Category: Criminology

Alt Left: The Standard View of Psychiatry on Statutory Rape (Sex between Adults and 13-17 Year Old Girls)

It’s not pathological for a man of any age to have sex with a teenage girl of any age. That’s clear from the debates around DSM-5 Hebephilia which wished to pathologize men who have a preference for girls under 15 over mature females. The criteria would probably have been been severe and persistent fantasies of pubertal girls, so that would rule out most men. However, fully 21% of all men are more attracted to girls under 13 than they are to mature females!

I realize that figure is shocking, but bear with me. It’s been born out by study after study.

I did some research on the local Yokuts Indians from a site in the 1600’s-1700’s. They had a series of skeletons of young women who had all died. They were between ages of 27-35. The assumption was that this was a woman’s lifespan among this primitive tribe. She was dead by age 31! If a woman is going to be dead by age 31, she’d best start having kids at age 16 or maybe even younger. If she starts breeding at age 16, her children will be 15 when she dies. Starting at 15, her kids would be 16 when she died. Starting at 14, her kids would be 17 when she died.

In Mexico, they marry their women and start breeding them at age 14, and it is usually an adult man who marries her. In most primitive tribes, there is a coming of age ceremony around age 15. Even today among most primitive tribes, girls and boys are both considered full adults at age 15. According to modern, advanced American thinking, 100% of the people in primitive tribes today are child molesters and pedophiles! See how stupid that sounds? 95% of the American population actually thinks like this.

You might think it’s terrible for a teen’s mother to die when the teen is 15-17 years old, but back then, that was just normal. The kids would not be left adrift anyway as by that age, they were all no longer boys and girls but full-fledged men and women.

Furthermore, sad events that are normalized in your society may not be very traumatizing. Much of the trauma occurs because people are told that something horrible has happened to them. Before they get told that, they were often not sure of how to process the event. If instead we told that that what happened was wrong or bad but it was no big deal and they would get over it, you would see the trauma rates collapse.

Tell someone they’ve been traumatized and guess how they act? They act traumatized! In our society, we’ve decided that 50% of life is traumatizing, especially with the snowflakes and their safe spaces and microaggressions. No wonder so much young people seem so nuts these days. We’ve been yelling at them that they’re being traumatized all the time all through childhood and teen years and it doesn’t even get better when they grow up. So they act, duh. Traumatized! Of course once you have a Traumatizing Society, you need to set up a huge Trauma Industry dedicated to making mountains out of molehills and ensuring that grown adults remain pussified babies long into adulthood.

The modern notion that people are all little tiny children until the day they hate 18 is insane. It’s backed up by notions that the brain is not fully matured by 17. Well, it’s not fully matured by age 24-26 either, so let’s put the age of consent for sex and the majority at age 25! After all, you’re only an adult when your brain is mature, right?

Truth is that people mature at different ages. In early times in the West, children were considered “little adults” and were often treated as such. It’s not known if they matured earlier then but maybe they did. Treat someone like a kid, they act like a kid. Treat someone like an adult, they act like an adult.

Although this sounds very groovy and compassionate to our postmodern, late capitalist, metrosexual, 3rd Wave feminist ears, the truth is that for 200,000 years of our evolution, no human gave two shits that the brain didn’t fully mature until age 25, although they probably had some notion of the idea. They simply didn’t feel it was worth thinking about because frankly it isn’t. Our present culture infantalizes teenagers and young adults to an extreme degree. Infantalizing humans doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me, but maybe “modern people” have other ideas. After all, treat someone like a baby and they act like one, right?

Further, most primitive tribes allow both boys and girls to start having sex at puberty, around age 13. The girls often have sex with boys, but sometimes they have sex with men. For instance, the typical marriage among the Blackfoot Indians was between a man aged 35 and a 15 year old girl. Our “modern, scientific, compassionate” society would state unequivocally that all Blackfoot men were pedophiles or child molesters for the thousands of years that the tribe was in existence.

Isn’t that a stupid way to think? Look how stupid we are! We’re surrounded by all these damned gadgets, we are so technologically advanced that we’re about to become literal aliens, we can cure or help most diseases, we understand most of the most important questions, including the biggies or we’re on our way to figuring them out. Unified Theory, here we come!

But some goddamned primitive Indian with a digging stick and a rock to grind acorns in who doesn’t know the first thing about technology, science, or medicine has more wisdom we “advanced” clowns do. For Chrissake, we may be advancing technologically, but we’re going backwards in terms of wisdom. How pathetic is it that Silicon Valley ultra-technologists have less wisdom that some primitive tribe eking out an existence in the jungle? Are we too civilized for our own damn good? It’s possible to get so “civilized,” protective, pampering, and fussy that you’re not even rational anymore. That my modern colleagues have less wisdom than some spearchucker in the jungle is a pretty sad statement!

From age 13-15, most girls are not very fertile, so it’s hard to get pregnant.

The debate around Hebephilia ended up concluding that even having a strong preference for pubertal children as sex partners was not mentally disordered. Further, it wasn’t even abnormal! Having been in chatrooms full of these guys, I’m not so sure about that, but it’s best to keep as much sex crap out of the DSM as we can.

It was even decided that having sex with 13-15 year old girls if one had a preference for them was not mentally disordered either because most crimes are not mental disorders and most criminals aren’t nuts. Instead, the argument was that these men weren’t nuts – instead they were just criminals, with being criminal and being nuts as two different things!

Of course most crooks aren’t nuts. They’re just bad. Are there disorders called Murder Disorder, Mugging Disorder, Fraudster Disorder, Batterer Disorder, Attempted Murder Disorder, Burglar Disorder, Robber Disorder, Forger Disorder, etc.? Well, of course not.

In mental health all we care about is if something is nuts or not. Hence we don’t care much about criminal behavior because most crooks aren’t nuts. We leave that to the judicial system to deal with and moral philosophers to decide what to allow and forbid. If people are disordered, we say they are abnormal. If people are not disordered, we say they are normal. Obviously a lot of real bad people are not disordered. So we are forced to call a lot of criminal behavior and most criminals normal because neither one is generally crazy. So a lot of very bad behavior and people are “normal” in the sense that they’re not nuts.

So a man of any age having sex with a teenage girl of any age does not make him sexually abnormal, as it’s completely “normal” behavior, as in, it’s not nuts, and even, looking at human history and other cultures, in most places and times, it was more or less normal.

But normal behavior doesn’t necessarily mean ok behavior. It just means that the behavior is not crazy.

The statutory rape matter is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.

We in mental health do not like to pathologize crimes and morally unethical behavior as psychological disorder. This is outside of what we care about and off into the lands of moral philosophers, religious thinkers, and legal theorists. It is in the area of right and wrong, good and bad, and good and evil. Most criminal behavior is not driven by psychological disorder. It’s driven by a defective moral conscience.

So whether it should be legal for a man of whatever age to have sex with a teenage girl or whatever age is a moral matter, a moral question. Perhaps you feel it is the worst behavior on Earth. Perhaps you think it’s completely ok and should be legal. Probably you are somewhere between those views. All of those views about this behavior are valid, as everyone and hence society itself is entitled to reasonable moral values of right and wrong.

Why was there an attempt to shove Hebephilia into the DMSO category in the first place. Because it was a game. A game called “Call Em Crazy, Lock Em up as Dangerous Forever, and Throw Away the Key.” Otherwise known as preventive detention. Or putting people in prison for life for the crime of “dangerousness.”

The game here is make a lot of the sexual behavior we dislike into “mental illnesses.” Because the only way we can lock someone up forever on the bullshit charge of “dangerousness” (there’s no such crime) is if they’re nuts. Yep. You can be dangerous as Hell, and as long as you’re not officially crazy and you’re just a mean SOB, it’s all kosher.

Obviously most sex offenders are not the slightest bit nuts, so a scam was made up to call them crazy so we could lock them up forever in preventive detention (which is probably illegal) for the rest of their lives because we think maybe they might sort of kind of a little bit possibly theoretically plausibly do something, we don’t know what, to someone, we don’t who, somewhere, we don’t know where, somehow, we don’t know how.

That’s unconstitutional on its face.

The only people you can lock up like are the dangerously mentally ill, and you are supposed to release them when they get better, except we never do because no matter how much better they get, we always say they’re not better enough. So we wanted to lock all these poor sops away forever, but we couldn’t because they weren’t nuts, they were just bad people, you know, like most criminals? So a scam was created to make up a bunch of “mental disorders” out of what are mostly just kinks and sexual perversions, when it’s doubtful whether any kinky or perverted people are actually nuts.

Generally they’re not nuts. They’re just perverts. Perverts aren’t nuts. They’re perverted. Two different things.

So they made up a fake mental disorder called Pedophilia to lock up all the child molesters forever, although most men in preventive detention are nonpedophilic molesters. Also they never let them out even when they get better because no matter how much better they get, the cops still say they’re not better enough yet. When will they be better enough? When they’re dead! It’s right out of Kafka. They just sit and rot forever. All because, you know, think of the children! And the usual pearl clutching we Americans so excel at.

So we decided all the chomos and short eyes had a “mental disease” called “Pedophilia” that made them “insane” or if you prefer “crazy.” Well, it doesn’t make you insane and it doesn’t even make you crazy. It might make you do bad things, but it doesn’t make you nuts. And since we decided on no rational basis whatsoever that all of these people were permanently dangerous, we have locked them all away forever on the basis that they are “dangerously mentally ill.” It’s all a big joke.

Dangerously mentally ill is supposed to be for the paranoid schizophrenic who grabs a gun and climbs a tower. It’s not for run of the mill criminals. Merely being dangerous as opposed to being nuts and dangerous is not granted the penalty of preventive detention because it’s decided that as long as you’re not nuts, you have at least some ability to control your dangerous behavior because obviously if you’re nuts, you lose that ability.

How about all the other paraphilias? Why don’t we decide they’re all dangerously mentally ill too? There’s nothing preventing it. The peeping toms? The flashers? The fetishists? The masochists? The sexual sadists? The first two are low level criminals so no one cares, the third are harmless except to women’s panties, shoes, and pocketbooks, the fourth only hurt themselves so no one cares, but the fourth? The sexual sadists? One might make the case that some convicted sexual sadists are dangerously mentally ill, but they never go down on this stuff. Only the Chesters. Because, you know, everyone hates Touchers. Think of the children!

One might think that as Antisocial Personality Disorder is in the DSM, a lot of these guys could go down on dangerously mentally ill, but there’s a serious argument whether any personality disordered person is mentally ill per se as opposed to be what I would call sick, character disordered, twisted, etc. Axis 2 people are what I call “soul-sick.” They’re permanently disordered, but the issue is at the core of their selves so they’re not really mentally ill. Instead, they are “sick.”

