on some kind of commitment to affirmative action. He and his fellow White officers are now, according to him, feeling the sting of discrimination that is coming from people “we used to call minorities.”

Mark Warren, whose article brought all of this to my attention, has a local’s take on the situation:

I’m from a little town in east Harris County called Highlands, and I can attest to the fact that there has always been a Caucasian Law Enforcement Association standing up for the rights of Whites. It’s called the “Harris County Sheriff’s Department.”

Racism and Dissidents in Cuba, From the Miami Herald

In the comments section, tulio, referring to a propagandistic Miami Herald article on Blacks in Cuba, disagrees with me about the Cuban treatment of Blacks.

But it’s a strict meritocracy.

That sounds like Castro propaganda. There are no strict meritocracies anywhere on earth. I have no reason to think one exists in Cuba, especially in was is still by western standards a corrupt Latin American nation. Things like bribing officials are still standard fare as is common the Latin countries.

You don’t see so many Blacks and mulattos in the top positions probably because their IQ’s are lower and they can’t cut the tests, etc. Cuban education is extremely competitive and if you can’t cut it, you’re gone. Cuba has no US style affirmative action.

There’s discrimination across the board, even lucrative jobs like tourist service and driving cabs. They don’t take high IQ and these jobs mostly go to white Cubans. So I don’t thing it’s just a matter of IQ. I don’t know what the average IQ of black vs. white Cubans is anyway.

Well, whether it’s a meritocracy or not, that’s what the WN’s on American Renaissance say it is. They all hate Communism and Castro, and they hate Blacks. If there was discrimination, they would openly admit it.

But as I can see in the article, there is indeed still racism and discrimination in Cuba. But it’s not true that if you bring it up, you go to jail. Lots of Black revolutionary Cubans have been talking about this for a long time. For the tourist industry, I guess they figure that the tourists would rather deal with a White person than a Black person. Cynical thinking there.

Cuba has the lowest poverty rate in Latin America at 1%. It may not be paradise, but for Caribbean Blacks, it looks pretty good. In fact, Eastern Cuba is now flooded with Black Haitians and Jamaicans who have fled their capitalist paradises to come to Cuba. The Cubans don’t throw them out and let them stay. These Haitians and Jamaicans like Cuba much better than the capitalist paradises they fled. To them, Cuba is awesome.

As far as jobs requiring a good education, it’s well known that the Blacks and mulattos do poorly in school, get poor grades, etc. Further, they commit a wildly disproportionate amount of street crime, so that’s why the cops harass them. Black Cubans work in the worst jobs because they have the least education.

There is also a certain amount of ghetto type behaviors that started in the Special Period. The government would build brand new housing for Cubans, a bunch of Blacks would move in and in a few months, it would be ruined as they took apart everything they could unscrew to sell it on the Black market. It’s widely acknowledged that Cuban Whites would not have fouled their own nests like that.

Contrary to this lying article, there has been a huge debate in Cuba for many years about the Blacks and their elevated rates of various pathologies. Cuba has many sociologists, and they debate this all the time in their journals and publications. The current fashionable theory is Oscar Lewis’ “The Culture of Poverty” theory. So it’s not true that the regime doesn’t care about race or never talks about it.

The educational system is a meritocracy. There’s no affirmative action in the schools. The Blacks and mulattos do poorly in the schools and on tests. The Cubans test you all the time, and the educational system is very competitive. There’s no passing people along. A lot of the Blacks just can’t cut it academically, and Cuba doesn’t have educational affirmative action to inflate their numbers at the colleges.

However, I think that Raul should take an anti-racist stand and encourage the Blacks to form civil rights organizations. I don’t think he should worry it’s going to bring down the state.

That article seems wrong about other stuff. I’m not aware that Internet is illegal in Cuba. I thought it was legal. There are lots of Cuban bloggers, some anti-government, openly blogging and no one does anything.

I’m also not aware that satellite TV is illegal. If you go to the richer parts of Havana, you will see those dishes everywhere. If they’re illegal, no one is doing anything about it.

The Cuban dissidents, unlike the dissidents in Eastern Europe, simply have no support. Or very little support. That’s why they’re not popular.