But nope, no PD’s go down on dangerously mentally ill. We save that for the sex criminals! Because, you know, the sex criminals are really so much worse than your ordinary variety criminals who burgle, rob, thieve, defraud, beat, maim, mug, shoot, stab, torture, and kill people because as long as they’re not fucking anyone while they’re doing it, it’s never quite so bad, you see? Because Puritanism. Obviously it’s so much worse to do bad things when you are fucking someone as opposed to just, you know, doing bad things when you don’t happen to be fucking anyone. Because whether you’re fucking someone or not when you commit your crime makes such a difference!

There has been a very devious attempt lately to sneak another mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) into the mix.

But first notice that they singled out the sex criminals for permanent preventive detention as opposed to, you know, your garden variety maniacs. But why? Why do only sex criminals deserve preventive detention as opposed to regular murderers, muggers, and robbers? Because moral panic. That’s why.

They went after the rapists. Because of course everyone hates rapists. Except we live in a rape culture that says it’s ok to rape and encourages all men to go rape all they want. But at the same time everyone hates rapists. Makes sense, huh? They tried to sneak in a Rape Paraphilic Disorder in order to round up all the rapists just like they rounded up all the Chesters.

Problem? The vast majority of rapists do not have any sort of a paraphilia about rape. They do it for all sorts of reasons. Some like to hurt people (sadistic rapists), some are angry at or hate women (anger rapists) and two different types do it for different power trips – the Power Reassurance Rapist and another that slips my mind. One of these types is the “gentleman rapist” who actually feels bad about raping you! So there are different kinds, and almost all rapists won’t kill you, except the Sadists (5%) are very dangerous, and the Anger Rapists (30%?) may well hurt you but generally won’t kill you unless you fight them, in which case they might.

But men who have a specific paraphilia about rape? That is, they get aroused more by the idea of raping women than by anything else, possibly to the point that unless they rape or pretend to rape, it just doesn’t move the meter? It’s either very uncommon or nonexistent, depending on who you listen to. But of course, once they sneak in Rape Paraphilic Disorder, they’re going to label all the rapists mentally ill with this fake illness, and lock them all away as MDSO’s! Neat trick, huh? Thankfully the DSM-5 committees stopped that one coming and dodged the bullet.

DSM-5 Hebephilia was shot down on similar grounds, that this was an attempt to round up men who committed statutory rape with young teens (13-15 year old girls) and missed the deadline for going down on Child Molestation (usually under 13). So this way we get to lock up countless men who bang hot to trot little jailbaits forever as dangerously mentally ill.

Alt Left: The Worst Person on Earth

Elon Musk. No ifs, ands, or butts about it. Actually, Donald Trump, another billionaire – natch – is so much worse, but for the purposes of creative flair, let’s keep the title the same. Besides, he deserves the reverse accolades.

Ok, he’s the second worst person on Earth.

Donald Trump is the worst person on Earth. He is also a narcissistic psychopath, or a malignant narcissist. This personality, the early researchers of which designated it “the closest thing on Earth to ‘pure evil’ to me is “the personality of the dictator.” I believe many dictators, especially the murderous ones, were malignant narcissists. His own father was a psychopath and possibly a malignant narcissist himself. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Got it. Now who’s the third worst person on Earth? Could it be anyone but the Libertarian (obviously – what else could he be) Jeff Bezos?

Bezos, a billionaire, is the richest man on Earth. He is also the third worst man on Earth. His income has doubled in the last year while the economy crashed and burned and the real humans writhed in the burning rubble, mouthing silent screams that no one heard.

Donald Trump, a billionaire,

Elon Musk, a billionaire, is the third richest man on Earth. he is the second worst person on Earth. His income also doubled in the last year in the midst of the worst economic crash since the Great Depression. He is mentally ill. He has Bipolar Disorder. Most of the time he is in the manic or hypomanic phase of the disorder. This is also part of why he is such a huge asshole, as manics are commonly some of the biggest assholes around.

Sometimes I call mania “Asshole Personality Disorder.” Musk also appears to have a serious narcissism problem and he may well have Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Of course, mania and narcissism go together. One paper reckoned that everyone in the manic phase of the disorder met criteria for NPD.

Bernard Arnault is the second richest man on Earth. He is a billionaire. I know nothing about him, except that he probably adds very little value to the human race.

Mark Zuckerberg is a billionaire. He is easily the fourth richest man on Earth. Like Musk and Bezos, he is also extremely dangerous. In fact, Musk, Bezos, Trump, and Zuckerberg are probably the four most dangerous men on Earth at the moment. Zuckerberg is the fourth worst person on Earth, though it’s a close call between him and Bezos.

Bill Gates is the fifth richest man on Earth. He’s retired from business, so that means he can’t do any (or much) more damage. Notice when these guys quit the job of making money, they often turn into dramatically better human beings. While he was making money of course, Gates was a complete monster, with a moral compass as cockeyed as Ted Bundy’s.

In fact, I would call Bill Gates the Ted Bundy of the IT industry. He lied to, cheated, stole from and backstabbed everyone who ever had the misfortune of partnering with him (ring a bell with Mr. Trump?).

I doubt if Gates was a psychopath or a malignant narcissist as he seems cured now, and those disorders are incurable if anything is. But he sure acted the part. There is such a thing as “Antisocial Behavior” absent psychopathy. Many criminals fall into this category. Mafioso and their soldiers come to mind. They act terrible but they aren’t really terrible people deep down inside. It’s not that they are bad. It’s more that they act bad. Notice the difference.

Now that he has quit making money and hence has no need to foment evil anymore, Gates has, with the major assistance of his heartfelt wife, turned into a much better person. Has he yet dumped all of his antisocial BS? I’m not sure. But he’s a much better man than he used to be and in some ways, he is indeed a good person, maybe even a very good person.

Notice all it takes to turn a stone evil man into a near-saint? Just stop trying to make money. That’s all it takes. Making money turns you evil, by necessity probably. When you stop making money, the need for the evil behavior evaporates and one is free to act a lot better, assuming you have it in you in the first place. And Gates does.

While we are on the subject of monsters and billionaires, let us discuss…drum roll…Steve Jobs! A true monster among men, testified by everyone who ever worked with him, seconded by his very own long-suffering family. Jobs absolutely had Narcissistic Personality Disorder. One wonders if he was a malignant narcissist too.

Alt Left: Can’t Find the Real Killer? No Problem! Just Go Frame Some Scumbag!

There are times when there’s a horrible murder or series of murders and the police can’t catch the guy.

Everyone thinks that this means that the police are incompetent, but that’s not necessarily true. People get away with murder all the time, sometimes for decades and sometimes for an entire lifetime. Quite a few have yet to be caught even in death. Not only can we not catch killers, but we cannot even catch the ghosts of  killers.

I suggest that anyone who thinks  that this is easy work as an armchair detective on a famous unsolved case.

If you really dive into the rabbit hole, you will come out later with your head spinning. Nothing will make sense. Nothing will add up. Everything will be wrong. It will seem like everyone is lying. Every great theory and bit of evidence will have gone nowhere. Excellent theories being passed around widely by word of mouth will turn out to  have been made up out of whole cloth.

I have worked on cases like this for years, and I came out of wondering how the police ever catch any murderer. Or armed robber. Or burglar. Or most unknown criminals. I don’t understand how detectives solve cases. I have watched these guys in action and they are amazing, almost like magicians who pull rabbits out of hats. I have no idea how they do it.

Because there are 333 million people in the country to sift through and some killers are very good, a number of killers simply get away with murder, even multiple murders. Just think. You only have to sift through 333 million human beings to find the killer! How hard could that be?

When a killer or multiple killer is not found, it’s not typically due to bad policework. In many cases, detectives put in tens or hundreds of thousands of hours. There might be a small room packed with evidence boxes. And they still never caught him.

But the average person is an idiot who thinks with his gut and his retarded snake brain. He doesn’t know what higher thinking is, much less engage in it. But you get enough of these morons together and they can make a lot of noise. A roar, a great big huge stink. One we are obliged to listen to.

The people will start screaming at the top of their lungs that the police are incompetent for not finding some master criminal. They will demand that sheriffs, police chiefs or district attorneys be fired. Such folks come under withering pressure to solve the case.

There have been a number of recorded cases where haggard and harried police were being so browbeaten about not solving a case that they simply went out and grabbed some local scumbag, often a real scumbag.

A convict with a long record who’s been released. Someone who has done some bad to terrible things  – murder, rape, child molesting, child rape, torture, you name it – but served his time and paid his debt, and now he’s walking free. He’s hate-able. He’s so hate-able you want to lynch him on the spot.

Well, the cops just grab this guy (who keep in mind is just a total scumbag anyway) and simply frame him of the murder or murders just to shut everyone up.

Incredibly, the public doesn’t even seem to care that some schmuck, albeit a scumbag schmuck, got framed for a crime. A lot of  people will put their fingers in their ears and start yelling. “I don’t want to hear about it!” If you imply that they got the wrong guy, people will actually say, “So what! He’s a scumbag anyway! If he didn’t do this, he definitely did a lot of other bad things!”

At the end of the day, people just want the case solved. Getting down to brass tacks, they don’t even care that the real killer got away with it. They just want someone, anyone, preferably a total dirtbag, to be convicted of the crime so everyone can finally sleep well at night.

Alt Left: An Argument for the Utility of a Four Year College Degree, in Anything, Yes, Anything at All

I would like to make an argument for the utility of a four year college degree in absolutely anything at all with possibly a few lightweight exceptions.

Here it is:

I majored in General Ed in junior college. I have a Masters Degree and a genius level IQ (over 140). 😉

Most of the work coming out of Studies departments nowadays is quite poor. Sociology, Anthropology, and Pedagogy are badly corrupted by PC. My own field, Linguistics, is a PC hellhole. Even Psychology is becoming badly corrupted.

You would be surprised that Criminal Justice is actually a very liberal field of study. Generally considered part of Sociology. All of the social sciences are very leftwing, History included. Also a notorious black hole of theory, as no one really knows what causes crime or makes it go up or down.

I suppose you do need to write well even in a Studies field. I have met some people with “Studies” majors, one a feminist with a Gender Studies degree. They were often very intelligent. Not sure what good the degree is.

You know, 30-40 years ago, many entry level jobs said “a Bachelors degree in anything.” This was intelligent as these folks felt that getting a BA in most things is not easy at all, and the person probably has at least a 105 and probably a 115 IQ. They probably don’t have a 100 IQ.

On top of that, the BA should have at least taught them the critical thinking so necessary in the workplace. I still believe that a degree in anything shows that this person has been taught the critical thinking skills necessary for higher level work in our society. So those junk degrees are at least valuable in that sense.

Crime Rates in Black Countries, among Black Populations and in Black Cities and Neighborhoods around the World

Thinking Mouse: Many African nations have a similar homicide rate to far eastern Europe, despite having much lower incarceration rates and younger demographics.

Incarceration rates are low because the police are often incompetent and much crime is not prosecuted or even reported.
Black Africa has had some of the highest homicide rates on Earth for decades. Crime is so bad there are travel warnings against going to most of those countries. Are there travel warnings telling people not to go to Eastern Europe? I recently went through the US State Department warnings for Black Africa and in every single country in the region, there were warnings about high levels of crime and violent crime. I believe Senegal was somewhat of an exception and most of the crime there was property crime.
I would not feel frightened going to Eastern Europe. I would feel frightened in most large Black African cities except possibly in the Sahel. I have heard that Senegal is relatively low crime. There is terrorism now in the Sahel though, so it is dangerous on that basis, but the crime is not very high. Of all of the countries in Black Africa, I would probably recommend Senegal as safe enough to take a careful vacation there. I’ve also heard that it is a very interesting country. It might be nice as a human to visit Black Africa once in a lifetime.
Generally the Muslim parts of Black Africa are safer, more orderly, calmer, and have less crime than the Christian areas.
However, there is an ethnic group of 1 million people in Burkina Faso that has a homicide rate of ~1/100,000, about the same as Japan’s. So this shows that not all Black populations automatically commit lots of violent crime and homicide. But whatever environment this group has created to make such a safe culture does not seem to be easily replicable outside of that group. The group is Muslim, and study of Muslim texts is mandatory for all young people, so the group is educated. Elders are revered and respected and children fear their wrath and do not disobey them much. Elders take it upon themselves to mentor youths and young adults as a matter of course. Ethnic pride is high and members read texts about the group and participate in frequent cultural exercises.
In addition, much of the crime in Black Africa is simply not reported, as police are incompetent, corrupt, and take bribes. In a number of those countries, police set up roadblocks specifically to take bribes from motorists.
The Black Caribbean has a high violent crime and homicide rate.
I read a recent figure for the UK that Blacks were 2% of the population, and they committed 20% of the homicides. In the US, Blacks are 13% of the population, and they commit 53% of the homicides.
All of the high homicide US cities are Black. In LA, the top nine most dangerous police precincts are in Black neighborhoods.
Has the commenter ever been around large numbers of Black people? Gone to school with them, went to their parts of time, driven around in cities where there are many of them? You need to stay out of areas where there are large numbers of low income Blacks. Those areas dangerous as Hell. I taught in Black schools for years.
You had to leave school before sundown. Once I went back to see my school at 9:30 at night and it was absolutely terrifying. Basically these neighborhoods can be more or less ok in the daytime (I drove around them a lot and went out to eat a lot), but don’t go off the main streets even in the daytime and make sure you are out of the area after dark.

There Are Many Good Black People even in the Ghetto

However, having worked in those schools for years and spent some time in the deep inner city of LA (South Central LA), I will say that it is trivial to meet decent people in that area. My car broke down twice in Black areas, once in South Central and once in Compton. Both times, Black adults came out and helped me get my car going. In both cases, there was an older man in his 40’s. In one case there were some young men in their 20’s helping him. They were extremely nice people.
I dated a Black woman in South Central and though she was a scumbag crack addict, I spent some time in her barbershop talking to some older Black men in their 50’s and 60’s. They were extremely cool. One  man acted a bit strange around me and I asked my date and she said he hates Whites and has not been around them much. But he was very nice to me, although he seemed  a bit awkward around me. I think he was surprised to find a friendly, decent Black man.
Even in South Central, a lot of the older Black men from 40-60 are very good people, assuming they are not imprisoned and are still alive. Particularly if they own a home. Black culture has a way of winnowing out the worst people who tend to spend much of their lives incarcerated or else die young.
A number of the incarcerated ones get out and though they are not great people, I would not say they are bad people either. I spent a couple of hours talking to a 45 year old Black man who had done ten years in prison for robbery and attempted murder. He seemed quite a bit calmed down.
People tend to age out of crime and bad behavior anyway and even among adults, it is young adults who act the worst and commit the most crime. Even many psychopaths burn out in middle age and become depressed/alcoholic while the condition lessens and moderates quite a bit.
The Black teachers and aides at the schools I taught at were generally very nice people, although some were pretty angry. I mostly befriended Black female teachers. Some of the administrators were very cool too.
However, in the very heart of the ghetto, in deep Compton near Willowbrook, not only were the students the worst of all, but they hated Whites the most. In addition, a number of the Black female teachers seemed to hate Whites, something I never dealt with before.
Many of the older Black women even in the ghetto are very good people, especially if they are deep into religion. Even some of the Black students I taught were good people, especially if they were deep into religion. At one school, a Black female senior seemed to be in love with me and asked me out and tried to get my phone number.

Though Bad People Are a Minority in the Hood, There Are Simply Too Many of Them

The problem with these areas is not that everyone is lousy. In fact there are many decent and even good people even deep in the ghetto. However the rate of lousy, bad and out and out evil and dangerous people is much higher than in White areas. There are just too many bad people around (although they are a minority) such that it makes traveling and spending time there a dangerous endeavor.

Voyeurism, Exhibitionism, and Escalation to More Serious Crimes

It is a common myth, especially among feminists, that some people with paraphilias such as voyeurs and exhibitionists (peepers and flashers) commonly escalate to more serious offenses such as burglary, sexual assault, rape or homicide.
As with so many things in life, this is a half-truth.
Some or a certain number of flashers, peepers, etc. do escalate more or less as described above, yes. I am not sure I would call it shifting of boundaries, although that’s what is going on. Instead of shifting it is more like an escalation of boundary violations to more extreme violations. I also don’t know if it’s about respecting boundaries. I’ve read a lot about these paraphilias because I do work in this area as part of one of my jobs, and I’ve never heard people describe paraphilic escalation as a shifting of boundaries, even if that’s what it is.
To the flasher or peeper, their problem is more of a compulsion or an addiction than anything else. They feel a build-up of pressure in the period before the act which builds to a very uncomfortable level, and they feel that the only way to reduce the pressure is to do the act. They commit the act in a rush of fear and excitement, and the act is very sexually stimulating to them. After they do the act, there is a catharsis, and the pressure is relieved. Sometimes they feel guilty afterwards.
In therapy with these people, many of them are actually decent men with good jobs,  good fathers and husbands. They simply have a paraphilia – a sexual disorder – that takes the form of an addictive-like behavior or a compulsion. It is common in therapy for these men for them to break down and cry, saying that they can’t control themselves. The behavior can go on for decades if it is not checked. The paraphilia is apparently learned. I believe it is hard to treat.
But yes, some voyeurs and exhibitionists do escalate, and these are the boundary pushers. You get away with flashing or peeping, and now you realize that you can get away with serious violations of people’s boundaries.
Although I believe Ted Bundy killed first at age 14 (a 9 year old girl neighbor), he would never confess to that crime, and they could never formally pin it on him. I also think he killed some women back East
when he stayed at a family home there over the summer. The record says he started killing in college. Anyway, the record is clear that in his teens, Ted used to roam neighborhoods at night, peeping on women. He also started breaking into homes around this time, often the homes of the women he was peeping on. Later on he went on some serious murder sprees.

How Criminal Escalation Works

In crime, when you get away with a crime for a while, there is tendency to think “If I got away with X, I can get away with X+1.” The people who think this way are not necessarily bad people per se. If they had never gotten away with X crime, they might have lived perfectly decent lives. But they got away with X crime, with caused them to escalate beyond X further and further, and at some point, they might commit homicide. And it is typically a male criminal who escalates like this.
 
 

Psychopathology of Serial Murderers

The primary problem with almost all serial killers is simply ASPD, Antisocial Personality Disorder, (derived) sociopathy or (primary) psychopathy. It is present in almost 100% of such cases. Most everything else is rather secondary to this primary character disorder, which is the most prominent symptom.

Very rare is the serial killer without this disorder, although there have been a few. I remember a long-distance trucker who turned himself when he walked into a Northern California police station with a woman’s breast in his top shirt pocket. He had camped out in forests while trucking and had picked up women and killed them. He kept the body of one in the truck for three or four days and drove around with it.

Experts said he was quite unusual in that they said he actually felt bad about what he had done. I wonder how bad he really felt though. You could not get me to drive around in a truck with a dead woman in the back for very long. I would go into severe panic pretty fast, stop the truck, and get out, and start walking or probably running away.

I would not be able to walk around with a woman’s breast in my shirt for long either. I would completely panic almost right away, take the shirt off, throw it on the ground, and start running. But then I am a pretty guilty type person with a strong conscience.

Based on that, while I am sure he may have felt some guilt for his killings, the fact that he was able to drive around in a truck with a dead woman in the back for 3-4 days shows without completely flipping out shows to me that he didn’t feel that much guilt, certainly not on the level that most of us would.

And the fact that he could rather calmly walk into a police station with a cut-off breast in his pocket without flying into total panic shows to me that he didn’t feel that bad about it. So guilt, even when it is present, is not as strong as in most of us, otherwise they would not have even done such horrible things in the first place.

Sexual sadism is also often present, and I have heard that Sadistic Personality Disorder is very common. Juvenile delinquency, voyeurism, exhibitionism, burglary, prowling, petty thievery, etc. typically precede the serial killings. When the serial killer starts killing, he usually has a fairly long rap sheet of more minor offenses. The murders are best seen as an escalation of a chronic criminal character type.

The ones who kill children are typically though not always preferential or fixated pedophiles. Certainly the ones who kill only children are preferential pedophiles. There is a type of pedophile called a mysoped, which is a sadistic pedophile. They are not very common. I doubt if 5% of pedophiles are like this, but these people are very dangerous. Probably almost all serial child killers are mysopeds, and these crimes often have a sexual basis.

95% of rapists are the type that rarely if ever go serial, but the sadistic rapist, composed of no more than 5% of rapists, is very dangerous. Most if not all rapist serial killers are sadistic rapists.

The rage rapist is dangerous, but he generally does not intend to kill his victim although he assaults her. If she fights back or gets difficult, he can fly into a rage and beat her so badly that she dies, but again he usually does not intend to kill. I doubt if these types go serial much if at all. Serial killers intend to kill; rage rapists do not.

Malignant narcissism, the disorder, believe it or not, of our wonderful President, is also present sometimes. Ted Bundy was a malignant narcissist. Yes, our wonderful President has the same mental illness as Ted Bundy! Comforting thought.

A few have Schizoid Personality Disorder, and some of the more disturbed ones have Borderline Personality Disorder.

Schizotypal, Paranoid, and Narcissistic Personality Disorders are rarely if ever seen in serial killers. Schizotypals are probably too disorganized and decompensated and just out and out strange to commit such crimes. The serial killer must blend in, and schizotypals do not do that. A few schizotypals have committed mass murders. James Holmes the Aurora Batman Theater Shooter, was a notable case. But note that he was caught immediately.

Paranoid PD is rarely if ever seen. These people tend to be rather retiring and like to hide away from a hostile world. They also do not like to call attention to themselves from a hostile world. They are suspicious and distrustful by nature, and this makes it hard for them to blend in well with ordinary society as serial killers often do.

Narcissists are usually too self-centered to kill. While narcissists are often very mean, the disorder is usually well-controlled in that the rage rarely escalates to homicide. There have been a few cases of NPD’s committing mass murder, usually of their families. The case of Jeffrey MacDonald, the mass murdering physician of Fatal Vision, seems to be such a case. This is a superb true crime book by the way.