There are ~2,500 dissident organizations on the island and ~500 political prisoners. You do the math. Most of dissidents, the government just leaves alone and ignores them.

But some of the dissidents are working with the US government and the CIA to bring down the government. They are working hand in hand with the US Interests Section (We have no Embassy). They go there, get money, advice, plans, etc. That’s illegal in Cuba. That’s what most of those arrests are for.

Great Book About Africa

Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit, by Gedahlia Braun (a fake name).

I once looked up who he really is, but I’ve forgotten the name. He taught philosophy in Africa for many years. This guy is straight up right about Africans in so many ways that it is incredible. This is how Race Realism ought to be but almost never is. The saving grace in his analysis is a lack of hostility towards Africans. In fact, he likes Africans very much, especially African women. Apparently he has been involved with a number of African women.

According to standard PC thinking, this is a racist book and the author is a racist. Racism is about about hostility towards a group. It’s beyond me how you can be racist towards a group of people whom you like, as long you don’t discriminate against them. However, to be fair, Braun does support segregation and apartheid in South Africa, so in that sense at least he is a racist.

But he’s an awfully mild one. If you’re average White racist was like this guy, the antis would really have their work cut out for them. A Stormfront type makes a nice, fat juicy target. In contrast, guys like Braun are as hard to pin down and get a handle on as a mercury blob.

Furthermore, almost all race realists have animosity towards Blacks. Braun is one of the first race realists that I have run across who seems to actually like Blacks.

The fact that he supports colonialism, segregation and Apartheid, though, is disturbing, since most race realists end up favoring getting rid of an anti-discrimination laws at least. Many also supported colonialism, segregation and Apartheid. Once again we see the disconcerting connection between race realism and support for forms of discrimination and domination of Blacks. Will race realism typically lead to such backwards qualities, and if so, why?

I figure this guy is just telling it like it is. He has lived in Africa for many years, and over that time, developed some interesting views about African culture and thought processes. What’s wrong with that? He lived there, he observed things with an open mind, and these are his conclusions. He’s entitled to them. Who are we to slam him, call him racist and liar? Why do we get to saddle that high horse anyway?

There’s more truth in what Braun writes than in 100 PC anti-racist tomes, most of which are full of laughable anti-scientific, untestable or non-falsifiable joke-theory.

One area that I disagree with him is in trying to draw parallels between Africans and US Blacks. 20 IQ points difference is a Hell of a lot, plus US Blacks have been heavily de-Africanized culturally during their centuries here. Braun discusses an impoverished concept of love (compared to the Western view of romantic love) common to Africans, suggests it may be related to IQ, and then leaps to the idea that US Blacks may experience the same conceptual impoverishment to a lesser degree.

Well, it’s an interesting theory, so I decided to test it out. I don’t know what the average IQ of the Blacks on the Internet is (Is it higher than average?) but the Black women you meet on the Net seem to have a very Western view of romantic love that is about the same as White women’s. Do Black women in the ghetto feel the same way? I’m not sure, as I haven’t had much dealings with these people.

But looking at other groups with average IQ’s of 85-87 (US Black IQ is 87), the females at least in these groups seem to subscribe strongly to the Western version of romantic love. So US Black IQ should be high enough that their views of love should be about the same as the rest of ours, assuming the full concept is IQ-dependent.

The book costs money, and I have not read it, but I’ve read a number of Braun’s other pieces, and the guy is fantastic.

Anti-Black Racism In Ecuador

This link is from Niggermania, but the site is a good resource for learning about racism against Black people. I’ve found that the White racist sites are the most straight up honest about the low-down on how racist a place is. If a country or culture is racist as Hell against non-Whites, the racists love it and cheer it on. Cultures or nations that are more tolerant are routinely derided by the racists as PC, hopeless, brainwashed, nigger-lovers, anti-racists, liberals, etc.

Now, these guys have no reason to lie. If a place is racist and nasty, they come right out and say so. If a place is relatively tolerant, they think that sucks, and they call that out loudly. I have some commenters who insist that racists would see a very tolerant place as a viciously racist place. But why would they do that? They hate tolerant lands.