Also narcissists think that if they kill, they will get caught, and if they are in prison or jail they will not be able to live this wonderful life they are supposed to be killing. They are “too cool to kill.”

Killing would mess up all their wonderful plans to exploit others and hold them up to contempt by millions of people, which the narcissist would have a hard time taking. The narcissist is “too good for prison.” Prison would be such a crushing blow to their self-image that it would very hard to take.

However, malignant narcissists can be very dangerous because this is a combination of psychopathy, sadism, Paranoid PD and Narcissistic PD. When you weaponize NPD with paranoia, sadism and particularly psychopathy, you create a dangerous illness.

Cluster C Personality Disorders like Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, Self-Defeating Personality Disorder, Dependent Personality Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder are rarely if ever present in these types. These are PD’s where aggression is mostly displayed passively, and serial killers display aggression actively, not passively.

Mood disorders do not seem to be common. Bipolar Disorder is not common, and serial killers are rarely if ever depressed. They displace guilt and loathing outwards instead of pushing it inside of themselves as depressives do.

Depressives are passive, and depression acts as sort of a freezing agent in that it tends to immobilize people by its nature.

Men in general tend to either experience less depression than women or mask it with other things such as anger and rage, drinking, drugs, gambling, promiscuity, or even workaholism. It is simply not acceptable as a man to be depressed, so depressed men simply channel their depression into other things and say they are not depressed, they are just drunks or workaholics, for instance.

Substance and alcohol abuse issues are quite common with serial killers, but the better ones are more sober, as drinkers and dopers tend to be scattered and unreliable, and serial killers must be on the ball  24-7.

Only a few are psychotic. 2% of serial killers are psychotic. Psychotic people can barely organize a trip to the bathroom. How are they going to plot out elaborate and professional serial homicides?

They are motivated by many things, but your typical rape-murders or murders of attractive young women almost always have a sexual component. I would call these serial killings lust murders. The Germans coined the term.

Even among the lust-murders, there are a number of different types. Some are motivated by purely sexual desires, others get off specifically on killing and the power gained from it, others are hunter types who get pleasure from the hunt and chase as if they were hunting an animal, which they are of course, but when we refer to hunters, we are always talking about hunters of non-human animals.

Omar Mateen and Displacement

Erik Sieven writes:

When he hated gays, or maybe gays from Puerto Rico why didn´t he just attack one single gay person, e.g. the man from Puerto Rico he was angry about in the first place? Or why didn´t he just swallow his anger like 99% of humanity do it day after day? No, it had to be such a big thing, with hostages, shooting the police etc. etc.

Because he is a lunatic mass shooter, that’s why.
Mass shooters do this displacement stuff all the time. The one school shooter was mad at his Mom, so he shot up the school where she worked and murdered a bunch of children. James Holmes was mad at humanity, so he shot up a theater and murdered innocent moviegoers. Serial killers hate their mothers, but instead of killing their Moms, they run around murdering women who are standin’s for Mom. People do this all the time, and if this guy is just another mass shooter nutcase, which I now think, we can’t expect him to act rationally.

"How Islam Creates Psychopaths," by Nicolai Sennels

The eminent Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels has studied the ideology of Islam and how it affects Muslims. He has concluded it creates monsters/psychopaths
Here he writes:

How Islam Creates Sociopaths

by Nicolai Sennels

Psychopathic people and behavior are found within all cultures and religions. But one tops them all — by many lengths.
The daily mass killings, terror, persecutions and family executions committed by the followers of Islam are nauseating, and the ingenuity behind the attacks — always looking for new and more effective ways of killing and terrorizing people — is astonishing: hijacking jumbo jets and flying them into skyscrapers, hunting unarmed and innocent people with grenades and automatic rifles in shopping malls, planting bombs in one’s own body, using model airplanes as drones, attaching large rotating blades to pickup trucks and using them as human lawn movers, killing family members with acid or fire, hanging people publicly from cranes in front of cheering crowds, etc.
It makes one ask oneself: what creates such lack of empathy and almost playful and creative attitude towards murdering perceived enemies?
This is a question for psychologists like me.

Studying the Muslim mind

Nobody is born a mass murderer, a rapist or a violent criminal. So what is it in the Muslim culture that influence their children in a way that make so relatively many Muslims harm other people?
As a psychologist in a Danish youth prison, I had a unique chance to study the mentality of Muslims. 70 percent of youth offenders in Denmark have a Muslim background. I was able to compare them with non-Muslim clients from the same age group with more or less the same social background. I came to the conclusion that Islam and Muslim culture have certain psychological mechanisms that harm people’s development and increase criminal behavior.
I am, of course, aware that Muslims are different, and not all Muslims follow the Quran’s violent and perverted message and their prophet’s equally embarrassing example. But as with all other religions, Islam also influences its followers and the culture they live in.
One could talk about two groups of psychological mechanisms that both singly and combined increase violent behavior. One group is mainly connected with religion, which aims at indoctrinating Islamic values in children as early as possible and with whatever means necessary, including violence and intimidation.
One can understand a Muslim parent’s concern about his offspring’s religious choices, because the Sharia orders the death penalty for their children should they pick another religion than their parents. The other group of mechanisms are more cultural and psychological. These cultural psychological mechanisms are a natural consequence of being influenced by a religion like Islam and stemming from a 1,400 year old tribal society with very limited freedom to develop beyond what the religion allows.

Classical Brainwashing Methods in the Upbringing

Brainwashing people into believing or doing things against their own human nature — such as hating or even killing innocents they do not even know — is traditionally done by combining two things: pain and repetition. The conscious infliction of psychological and physical suffering breaks down the person’s resistance to the constantly repeated message.
Totalitarian regimes use this method to reform political dissidents. Armies in less civilized countries use it to create ruthless soldiers, and religious sects all over the world use it to fanaticize their followers.
During numerous sessions with more than a hundred Muslim clients, I found that violence and repetition of religious messages are prevalent in Muslim families.
Muslim culture simply does not have the same degree of understanding of human development as in civilized societies, and physical pain and threats are therefore often the preferred tool to raise children. This is why so many Muslim girls grow up to accept violence in their marriage, and why Muslim boys grow up to learn that violence is acceptable. And it is the main reason why nine out of ten children removed from their parents by authorities in Copenhagen are from immigrant families. The Muslim tradition of using pain and intimidation as part of disciplining children are also widely used in Muslim schools — also in the West.
Combined with countless repetitions of Quranic verses in Islamic schools and families, all this makes it very difficult for children to defend themselves against being indoctrinated to follow the Quran, even if it is against secular laws, logic, and the most basic understanding of compassion.
And as we know from so many psychological studies, whatever a child is strongly influenced by at that age takes an enormous personal effort to change later in life. It is no wonder that Muslims in general, in spite of Islam’s inhumane nature and obvious inability to equip its followers with humor, compassion and other attractive qualities, are stronger in their faith than any other religious group.

Four Enabling Psychological Factors

Not only does a traditional Islamic upbringing resemble classical brainwashing methods, but also, the culture it generates cultivates four psychological characteristics that further enable and increase violent behavior.
These four mental factors are

  • anger
  • lack of self-confidence
  • no sense of responsibility for oneself
  • intolerance

When it comes to anger, Western societies widely agree that it is a sign of weakness. Uncontrolled explosions of this unpleasant feeling are maybe the fastest way of losing face, especially in Northern countries, and though angry people may be feared, they are never respected. In Muslim culture, anger is much more accepted, and being able to intimidate people is seen as strength and source of social status. We even see ethnic Muslim groups or countries proudly declare whole days of anger, and use expressions such as “holy anger” — a term that seems contradictory in peaceful cultures.
In Western societies, the ability to handle criticism constructively if it is justified, and with a shrug if it is misguided, is seen as an expression of self-confidence and authenticity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMzLCJyevCk
As everyone has noticed, this is not the case among Muslims. Here criticism, no matter how true, is seen as an attack on one’s honor, and it is expected that the honor is restored by using whatever means necessary to silence the opponent. Muslims almost never attempt to counter criticism with logical arguments; instead, they try to silence the criticism by pretending to be offended or by name-calling, or by threatening or even killing the messenger.
The third psychological factor concerns responsibility for oneself, and here the psychological phenomenon “locus of control” plays a major role. People raised by Western standards generally have an inner locus of control, meaning that they experience their lives as governed by inner factors, such as one’s own choices, world view, ways of handling emotions and situations, etc. Muslims are raised to experience their lives as being controlled from the outside.
Everything happens “insha’ Allah” — if Allah wills — and the many religious laws, traditions and powerful male authorities leave little room for individual responsibility. This is the cause for the embarrassing and world-famous Muslim victim mentality, where everybody else is blamed and to be punished for the Muslims’ own self-created situation.
Finally, the fourth psychological factor making Muslims vulnerable to the violent message in the Quran concerns tolerance. While Western societies in general define a good person as being open and tolerant, Muslims are told that they are superior to non-Muslims, destined to dominate non-Muslims, and that they must distance themselves socially and emotionally from non-Muslims. The many hateful and dehumanizing verses in the Quran and the Hadiths against non-Muslims closely resemble the psychological propaganda that leaders use against their own people in order to prepare them mentally for fighting and killing the enemy. Killing another person is easier if you hate him and do not perceive him as fully human.

Why Islam Creates Monsters

The cultural and psychological cocktail of anger, low self-esteem, victim mentality, a willingness to be blindly guided by outer authorities, and an aggressive and discriminatory view toward non-Muslims, forced upon Muslims through pain, intimidation and mind-numbing repetitions of the Quran’s almost countless verses promoting hate and violence against non-Muslims, is the reason why Islam creates monsters.

The Psychological Problem within Islam

The problem with Islam and Muslim culture is that there are so many psychological factors pushing its followers towards a violent attitude against non-Muslims that a general violent clash is — at least from a psychological perspective — inevitable. With such strong pressure and such strong emotions within such a large group of people — all pitched against us — we are facing the perfect storm, and I see no possibilities of turning it around. For people to change, they have to want it, to be allowed to change, and to be able to change — and only a tiny minority of Muslims have such lucky conditions.
Far too many people underestimate the power of psychology embedded in religion and culture. As we have already seen, no army of social workers, generous welfare states, sweet-talking politicians, politically correct journalists or democracy-promoting soldiers can stop these enormous forces. Sensible laws on immigration and Islamization in our own countries can limit the amount of suffering, but based on my education and professional experience as a psychologist for Muslims, I estimate that we will not be able to deflect or avoid this many-sided, aggressive movement against our culture.
I do believe that we, as a democratic and educated society can become focused and organized concerning the preservation of our values and constitutions, can win this ongoing conflict started by the often inbred followers of Sharia. The big question is how much of our dignity, our civil rights, and our blood, money and tears will we lose in the process.