On the other hand, there is a serious problem with misrepresentation of nations by their nationalist citizens, especially Latin Americans, who don’t like gringos in the first place, don’t like to be compared to unfavorably to Gringo Americans. Many middle to upper class White or mestizo Latin Americans will insist that everything is groovy down there. Easy for them to say; they aren’t feeling any pain. But ask a Black Latin American, and you might get a different story.

Anyway, according to this link, 20 years ago (1990) there was de facto Jim Crow discrimination against Blacks in Ecuador. For all intents and purposes, Blacks were not allowed to serve as police or military officers. They were effectively barred from medicine, law and most other high-paying professions. Instead they were largely relegated to field work.

That’s a screwed up situation, and it would be interesting to see if it’s still going on.

Here is another post that talks about being a tourist or ESL teacher in Ecuador. Apparently being a temporary foreign worker or bucks up American tourist of any color is a different matter altogether down there.

Black American tourists are unlikely to encounter serious problems, and the scene on the beach is a lot of fun for Black people, with lots of Black Ecuadorians and Black Colombians hanging out at the discos and partying. It looks like the scene on the beach is different from the rest of Ecuador in that the Blacks have created their own reggae – party scene on the coast.

On the other hand, it’s perfectly possible for de facto wealthy American Blacks (if you have the money to travel to Latin America as a tourist, you’re a rich American in their eyes) to go to a country and have a good time while the native Blacks are still suffering serious institutional discrimination. That’s because the American’s skin tone is washed away by his Rich American image.

"We Don't Respect You Either," by Alpha Unit

This is Alpha Unit’s response, or possibly rejoinder, to my piece, We Don’t Respect You. I actually encouraged her to write this. I think it’s great!
I’ve heard that Whites don’t respect Black people as a race. I think my great-grandparents got the same memo, which got sent along to my grandparents and parents, too.
To Black people, that’s like someone telling you that the earth revolves around the Sun.
Suppose that for one reason or another you ended up being owned by someone. Someone who saw you and treated you as if you weren’t really human. The fact that they saw you that way didn’t make you that way; you had all the human emotions and instincts they did. But this person can’t or won’t acknowledge that. How do you respect this person?
What about being in a situation in which you nominally have your “freedom,” but the people who run everything make damned sure you don’t really get to exercise it? They’re putting all kinds of barriers in your way to make sure you can’t exercise most of the freedoms they do–because, to them, you’re just not ready for that yet, and so it is for the common good that you stay in your designated place. Do such people get your respect?
While you’re in this situation, you and those like you are subject to freelance violence and you don’t have any recourse. If you irritate an employer in some way, he has the right to strike you, or even beat you. If you commit some serious breach of social “etiquette” you can be called out of your home and taken for a ride somewhere and taught a lesson, if you know what I mean.
If you really piss some people off, you’ll find yourself swinging from a tree. Or burned alive. They’ll bring the kids, too, and have the kids pose and smile in front of your corpse.
You’re supposed to respect people like that?
A lot of things have changed, but some things never change. Not seeing you as really human–that one hasn’t gone anywhere. One of the things I’ve noticed is that White people will say things to you that they wouldn’t stand for anybody telling them. Like where you belong.
In general human beings just balk at being told where they belong. Ask anybody who’s ever worked with children. Adults don’t like it, either, even though most of us are disciplined enough to handle being told “Sit here” or “Wait here” or “No Admittance.” But I think White people take for granted that they belong wherever they want to be at the moment.
To this day White people won’t hesitate to tell you where you belong. Decent, law-abiding Black people belong in dysfunctional, violent Black neighborhoods with all the other Black people–you know, to be a good example to them. Or Black people just can’t handle the pressures of modern life, so they belong in less challenging environments. (Should they be accompanied by all the slow, incapable Whites?) If White people have decided you don’t “belong” somewhere, they really get pissed about you being there and acting as if you do.
Black people know all this. We understand how White people operate. We have come to recognize the sense of entitlement that White people have to all kinds of things–including our respect.
White people talking about how they don’t respect Black people as a race? As if any Black person gives a damn.