Blacks and Capitalism: A Bad Combination

Capitalist Caucasian wrote:

Exactly. Blacks work better under socialism because they have forced limitations on their ability to blow dough. In capitalism, the black mindset of “lets spend every fucking thing on hoes, blow, and clothes” causes a massive wealth redistribution from middle class blax to the elite who supply them with crack and silk clothes.

Well you know, in Cuba, your apartment, education, health care, transportation, cultural events, clothing, clean water, sewage system, roads, all of that, is pretty much taken care of by the state. Black Cubans would not be smart to blow all their money as nowadays the ration book will not take you far. Probably most Black Cubans have a job on the side selling this, that or whatever on the street. And for whatever reason, Black Cubans commit little crime.
Personally, I think that under capitalism, Blacks inevitably fall behind for reasons that we are all aware of. Capitalist society drums it into your head, Spend, spend, spend, and says that if you’re not a winner, you are a worthless piece of shit, but only a few people can be winners. Turn on the TV or open a magazines and it is just winners, winners, winners. Black people are sitting there, defined in capitalist society as losers, being bombarded constantly with Buy, buy, buy messages and the TV and media screaming at them 24-7 calling them losers and laughing in their face for not being rich and having stuff.
Blacks figure I am gonna be a winner one way or another, so they turn to crime to become capitalist-defined winners. Also Blacks being defined always as losers and ridiculed for that, while at the same time having their paths to winnerdom pretty much blocked, well, this makes Black people pretty angry. The anger and rage turns into crime, particularly violent crime.
The more equality, the better Blacks seem to do. Dominica, a pure Black country, has a homicide rate that is 50% of the US rate and Dominican Blacks’ homicide rate is 7% of US Blacks’ rate, of US Blacks have a 13X higher homicide rate than those in Dominica.
In Mozambique under Samora Machel, it was said that you could walk from one end of Maputo (a pure Black African city) to the other at 3 AM, and no one would bother you.
I would gather that the more inequality you have in a society, the more crime and especially violent crime the Blacks are going to commit. They are going to be on the short end of that skewed income distribution, and looking up at those rich people is going to make them pretty angry.

The Crime – IQ – Poverty Conundrum

Jason Y writes:

The black tendency toward crime must be due to testosterone, not low IQ. As you said, plenty of low IQ areas have a lot less crime than black areas. In addition, you said that being poor has no relation to crime, and cited Southern Appalachia as an example. Of course, in all the non-black areas cited, family values has often played a huge role in keeping civility. However, it can’t be the only factor, as testosterone is another major factor. As we know, there are enough heathens in non-black areas to raise hell, yet none is raised as much as with blacks.

An 85 IQ of US and UK Blacks is not even all that low on a world scale. Many Arab states have IQ’s in that range, and they have almost no crime. It is certainly not true that at 85 IQ, a population is so stupid that they are doomed to mass criminality.
If an 85 IQ doesn’t cause mass crime in the Arab World or Iran, why would it automatically with Blacks? Makes no sense.
I am not sure about poverty either. Countries like Georgia and Moldova are horribly poor, but there is little crime. And we can look at the West Virginian example that shows that very poor people can indeed behave very well and commit surprisingly low levels of crime.
On the other hand, crime is related to IQ and poverty. Under the old scale, the US White IQ was 10o, but the US White criminal IQ was 90, 10 points lower. I believe that Black criminals also have similarly lower IQ’s than US Blacks in general. I am not sure how many criminal types you all have known or been around, but I have known quite a few street criminals in my life. One thing that hits you over and over is how stupid most street criminals are. When you think about it, being a street crook is a pretty dumb thing to do. Most of them get caught, and the downside is pretty ugly.
And it is well known that during recessions or depressions, crime can increase. During Cuba’s Special Period, the crime rate went wild, particularly property crime. The type of crime that usually goes up as poverty increases in a population is typically property crime, not violent crime. Which figures. The poorer people are, the more they want to rip stuff off. But being poor alone doesn’t necessarily increase violent crime.
Nevertheless, in most nations, you will indeed find the most property crime and violent crime in the poorest, crappiest parts of town, which shows there is a link.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

How Slums Are Criminogenic

It is well known that in most countries, the most run-down and poverty stricken areas tend to have the most crime, property and violent.
No one quite knows why this is. Do criminal and screw-up types simply gradually fail in life and end up living in slums? Possibly.
But more than that, the environment of a slum is often criminogenic. In many slums, you grow up in a “culture of crime.” Your role models are gangsters, drug dealers and assorted hoods. If you go to school at all, a lot of your friends are delinquents. Peer pressure effects humans at all ages, not just adolescents. If people all around you are ripping stuff off all the time, you might just decide to do it too. Monkey see, monkey do.
Many slums are barely even policed anymore as the cops have given up on them, think they are hopeless or possibly avoid them as too dangerous to patrol in much. Hence a lot of crime in slums probably goes unpunished. Unpunished crime simply breeds more crime. “Yeehaw! I got away with it! Let’s do it again!” It can also lead to criminal escalation via a mechanism I will explain later.
Violence similarly tends to beget violence. If most everyone around you is violent, you might get violent too. Trust me, I have spent a lot of time around violent folks, and you inevitably get violent just being around them if only to defend yourself from their frequent assaults and provocations. A boy looks around and sees all the men beating their wives and he grows up to be a wife-beater. Frequent street fights are exciting and breed even more fights due to the danger – excitement and possibly revenge factor.
The revenge factor is one horrible way that violent crime is criminogenic in and of itself – violent crime simply begets more violent crime. People retaliate for property crimes, but they really retaliate hard for violent crimes. So one homicide is followed by new revenge homicides like night follows day on and on until you have a near battlefield of warring gangs.
Young men grow up in these neighborhoods, see other young men fighting and dying young and become fatalistic. Many young men in these neighborhoods openly tell you that they do not care if they live or die and/or that they fully expect to die young. The thing about expectations in life is they are often filled.
Squalor itself causes crime. The Broken Windows Theory of policing was very controversial when implemented in New York. They did studies where someone would smash a window in a vacant store. The researchers would then watch the area. Soon many more windows were bashed out, then nearly stores had their windows bashed out. Graffiti started appearing on the walls. As the area degraded, it attracted types who like degraded areas (criminals). More and more men showed up, drinking, doping and selling drugs. Property crimes started going up and then violent crimes appeared.
It is an exaggeration to say it is all from a broken window, but you get the picture.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Blacks and Crime: A Look at My Town

Johan Meyer writes:

Argentina’s murder rate in 1997 (sorry, I remembered wrongly) was 9.1 and 9.2 in 2002; it is now 3.4. Haiti stands at 6.9.
In your city, what are the average over 10ug/dl Pb counts in black areas? And are a substantial number of black woman exceptionally light-skinned? I ask as that would indicate that the children were likely exposed to mercury.
For other crimes, even allowing that the black crime rate is substantially higher, the incompleteness of the records and differential prosecution (e.g. The Rich Get Richer, The Poor Prison, ch3, eighth ed) would make me a bit careful with extrapolation. But I should ask, what is the conviction rate of blacks in your city by major crimes (auto theft, murder, rape, drugs)?

About Argentina’s murder rate, yes, White homicide rates can go up and down. It’s quite clear that the better behaved races like Whites can descend to some horribly low levels sometimes. The high can drop pretty low, but mostly they stay high. But can the less behaved races reach for the sky? When do you ever hear about large groups of Blacks who act like Norwegians or Japanese? The high plunge to the depths, but the low don’t rocket to the heavens.
There are no Black areas of my city. Blacks are only 4%, and they are mixed all in with everybody else, mostly in the poorer and heavily Hispanic areas. There is no Black neighborhood here, and thank God for that!
I do not really know what the conviction rate for Blacks in my town is as figures like that are almost impossible to come by, but a lot of the time when you see a cop putting someone in a police car or questioning someone, that person is Black. You see this a lot, and way more than 4% of the arestees and people they are questioning are Black.
Also I know some of the Blacks who live around here, and from what I hear, they either go to jail on a regular basis or they have criminal records in the past. Typical crimes are beating their girlfriends, pimping, prostitution, driving on suspended license, etc.
I have met 2 pimps in this town so far, and they were both Black. So Blacks are 4% of the population, but I figure they are 100% of the real hardcore street pimps!
If you read The Color of Crime, their report was based on victimization surveys. The 6-9X elevated Black crime rate over Whites was based on interviews with crime victims. So prosecution has nothing to do with it. According to Color of Crime, Blacks are substantially less likely to be incarcerated for a given crime than Whites are! I actually believe this is true as the Justice system gets tired of sentencing so many Blacks so they start to give Blacks a break.

Therapy of Sex Offenders

Therapy of sex offenders is a difficult subject, with much misinformation around. We have data in for three types:

  1. Pedophiles
  2. Exhibitionists
  3. Rapists

In general, therapy for pedophiles and exhibitionists has fared pretty well. The best techniques are probably cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Persons who go through therapy are significantly less likely to re-offend than those who do not. It is a lie that sex offenders are all incurable.
The therapy of rapists has been much more difficult and until recently, it had a bad track record. However, recent advances in CBT have shown that rapists can be treated with some success. Whether that success is at a higher or lower rate than the prior two offenders is not known.
The problems with the rapist are generally at least twofold.
1. Rage, anger and hatred. Most if not all rapists have extremely high levels of rage, anger and hatred. In fact, this is what typically motivates the crime. In addition, it is typical for them to have strong to extreme levels of hatred for women. It is the rage in general and the hatred for women in particular that tends to set off the crimes.
2. Low levels of empathy. Most if not all rapists have low to nonexistent levels of empathy for their victims. Although most sex offenses are characterized by similarly low levels of empathy, the lack of empathy in rapists is quite striking. In many cases, they simply do not care how their female victim feels. In other cases, they rationalize that the victim, or really all women, want to be raped, that is, they secretly desire it or enjoy it. Some say that unless the woman is violently fighting back, that means she wants it and enjoys it.
Low empathy levels are obviously a significant driver for offending, and it is one of the hardest things to deal with in therapy. Often there does not seem to be any way to get the offender to feel empathy for his potential victims. Why this is uncertain. Perhaps some people simply do not want to feel empathy. The therapy of individuals like this is to tell that even though they don’t feel empathy for their potential victims, they should not offend anyway because to do so might get them in trouble with the law. So you appeal to the offender’s self-interest in not offending. It’s not how you will make the victim feel, it is about what will happen to your life.
There is no one type of rapist. Not all rapists are serial rapists, though serial rapists are the worst kind by far. Some rapists rape only once and without warning. When asked, some of these types say they do not even know why they raped; they just did it. Others, serial rapists and single rapists, rape at a stressful point in their lives. Rape appears to be their way of blowing off steam so to speak.
Serial rapists may have gotten into a habit of compulsively raping. In this case, it is like an addiction, and it may be difficult to break the habit.
Antecedents of rape include voyeurism, exhibitionism, transvestic fetishism, frotteurism, panty fetishes and raiding women’s places to obtain them and burglary. All of these have in common a violation of the female victim in one way or another. While many who do these things do not escalate, some do.

About Sex Offenders

I was studying the case of the murder of Brooke Wilberger in Oregon (I am a true crime buff). A man named Joel Patrick Courtney was eventually convicted of the crime. They only suspected him on dumb luck, as he lived in New Mexico and the crime was committed in Oregon.
However, there were three other men who were also suspects in this case. And they were all very good suspects. Each of them was a dangerous sexual predator like Courtney. This got me to wondering just how many nutted out men there are like this out there? You would think men like this would be rare as hen’s teeth, but it turns out that they are very common. I am very interested in the development of such types and how a man gets so whacked out as to turn into a predatory sex offender.
The first man was Sung Koo Kim, age 31. He was suspected of stalking a woman at the local Oregon State University. In searching his home, they found 3,500 pairs of panties stolen from five different local universities. They also found 40,000 porn movies and photos showing women being tortured, raped, murdered and mutilated. In addition, they found a Word document detailing what appeared to be a plan to abduct, rape, kill and mutilate a college student. He was arrested for possession of child porn and for stealing women’s panties and sentenced to six years in prison.
At his trial, he said that he suffered from severe social anxiety and had never had a girlfriend or even so much as a date. I am curious what turned him into such a psycho. Did he turn this way from never getting a chick and being frustrated with women, leading to the desire to murder one, or had he always been this way?
One would think that panty-stealing is innocent, but many dangerous sex predators also like to break into women’s places and steal panties. Some of them like to wear the panties that they steal.
As far as the porn videos went, if he really had 40,000 rape and murder videos on his computer, then this is what he has been masturbating to. He may have been masturbating to images and thoughts of abducting, raping, torturing, killing and mutilating women for a long time. This pattern is often set very early in life, often around age puberty. With the constant masturbation to this disturbing stimuli, the pattern becomes more entrenched and difficult to extinguish.
Guys like Kim typically never show up for therapy because they enjoy what they are doing. He liked to steal panties, stalk female students, jerk off to snuff porn and write down fantasies of rape and murder. This is what he enjoys. He’s doing what he wants to do. As he sees no problem with this behavior (this is what gets him off) he never shows up for therapy.
The next one was an immensely disturbed man named Loren Hugo Krueger, age around 40.
At age 26, he was convicted of attempted rape.
He served time when he was in his mid-20’s for an incident in which he attacked a female jogger, pointed a gun at her, tried to drag her off the road, and punched her in the face when she resisted.
At some point, he was released.
At age 34, he sexually assaulted a girl under the age of 12. He was convicted of this crime five years later.
At age 37, police questioned him when a young woman reported that he had followed her in his vehicle down several streets, stalking her.
The same year, neighbors filed a stalking order against him when neighbors said he masturbated in full view of their house (exhibitionism).
At age 38, he was arrested for trespassing when a woman reported that he was in her backyard at night, wearing a ski mask and watching her in her house.
At age 39, he climbed into a 15 year old girl’s window and tried to rape her. She fought him off and he ran away but was convicted via DNA.
He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Notice that this guy is a habitual sex offender. He has been stalking, flashing, assaulting, and attempting to rape women from age 26 until age 39. He also molested a little girl. There seems to be something compulsive about his behavior and he doesn’t seem to want to stop. It also seems like he is doing what he wants to do and he doesn’t want to stop.
The third case was Aaron James Evans.
Age 20: Approached a woman and fondled himself.
Age 20: Masturbated in front of a girl in a parking lot (exhibitionism)
Age 21: Harassed a woman at a shopping center.
Age 21: Leapt out of the bushes at a woman and attempted to abduct her. She pepper sprayed him and fought him off.
Sentenced to three years in prison.
Once he is out of prison, what is likelihood that this guy will re-offend? How does someone ever get this whack in the first place?
I am starting to think that once you get to the point where you are stalking women, attempting to abduct them using weapons, raping them or trying to rape them, and your fantasy life is mostly about rape, torture and murder, that for all intents and purposes, you are just gone. They don’t want to stop. They are doing what they want to do. They don’t want to get better. In addition, many of them have become habitual in their behavior. I suppose it is possible for someone like this stop, but I would wager that most of them don’t want to.
Antecedents:
In boyhood and teenage years, these types often spy on their sisters, the sisters’ female friends and their female cousins. Most boys probably do this, but these guys do it in a creepy way. The girl wakes up and sees her brother staring blankly from the doorway as she sleeps in her bed. She wakes up at night to find her brother hiding under her bed. Sisters and cousins wake up to find the relative stradding him with his penis out and trying to take their clothes off. In some cases, he is straddling them with his hands around their necks. He is basically trying to rape them. The attack on a sleeping suspect (always non-consenting) is particularly disturbing and is a prelude to rape.
Any boy who is doing this stuff with his female relatives is in extremely bad shape. This sort of thing is not normal in any way, and he desperately needs intervention.
Date rape: Often there is quite a bit of “date rape” type behaviors with females during the high school years. Some of them are very popular with girls, date a lot and have a lot of female friends who they hang out with. They go out drinking and doing drugs with their female friends and make moves on the girl. She bats him off and he socks her in the face. Next thing you know she is on the ground and he is raping her. They often get away with a lot of this date rape stuff because the girls don’t press charges.
Voyeurism can also be a prelude. Peeping toms are often harmless, but some of them escalate into dangerous sex offenders. We often see voyeurism in the teenage background of rapists and serial killers. The connection is here is that peeping is a violation of the woman. In addition, anyone ballsy enough to go onto someone’s property to peep in their windows has no qualms about violating the property of others. They can easily break into a home if they can creep into a backyard. Prowling is always creepy and menacing behavior in a male of any age.
Burglary is often found in the background of these types. They break into women’s houses, often to steal their undergarments. Sometimes they steal other things. Serial killers often have a teenage background of prowling and home burglaries. Although many burglars are harmless, some can be quite dangerous. Cat burglars are some of the most dangerous of all, since they burglarize when people are home.
Exhibitionism or flashing. Although many flashers are harmless, some can escalate and be dangerous. Quite a few rapists have flashing in their background. There are two types of flashers, an inhibited and guilt-ridden type and a more aggressive type. It is the more aggressive type that can be dangerous. Once again we are looking at a serious violation of the woman, and this is what this behavior has in common with rape. Exhibitionism can become very compulsive to the point where it resembles an addiction. It becomes hard to quit.
Escalation: One problem with sex offenders and sadists is the tendency to escalate. The sex offending or sadism is like a drug for them that they do to get high. However, like most dope, tolerance builds up and they start doing increasingly dangerous acts in order to get the high that they are missing. This is how an exhibitionist can escalate to a rapist and then to a killer. They are “chasing the high.”
Frotteurism: These are the “rubbers” and “grabbers.” They operate in crowded areas, especially trains, buses and subways. They use these crowded scenes to rub up against women. Sometimes they grab women and then run away. In some countries like Japan and India, this behavior is almost normal. I do not know much about these type of offenders.
Child molesting: I didn’t cover these offenders here because it really deserves its own post. These are different from the above as sometimes the victim is consenting. 90-95% of child molesters are not pedophiles. They are just heterosexual males molesting in the family or with relatives as a substitute for an adult female partner. These men are not pedophiles; they are no more attracted to kids than any other male is. These types may have a low rate of recidivism as they are not fixated on kids.
Pedophiles are however more dangerous since they are fixated on kids and are only aroused by kids. It stands to follow then that quite a few of them will try to molest kids in order to satisfy their sex drive the only way it can be sated. However, there are quite a few pedophiles who either never offend or are not offending at this time. They can often go for long periods without offending, especially if they get involved with a supportive group that tries to keep them from offending.
In quite a few cases, a sex offender who habitually offends against women will molest or try to molest a child. These men are not pedophiles; they are simply displaying the “versatility” that many sex offenders have.

What Should Be Done About Black Crime?

Often when I write about Black crime, people start jumping up and down and demanding to know what my “solution” is. If I have no solution, I am more or less ordered to shut up about it. It’s usually Black people who do this, but White liberals and Leftists do it too.
We could start by admitting there’s a problem in the first place. The problem has a name: Black crime.
The first thing we need to do is to overcome the obstacle course of diversions that Blacks and White PC types throw up every time we mention the problem that dare not speak it’s name.
“Why Black crime? Why not White crime? Whites commit crime too! Why not human crime! Blacks are not different from other humans! What causes Black crime – the same thing that causes crime in humans in general! No! Let’s talk about White crime like child molesting, serial killers, mass shooters, the Holocaust, colonialism, the American Indian genocide, bla bla bla.”
Another line is to deny that there is a problem altogether. This is done by mustering together all sorts of weird statistical arguments, comparing statistical outliers, pointing out various White historical crime ways, recent and dating back centuries. Various outliers, Black and White, are tossed about as if they were rules and not exceptions.
Arguments are made that Black crime is really no big deal after all and anyone should just go live with a whole bunch of Black people and everything should be peachy and rosy.
I advocate doing nothing other than what we are already doing (massive law enforcement or whatever). I’m not necessarily saying, “Something needs to be done about it!” Well, that’s what your average human thinks when they look at the problem, but that may not be the best way to look at it. More important is that this a serious problem, it needs to be discussed openly, frequently and loudly, and hopefully there is some way we could possibly ameliorate it.
In the meantime, we need to keep on doing tried and true stuff like locking up unbelievable numbers of Black male criminals. This actually works to lower crime simply by taking these idiots off the streets. As far as what else to do, I guess I will leave that to LE theorists and criminologists.
Guiliani’s “broken windows” approach is ugly as Hell, but that worked too. But all these are shitty ways of dealing with the problem. It’s everyone’s solution. What to do about tons of Black criminals. Lock em up for God sake! By the millions! Yeah, it works, but it’s less than ideal.
Main reason I think it needs to be discussed is because it is 100% taboo to even broach this subject at all in any way, shape or form. Why? Whenever I start writing about this, Blacks and liberals usually start jumping up and down and yelling, “Stop talking about it!” “Shut up!”
This is the way most Blacks and many PC types react when the subject is broached.
But the White crime rate is far below the Black crime rate. The Black rate is so much higher that most sane folks simply do not want to live around large numbers of Blacks. The insane Black crime rate has also contributed to the decay of many Black hoods and cities and turned them into what looks like wastelands.
So there is something special about the high Black rate:

  1. Makes people scared of Black people.
  2. Makes people avoid and not want to live around Black people.
  3. Helps turn Black hoods and cities into post-nuclear bombed out wastelands.
  4. Fills jails full of Black guys.
  5. Leaves a huge % of Black guys with criminal records.
  6. Creates an incredible number of victims, including insane victimization rates in the Black community itself.

So there are differences. The White crime rate, whatever it is, does not:

  1. Make anyone afraid of Whites.
  2. Make anyone avoid or not want to live with Whites.
  3. Help destroy White cities and turn them into dystopian ruins.
  4. Fill corrections facilities full of huge percentages of White men.
  5. Leave vast % of Whites with a criminal record.
  6. Create an insane victimization ratio in White communities.