“We Don’t Respect You Either,” by Alpha Unit

This is Alpha Unit’s response, or possibly rejoinder, to my piece, We Don’t Respect You. I actually encouraged her to write this. I think it’s great!

I’ve heard that Whites don’t respect Black people as a race. I think my great-grandparents got the same memo, which got sent along to my grandparents and parents, too.

To Black people, that’s like someone telling you that the earth revolves around the Sun.

Suppose that for one reason or another you ended up being owned by someone. Someone who saw you and treated you as if you weren’t really human. The fact that they saw you that way didn’t make you that way; you had all the human emotions and instincts they did. But this person can’t or won’t acknowledge that. How do you respect this person?

What about being in a situation in which you nominally have your “freedom,” but the people who run everything make damned sure you don’t really get to exercise it? They’re putting all kinds of barriers in your way to make sure you can’t exercise most of the freedoms they do–because, to them, you’re just not ready for that yet, and so it is for the common good that you stay in your designated place. Do such people get your respect?

While you’re in this situation, you and those like you are subject to freelance violence and you don’t have any recourse. If you irritate an employer in some way, he has the right to strike you, or even beat you. If you commit some serious breach of social “etiquette” you can be called out of your home and taken for a ride somewhere and taught a lesson, if you know what I mean.

If you really piss some people off, you’ll find yourself swinging from a tree. Or burned alive. They’ll bring the kids, too, and have the kids pose and smile in front of your corpse.

You’re supposed to respect people like that?

A lot of things have changed, but some things never change. Not seeing you as really human–that one hasn’t gone anywhere. One of the things I’ve noticed is that White people will say things to you that they wouldn’t stand for anybody telling them. Like where you belong.

In general human beings just balk at being told where they belong. Ask anybody who’s ever worked with children. Adults don’t like it, either, even though most of us are disciplined enough to handle being told “Sit here” or “Wait here” or “No Admittance.” But I think White people take for granted that they belong wherever they want to be at the moment.

To this day White people won’t hesitate to tell you where you belong. Decent, law-abiding Black people belong in dysfunctional, violent Black neighborhoods with all the other Black people–you know, to be a good example to them. Or Black people just can’t handle the pressures of modern life, so they belong in less challenging environments. (Should they be accompanied by all the slow, incapable Whites?) If White people have decided you don’t “belong” somewhere, they really get pissed about you being there and acting as if you do.

Black people know all this. We understand how White people operate. We have come to recognize the sense of entitlement that White people have to all kinds of things–including our respect.

White people talking about how they don’t respect Black people as a race? As if any Black person gives a damn.

The Rational Element to White Nationalist Discourse

In the comments section, tulio notes that White Nationalists are not necessarily irrational. I agree that the project makes sense on a lot of levels. Agreeing with Alpha Unit, I simply state that it is both unworkable and more importantly immoral, or evil if you prefer. On Occidental Dissent there have been many discussions about how to implement their project. My Liberal Race Realism will not save the White race. I don’t intend that it should, as I don’t care about White extinction. Most other similar projects are also doomed.

In fact, putting their project in democratically via elections is also doomed, as is winning over a majority of Whites to their project. The only way to put their project in, as the webmaster of Occidental Dissent notes, is via an undemocratic project such as coup, seizure of power or  revolution. Then a dictatorship (authoritarian state) would need to be put in place because if the project were put up to vote, it would lose. I agree with this assessment. A fascist dictatorship is the only way to implement the WN project, and also, incredibly, to save the White race.

In addition, an authoritarian state would need to be implemented to input the more unsavory aspects of the WN project. Even the most moderate proposals involve a denial or rights to non-Whites living in the White state to encourage them to flee. Furthermore, miscegenation by Whites would be made illegal. You can guess what the more unsavory projects entail.

tulio notes that de facto White (and other) enclaves already exist:

Aren’t there already de-facto ethnic states in America? I’d say that whole area between Eastern Washington to the Dakotas and extending south to Northern Nevada and Utah is pretty much a de facto white ethnic state. As would be New England north of Boston. Los Angeles is pretty much Mexico City with a beach. Miami has been called “The Capital of Latin America”.