So at the very least, let’s get the conversation out there so we are talking about the elephant in the living room called “Black crime.”
We need to keep studying it because we are as yet uncertain why Blacks commit crimes at a vastly higher rate than Whites and Asians. It’s a paramount issue in our society and a question in desperate need of some sort of an answer.
Once we start to figure out why Blacks commit crimes at such a high level due to biology, genes, diet, and various and sundry environmental and cultural variables, then perhaps we can start looking towards some ways to ameliorate the problem.
There are drugs and gene therapy and genetic engineering for biological and genetic causations. These therapies are advancing at a rapid pace. There are possible dietary interventions.
If there are societal and cultural factors at play, we can design cultural and sociological interventions to deal with those. These interventions should be rigorously tested using the best possible science and it would be nice if they were cost effective.
There are all sorts of other interventions – psychological therapies and counseling of various types, yoga, meditation, the list goes on and on. Some of these therapies may even be useful for genetic or biological causations.
We really ought to be testing out various interventions with Blacks right now to see whether they reduce Black crime or not. But of course, no one is even studying it. Because that would be racist, you know.

This Is So Not Right

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

White Men Can't Bang

Repost from the old site.
The title is a take-off on the movie, White Men Can’t Jump. It appears that, in addition to deficient basketball skills, White men, at least in the California, are also deficient in gangbanging skills. Whites have a very low rate of street gang membership, at least in California. Sadly, that is not true of other ethnic groups.
I am not writing this post to stir up racism, but only to explain such phenomena as White flight, especially noticeable in California.
It is worth noting that once you get to high-income cities in the state like Walnut Creek, these cities are often pretty diverse ethnically these days. There are good numbers of Hispanics and Asians in that town, and Blacks on the streets are not rare.
At a certain income level, better-behaved, more integrated members of all ethnic groups will be present in a town and ethnicity per se will probably have little effect on crime or gang membership – the rates will be pretty low for all groups.
The problem seems to occur at lower income levels, especially poor or low-income areas, and there crime and gangs are correlated with race. In those areas of California, low-income Whites are often fairly well-behaved, while low-income Blacks and Hispanics are simply a catastrophe.
I recently moved from a mostly-White small town in California in which many of the White residents were poor or low income. There were no gangs and there was no graffiti.
Crime rates were so low that I often left my car or home unlocked. Pathology existed, but it tended to be more mild or inner-directed (drug and alcohol abuse, minor drunken fights, domestic disturbances) rather than more virulent or directed outwards.
I moved to a city about three times as large that is 70% Hispanic. It is probably about as poor and low income as the White town I came from. In the low-income area I live in, depraved Underclass “nigga-gangsta” culture holds sway as the local Hispanics are in thrall to gang, drug and gun culture. That is the only way to describe it.
Pimping, open prostitution, open drug sales, open fistfighting, public drunkenness, graffiti everywhere, high crime rates – the place is a train wreck. Welcome to the “hood”, as locals proudly describe it. I have already suffered a theft from my apartment, while I suffered no thefts in 16 years in the poor White town. The young people often seem overtly menacing, predatory and amoral.
Gangs are omnipresent, and there may be as many as 6,000 gang members in a town of 50,000. Whereas the poor Whites directed their aggression inwards with drug and alcohol abuse, the poor Hispanics direct it outwards, threatening and harming others.
I finally realize what White flight is all about. Most Whites don’t really care what your race is or what your skin color is. Based on grotesquely elevated Black and Hispanic crime and gang membership rates in California, for Whites to flee large Black and Hispanic populations is not necessarily an act of racism at all – it is an act of sheer logic and self-protection.
Not only is it rational for Whites to flee large groups of Blacks and Hispanics, it is also rational for well-behaved Blacks and Hispanics (and there are many millions in California alone) to flee these areas too. And we are already starting to see this in the state.
I had already calculated differential crime rates among ethnic groups and plotted them to IQ in a previous post in an attempt to try to understand crime, ethnicity and intelligence. Unfortunately, IQ did not explain differential ethnic crime rates well.
I recently got ahold of data on gang membership in California and decided to use it to calculate rates of gang membership per ethnicity and then compare the groups. I have included the crime and IQ charts from the previous post for comparative purposes. It turns out that gang membership is a vastly worse problem than crime per se, and the ethnic dimensions of it have not been adequately explored.
In order to do that, let us look at the figures for California, from a 1996 document that is already 11 years out of date. This is the way things were 11 years ago. I lacked figures for the nation as a whole.

Gang membership rates1:
Amerindians: None Known, minimal
Whites:      Baseline
Polynesians: High, figures unknown2
(SE) Asians: 18 X higher than Whites (!)
Hispanics:   54 X higher than Whites (!!)
Blacks:      140 X higher than Whites(!!!)

Now compare to crime rates themselves, this time for the nation as a whole. Asian crime rates are low, but gang membership is high, a seeming paradox. If the increase in crimes committed by certain ethnic groups compared to Whites seems shocking, the increased rate of gang membership is truly out of this world and surreal.

Crime rates (based on The Color of Crime):
Asians:      78% lower than Whites (!)
Whites:      Baseline
Amerindians: 2X higher than Whites
Polynesians: 2X higher than Whites
Hispanics:   3.3X higher than Whites
Blacks:      8.2X higher than Whites (!)

Now let us look at IQ scores.

IQ scores:
Whites:          103 (link)
SE Asians:       93.53
Hispanics:       89
American Indians 87 (link)
Blacks           85 (link)
Polynesians      85 (link, link)

The rates of gang membership are vastly more than would be expected by IQ; nevertheless there is indeed a linear relationship which is surprising, except in the cases of Polynesians and Amerindians. With 1% of California’s population, Amerindians may be too small of a population to do much gang-wise. Polynesian figures for rates of gang membership do not exist, but seem to be high.
In particular, the rates of Black crime and gang membership are vastly more than would be predicted by IQ.
Furthermore, these figures do not take into account the Flynn Effect (FE), whereby the average Black and Polynesian today has the same IQ as Whites of 1957, the average Hispanic today has the same IQ as Whites of 1970 and the average SE Asian today has the same IQ as Whites of 1985.
As IQ’s have gone through the roof over the last 40-50 years, paradoxically, crime and gang membership rates in the ethnic groups above have similarly skyrocketed. Since no one proposes a theory whereby rising IQ leads to increased crime, rising IQ has nothing to do with differential ethnic crime and gang ratios.
Nevertheless, there is still a disturbing White – SE Asian – Hispanic – Black ranking in IQ and gang membership (leaving aside Amerindians). IQ may still be relevant to crime and gang ratios if the FE has not effected some aspect of IQ that is tied into crime.
It is true that the FE has not led to an across the board, broad increase in general intelligence. For more on the FE and controversies about what it is measuring, see my post here.
Whites from 1957-1970 (whose IQ’s ethnic IQ’s now compare to) were even less likely to join gangs than Whites are today, in fact, their gang membership was about zero, and even their crime rates were relatively low.
However, by 1970, there were already noticeable Black and Hispanic gang problems in the US.
It seems, based on comparisons of ethnic IQ’s to those of Whites from 1957-1970, that there is absolutely no way whatsoever to explain high ethnic crime rates based on intelligence. When attempting to explain rates of ethnic street gang membership, we need to look elsewhere than IQ.
Let us look at Philippe Rushton’s R/K Selection Theory. I am not a fan of his and the theory has some major issues, but at least one part of it makes sense.

                Blacks Whites   Asians
Aggressiveness  +      Baseline  -
Cautiousness    -      Baseline  +
Impulsivity     +      Baseline  -
Self-concept    +      Baseline  -
Sociability     +      Baseline  -

Greater extroversion will tend towards the Black end, and greater introversion will tend towards the Asian end. Rushton’s theory has some issues. For Asians, he used only NE Asians, and not SE Asians, American Indians or Hispanics, who are part Amerindian. Studies have shown that Papuans, Polynesians, Negritos, Micronesians, Melanesians and Aborigines are also Asians, yet they are excluded.
From a very early age, Asians are placid, introverted and less aggressive. Blacks are at the furthest end of activity and extroversion scale. As we know from all races, more extroverted folks tend to be more aggressive. Whites are known to be somewhere in between. I do feel that this explains a lot of behavioral differentials between races.
At worst, Asian societies are so conforming and rules-oriented that they seem boring and oppressive.
As far as Blacks, at worst, a society of extroverts of any race would definitely have issues with not just aggression but unreliability, irresponsibility, drug and alcohol abuse, more partying and less studying, precocious and profligate sexuality, impulsiveness and even chaos.
Indeed, sociopaths are simply extroverts taken to the behavioral extreme, as schizoids and obsessives are the result of introversion gone wild.
This works pretty good for Asians, Whites and Blacks on a number of variables, including crime rates (see table above).
However, this theory completely falls flat on its face when trying to explain elevated crime rates of Amerindians and Hispanics (see table below).

                Asians Whites    Am Indians
Aggressiveness  --     Baseline  --
Cautiousness    ++     Baseline  ++
Impulsivity     --     Baseline  --
Self-concept    --     Baseline  --
Sociability     --     Baseline  --
Crime rates     --     Baseline  2X (!)
Gang membership --     Baseline  --
                Asians Whites    Hispanics
Aggressiveness  --     Baseline  -?
Cautiousness    ++     Baseline  +?
Impulsivity     --     Baseline  -?
Self-concept    --     Baseline  -?
Sociability     --     Baseline  -?
Crime rates     --     Baseline  3.3X (!)
Gang membership --     Baseline  140X (!)
                NE Asians Whites    SE Asians
Aggressiveness  --        Baseline  -
Cautiousness    ++        Baseline  +
Impulsivity     --        Baseline  -
Self-concept    --        Baseline  -
Sociability     --        Baseline  -
Crime rates     --        Baseline  -
Gang membership --        Baseline  17X (!)