Atlanta is considered the “Black Mecca” amongst middle class black folks who are flocking there to be amongst people like themselves. I’d say there are already many ethnic territories in America, just not by law perhaps, but they exist.

Yes, but the WN argument, and once again it is rational, is that all of these places are doomed. Their argument is that Whites develop a place, make it a real nice place to live (by virtue mainly of there being mostly Whites living there) and then non-Whites (code as Blacks and Hispanics) move there to get away from the hoods that the Blacks and Hispanics have degraded or in some places destroyed. Even many Blacks and Hispanics often do not wish to live with their own kind in large numbers.

You could call this argument, Whites Create, Non-Whites Destroy (What Whites Created).

With Blacks, they are probably fleeing excessively Black hoods where well-behaved Blacks have had it with the bullshit. White areas are nice, low-crime and prosperous. Most of all safe. Blacks, when asked, prefer to live in a “diverse” hood, not in a Black community. Hispanics will probably just move to White areas because they are increasing in population and moving everywhere nowadays, possibly also for work. Hispanics don’t seem to mind living with their own that much, though once they get some money, you do see a bit of “Hispanic flight.”

The WN argument is that these very nice White areas soon start to decline as a result of large numbers of non-Whites move in, paradoxically to escape the places they have already destroyed. But with certain numbers, they will probably also recreate what they sought to escape. So the Whites are doomed. Everywhere they move, the non-Whites will follow and soon create degraded hoods that the Whites were seeking to flee in the first place.

At some point, there will be nowhere left to run. The Whites with money will move to Latin American like gated communities, while those without will be left to their own devices in the high crime diverse areas that most places have become. We do see something like this in Latin America.

Well, the WN’s are indeed onto something here, and as in so many ways, there is a large grain of truth to what they say.

I argue that WN is not just impractical but also immoral or evil, not necessarily that it is irrational, though its discourse necessarily contains many irrational arguments. Necessarily because any racist project or viewpoint is automatically irrational to some extent, since a rational view of race tends to lead away from hardcore racism.

The Flynn Effect and "g"

Repost from the old site.
Commenters recently have been bringing up the Flynn Effect (FE) of rising IQ’s in the past 80 years. There are many paradoxes and controversies over this effect that the commenters have been sharp enough to notice and point out. One argument is that the FE is not a real intelligence rise at all, since it is not on real
g intelligence. In other words, the FE means nothing, and people are no smarter than before. The FE gains are not gains in intelligence at all, they are zero, nothing, null.
This is not correct, but the argument is very interesting. First we need to understand what the FE is and what it means. Then we need to understand what g is and what it means. The post concludes that there has indeed been an FE rise on g, but only on one component of g. Further, the post critiques the whole notion of seeing intelligence purely through the lens of g as senseless and meaningless, not to mention flat out wrong.
The subject matter is highly complex, but I tried to make it as simple as possible. My readers are a very intelligent bunch, and I think most of you should be able to follow this argument. You really need to read this slowly and take your time to try to understand what is going on here. It took me months of studying the FE before I finally started to get a handle on it.

The Flynn Effect (FE) is a secular rise in IQ over time that has been occurring throughout the West for 80 years now. All ages and ethnic groups are effected. Preliminary evidence indicates that it is also occurring in the Caribbean (Dominica), South America (Brazil) and Africa (Kenya).
An overview of the FE itself goes beyond the scope of this post.
The FE is quite complex, and many people do not seem to understand the concept properly, hence are not able to discuss it, much less debate it. However, most people of reasonable intelligence, if interested, seem to be able to grasp the basic implications of the FE.
Hereditarians, most of whom are White racists, are very upset by the FE (Talk about being opposed to human progress!) because they have a strong emotional investment in White intellectual superiority and the intellectual inferiority of Blacks, Hispanics and other groups. We know that the major hereditarian researchers on intelligence are racists because almost all of them support getting rid of all anti-discrimination laws.
The agenda is clear for both lab coat racists and White nationalists: if we can prove that Blacks, Hispanics and others are intellectually inferior to Whites, we can legalize discrimination, especially job discrimination, against them.
A particularly frightening lab coat racist endeavor is attempting to prove that Blacks are inferior employees to Whites on average. If they prove this scientifically, then they will have a logical reason to support discriminating against Blacks in employment.
Almost all of these folks are White, and most of them call themselves race realists. They spend a good deal of time screaming and yelling about why Blacks and Browns will not accept that they are intellectually inferior (Steve Sailer specializes in this). Why would anyone want to accept, or actually accept, such a thing?
Furthermore, given the nefarious agenda behind those promoting these theories that seeks to legalize discrimination against Blacks and Browns, any Black or Hispanic person who gets behind this would have to be out of their minds.
I have ritually added “Hispanic” after Black above, but in general, Hispanics are being left out of this debate. The real effort here is directed by racist Whites against Blacks, not Hispanics. It is against Blacks that these Whites seek to legalize the right to discriminate.
The Flynn Effect has been hard to argue against, but the hereditarians have tried hard. They have shown that the FE is not on g. G is a hypothesized common correlational factor that supposedly measures pure intelligence. Everything outside of g is “not real intelligence”.
However, according to one paper, the very concept of g is tendentious to say the least, and possibly nonsensical. The paper is titled G, A Statistical Myth, by an admittedly brilliant mathematician named Cosma Shalizi. I read through the whole thing but I couldn’t really make sense of it. Perhaps someone who knows math better than I do can have a go at it.

A schematic of the g, or general intelligence, factor. The ovals represent subtests on an intelligence test. G represents the totality of the areas where the purple subtests shade into the pink circle, and the degree to which they correlate (line up) with each other. G is a correlation coefficient of various tests. It measures the tendency of superior test takers (and someone who has a brain that works a bit better), if they do well on one test, do also do well on all other tests. The FE is generally not on g because some tests have risen dramatically, others moderately, and still others little or not at all.
Therefore, intelligence has not risen in a general, across-the-board kind of way. However, certain aspects of intelligence have definitely risen, and those aspects have quantifiable benefits in modern society, occupationally, academically and in other ways.

The argument of whether or not the FE gains are on g or not is very complex, about as complex as the FE itself. First of all, the FE gains have not been across the board. In general, they have focused on verbal analysis, visual analysis, visual intelligence and problem-solving. Gains have been few to none in basic things like general knowledge, mathematics, mathematical analysis, spelling and reading comprehension.
G is a hypothesized and problematic construct that is a correlational factor all of the subtests on an intelligence test. It is thought to be highly heritable and physiologically based, and this is why the hereditarians have gone nuts over it.
It measures how someone with a somewhat more neurologically efficient brain will tend to score better across an entire range of subtests than someone who with a less efficient brain.
The reason the FE is not on g is because it is limited to a subset of intelligence subtests, and gains have been small to none across another subset. Therefore, there is no g gain.
However, Raven’s Progressive Matrices has shown larger gains than any other test. Raven’s was designed to measure pure g and nothing else. Raven’s scores are not thought to be effected by environmental factors outside of pregnancy and the first few months of life, and are thought to be purely neurologically, physiologically or genetically based.
Given the pure g basis for Raven’s, the wild secular gains on it on the FE are most puzzling.
However, recently James Flynn has shown that the FE does show a .5 correlation on a factor analyzing fluid g.
There is fluid g and crystallized g.
Fluid g is thought to peak early in life. This is why things that require raw brain processing power tend to peak in young people: creativity – artists, musicians, poets, novelists, filmmakers, mathematicians, physicists – often do their best work as young people (usually as young men). Fluid g is really a measure of how well, fast or efficient your brain works.
Crystallized g is another matter altogether. Crystallized g may be seen as “what you know” as opposed to “how fast of a brain you have.” While fluid g peaks early, crystallized g often goes up throughout life, and people can still score high on crystallized g in their 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and even 80’s.
This is what we might call “accumulated knowledge” or “wisdom”. The old person’s brain does not work as fast, but the accumulated knowledge makes up for that in that they can see connections between things easier.
The young person’s brain works very fast, but with the lack of accumulated knowledge and life experience, they are not able to put things together as well to arrive at the correct conclusion. This is why no society has ever put the 18-23 year old’s in power, no matter how zippy their brains are.
Instead, the old men have always been put in power. The accumulation of a life of learning is thought to lead to a wisdom that will manifest itself as the ability to make “wise”, correct and proper decisions.
The concepts of crystallized and fluid g are complicated, but hopefully that explanation helped you understand it better.
The FE is on fluid g, not crystallized g. Visual intelligence and analysis, problem solving, verbal analysis analytical thinking in general, on intelligence tests, is in the realm of fluid g. Those are those little puzzles that ask you to decide which figure goes next in the series.
On intelligence tests, crystallized g measures accumulated knowledge and the degree to which one has learned basic tasks of modern life. The FE gains on mathematics, math analysis, reading comprehension, vocabulary and general knowledge are small to nil, and all of these tests measure crystallized g. To sum, these are the sorts of things you learn in school.
This is why, despite skyrocketing IQ’s, we cannot read a book, add and subtract, or do calculus any faster than our grandparents. We also do not know any more than they did, and we know no more words than they did.
This is obvious in the many reports on “idiocratic” state of high school seniors, college students or college grads. And this is how a puzzle is solved – how IQ’s are surely rising at the same time as idiocracy is.
From Flynn’s chapter summary:

IQ gains over time were calculated for each WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) subtest and the subtests ranked by size of gain. Verbal Similarities led at 20 points per generation – larger than gains on Raven’s Progressive Matrices.
Similarities measures on-the-spot problem-solving (something akin to fluid g); verbal subtests that do not measure this show low rate of gain. WISC subtests were also ranked by their correlations with Raven’s, the latter being used as a marker for fluid g. The r between the two hierarchies was calculated to approximate a correlation between IQ gains and fluid g .
The result of 0.50 contrasts with the negative correlation between IQ gains and the g generated by factor analyzing the WISC battery itself, which is generally viewed as predominately a crystallized g.
In sum, it appears that human groups can make massive fluid g gains in a period too short to accommodate radical change in the speed and efficiency of neural processes. Moreover, once gains in intelligent behavior over historical time are seen to be independent of brain physiology, does g really provide a criterion for assessing their significance?
Finally, not only a measure of fluid g (which is highly heritable) but also inbreeding depression are shown to be correlated with IQ gains – gains overwhelmingly environmental in origin. Therefore, correlations between such genetically influenced factors and the size of the black/white IQ gap do not show that the gap has a genetic component.

The Similarities test has risen faster than any other test. It measures analytical thinking and is thought to be a good measure of raw fluid g. The final paragraph is interesting. The Black-White IQ gap is correlated with something called inbreeding depression score, a purely heritable measure. Hereditarians use this to say that the B-W IQ gap is genetic.
But Flynn shows here that the FE (a purely environmental gain) also correlates with inbreeding depression, a purely hereditarian score. Flynn uses this to say that the B-W IQ gap is not necessarily completely genetic.
Flynn notes above that the FE cannot possibly be caused by brains that actually work better physiologically than the brains of our grandparents. Genetics doesn’t work that fast.
Therefore, what does the FE measure? Flynn says it measures “intelligent behavior.” So our brains don’t work any better than our grandparents’ brains, but we show improved “intelligent behavior” over them.
Therefore, another mystery is solved, how massive IQ gains can occur without concomitant improvement in the physiology of our brains.
Since hereditarians use g as a measure of physiological efficiency of our brains, Flynn calls this into question by noting that g gains can occur too fast to be accommodated for by physiologically improved brains. Therefore, Flynn suggests chucking g as a measure of pure brain physiological efficiency.
Therefore, the White nationalist and hereditarian argument that the FE is not on g has been proven wrong.

References

Flynn, James R. 2000. IQ Gains, WISC Subtests and Fluid g: g Theory and the Relevance of Spearman’s Hypothesis to Race, Chapter 12 in Bock, Gregory R., Goode, Jamie A., Webb, Kate. Novartis Foundation Symposium 233 – The Nature of Intelligence, pp. 202-227. Novartis Foundation. Published online.