Based on the data above, Amerindians should be expected to be even more introverted than Asians. Hispanics might be expected to fall somewhere in between Whites and Asians. SE Asians should be expected to possibly fall between NE Asians and Whites on all variables.
If Asian babies are placid, then the Indian baby is like a rock – an alert rock, but a rock nevertheless. Indian babies are known to be silent, and amazingly, it is not even easy to make them cry.
Indian women cart them around in pouches on their backs in Mexico, and if you did not know better, you might think they were asleep or even dead. Hispanics in the US are about 60% White and 40% Amerindian.
SE Asians, although they are genetically diverse from NE Asians, are still Asians. I do not have any proof, but I would assume that SE Asian babies are placid like NE Asians. As they grow older, SE Asians seem more quiet and introverted than Whites and Blacks, though maybe less so than NE Asians.
This intuitively appealing theory fails totally when trying to explain high crime and gang membership rates of Hispanics, high crime rates of Amerindians, and high gang membership rates of SE Asians. All of these groups tend towards the less activated, more controlled and introverted Asian end, and all are Asians or part-Asians of one type or another.
A biological explanation may work for Polynesian crime and gang membership rates, because recent evidence shows that they have a “warrior gene” that effects MAO in the brain in greater numbers than other groups. This results in impulsiveness, risk-taking, aggression, violence and elevated elevated levels of smoking and drinking. They probably selected for it on their long, risky trips across the seas.
But there is no evidence that any other group above has such a gene in such high numbers.
I confess that the relative frequencies of gang memberships and ethnic groups bothers me, because I can’t figure out why some groups are more prone to this than others. Then again, if you can come up with a rational theory that even partly explains any kind of crime, you are practically eligible for a Nobel Prize. Criminology is the ultimate Black hole of theory and scholarship.
More and more, it seems that culture, possibly poverty (at least in some groups anyway), and not genes or IQ is what drives gang membership and crime rates.
Yet different races are more or less prone to crime and gang membership even when they live in poverty. Poor Whites commit relatively few crimes and are much less likely to join gangs than the poor of many other groups.
As yet, we lack a good explanation for this.
As a beginning theory, and because I honestly cannot come up with anything else, I might offer that there is still something protective in White culture in California right now that is keeping Whites from joining gangs at high rates. What that protective factor is, I have no idea, but I do not think that this has anything to do with it.
As far as what is causing such high rates of gang membership in the other groups, a depraved gang, drug and gun culture has developed among certain groups for complex reasons. It has then spread outwards to other groups, while expanding in the core groups. The protective factor that insulates White culture is apparently lacking to various degrees in the other groups discussed.
If and when any considerable sector of young US Whites begins to adopt the Underclass gangbanging criminal culture of other ethnics, the US is going to be in for some very serious problems. It is only the relative resistance (so far) of US Whites to gangsta culture that is keeping the nation from a Goyaesque crime, gun and gang Hell.

Notes

1. Rates were calculated based on 1996 street gang numbers per race computed against the ethnic group’s % of the California population as of recent years.
Whites had 5,000 gang members and have 49% of the state’s population.
Asians had 25,000 gang members and have 13% of the state’s population. This distorts the Asian rate by overestimating gang membership in NE Asians because most Asian street gangs are SE Asians, but I did not have access to breakdowns in the state’s Asian population per country.
Hispanics had 170,000 gang members and have 33% of the state’s population.
Blacks had 100,000 gang members and have 7% of the state’s population.
2. In California, Polynesian gangs are about 80% Samoan and 20% Tongan.
3. I toss out an estimate of SE Asian IQ of 93.5 based on a Hmong IQ of 96.5, a Vietnamese IQ of 99.5 (link, link, link) and a Lao/Khmer IQ of 89 . A rough average of these gives a SE Asian IQ of 93.5, which is not low at all. The Vietnamese IQ is from two major studies in Vietnam. One in 2001 found an IQ of 101 and one in 2006 found an IQ of 98.

The New York Lies, the Nation’s Liespaper of Record, Bashes Chavez with the Crime Stick Again

This article is a crock of lies. Just the US capitalist dogs, lying like they always do. This time they have the Venezuelan capitalist worms as a backup chorus.

First of all, crime is pretty much the same as pre-Chavez. Only homicide has gone up. And there are several nations in the Americas, all strong allies of the US, that have homicide rates as high as Venezuela’s. Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala…

Caribbean? Africa? Let’s not go there.

There is tons of crime in Latin America, and tons of homicide. Been that way forever, or at least for my lifetime.

What has increased under Chavez is not crime overall, but homicide. No one knows why, but the drug trade is usually suggested as the major culprit. Due to regional conditions, the drug trade has expanded into Venezuela a great deal under Chavez.

Nations with wild crime statistics are almost always Washington allies. Hence, Simon Romero and his rag, the New York Lies, never discuss that. I’ve never heard the US press blame a high crime rate on an existing government in my life.

Until Hugo Chavez showed up.

Chavez has the misfortune of being a leftwinger in a nation that is undergoing a crime wave, so the US media has decided, for the first time ever, to blame a government for crime.

The New York Lies bashes the government for not closing the gap between the rich and the poor. Yet the NYL is dedicated towards an agenda around the world to expand the rich-poor gap. Any nation that tries to reduce it gets pounded incessantly by the rats at the Lies. Chavez has made this the raison d etre of his government since he got in. This is the whole reason for the Lies‘ propaganda war against him.

The article mentions that Venezuela is experiencing an economic downturn in the past couple of years. It’s true, after years of explosive growth under Chavez. Last time I checked, the economies of most of the world were underwater, right? All because of the NY Lies’ buddies on Wall Street, who blew up the world economy. Ever hear the NY Lies blame any other country for the local effects of the downturn? Course not. It’s not their fault. But when the global Depression hits Venezuela, it’s all Chavez’ fault.

The article mentions inflation in Venezuela, said to be the highest in the region. Venezuela has had high inflation for decades. It was actually much higher when the opposition was in office. It’s dropped quite a bit under Chavez.

All of the opposition clowns quoted in the piece are well-known opposition losers and jokers. Nearly every thing they say is dishonest on some level.

Contrary to the piece, Venezuela has had a horrendous crime rate for decades, as far back as anyone can remember. The rich don’t even care about crime, and they never did in the past, because almost all of the crime and homicide is in the horrible slums that Chavez is trying to get rid of.

Chavez did not cause the murder rate to go up, and out of control crime rates are not so easy to solve. Ask governments in parts of the world where crime has been terrible for decades whether it’s their fault and what they can do about it. It’s not their fault, and no one knows how to fix it.

Really, it’s just the poor massacring each other, so the rich don’t even care. This is just another club to beat Chavez with.

Chavez has been trying to deal with the problem. He’s hired a lot more cops, and he is retraining a lot of the police force. He also boosted their wages significantly.

One major problem is that the police and the criminals are all too often the same folks. So no one trust the cops, and the cops commit tons of crime themselves. In part, this is why crimes are not solved. People don’t cooperate with the cops.

Oh, and about that figure: 90% of homicides are not solved. Terrible, huh? No wait. Let’s go next door to Colombia. It’s 98% there! But the New York Lies won’t tell us this, because the Colombian fascist regime is best buddies with the US state and editorial board of the Lies.

The opposition has no plan, repeat no plan, to deal with crime. Crime was insane and out of control the whole time the opposition was in office, and they were never able to get a handle on it.

The main agenda of the opposition is to stop closing the gap between the rich and poor and to start widening it again, zero out all the social spending, and start reshifting income from the bottom to the top again, the way it was in Venezuela from 1823-1989. Impoverish the working people to enrich the wealthy. Declare war on labor (the working people). Great agenda. Ought to do wonders for that crime rate.

Wink.

It’s also a lie that Chavez has not reduced the rich-poor gap. He’s done a better job of it than nearly anyone else in Latin America. The poverty rate was near 80% when he got in. Now it’s 23%. Solidarity!

What will the opposition liars scum do about the rich-poor gap they bash Chavez with? Nothing. No wait, a lot. They will make it much worse. The NY Lies forgot to tell you that.

I will add that the government’s attempts at censorship are lamentable though.

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

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

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

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

Stats:

% of total child abusers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

74% White
11.9% Black
10% Hispanic

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

26,077 Hispanic molesters =

23,743 White
1,480 Black
303   American Indian

The results, % of total child molesters by race:

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

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

Race     Molesters Population Ratio

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

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

The myth lies shattered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

Low Self-Esteem and Its Ramifications

In the comments to A Few Words On Stereotype Threat, tulio asks in response to Ken Hoop who said he was worried more about low self-esteem among Whites than among minorities:

How does low white self-esteem manifest itself in society? I’m curious.

Well, what you see a lot of in White society are these kind of shy, nice guy types, often overweight, or dorky, nerdy guys. A lot of times you get the feeling that they do not have a lot of confidence. It’s clear that they don’t have a real high opinion of themselves. With middle aged men, especially lower income, overweight, losing their looks, a lot of the time, they look downcast like they are not enjoying things. You don’t get the impression that this guy thinks he is King of the Hill anymore, if he ever did.

Basically it’s associated with neuroticism, niceness, caution, lack of risk taking behavior, stuff like that. Probably lower rates of drug and alcohol abuse too. Low self-esteem is not great, but it’s not the end of the world. Low self-esteem people tend to be nice. As self-esteem rises, people are not so nice anymore. Criminals have very high self-esteem. In White women, low self-esteem is associated with overweight or promiscuous sexual behavior, sluttiness, etc.

Not sure why that is. Prostitutes and porn stars, etc. have notoriously low self-esteem. A lot of these White women cutting themselves and whatnot, or with Borderline Personality Disorder, don’t have good self-esteem at all. Depression is obviously associated with low self esteem, and so is anxiety to some extent. About drug and alcohol abuse, I am not so sure.

High self-esteem is a way worse problem than low self-esteem.

One can argue that people only have so much love to give. The love can go to the self, to others, or to both. As self-esteem rises, a lot of love goes to the self and in many cases, there is less left for others. Further, there is a tendency to see oneself as superior. As self-esteem decreases, self-love is pretty low, but humans all have a great love potential. The love has to go somewhere. As it’s not going to the self too much, it will tend to go outwards. Furthermore, the low self-esteem person doesn’t feel very superior to others.

Alternatively, low self-esteem people send their anger inwards at the self, whereas with high self-esteem, there’s a tendency to project it out at others as a defense. I suppose one can argue once again that the psyche has a reservoir of anger or rage and it has to go somewhere, either inward at the ego or outwards at objects in the world.

That’s why people with low self-esteem are often very nice, and cocky bastards are often complete pricks.

Obviously, it’s ideal to love yourself and others well, but life’s not always so ideal.

Alt Left: Female Rule Violates the Laws of Nature

In the provocatively titled The Cunts Versus the Men post, perceptive commenter Tyciol writes:

Maybe a better word as opposed to feminism would be equalism or something?

Like it’s relative to position.

Women were certainly downtrodden in the past and lacking rights, so equalism would be feminist in that case.

But in the reverse scenario, if men could not vote, etc., then any resulting equalist movement would have to have a masculinist agenda.

Suffrage to me has never been about focusing on women’s rights but simply more about simple equality, since women are also people and have opinions which should be counted. Similarly, the right to choice (abortion) to me is not about favoring women but rather that people should not be forced to carry parasitic feti for months if they don’t wish to.

I’m pro-choice, and I’m all for equality for women in all of the sane ways. But I wonder if equality ever works. We offered women equality, and instead they took their equality and ran past the 50 yard line heading for our goalposts to try to dominate us and rule us. I guess it’s natural. Neither sex is going to be happy with mere equality. If you give women equality, they’re always going to use that step stool to try to install Female Rule. And I guess we asshole guys will always try to install Male Rule.

Sigh.

Nevertheless, equality is surely something to support. Better than equality: how about this? Rights. Not necessarily equality, but rights. No matter what we think of them, females have basic rights, and in most ways, they have the same basic rights as we do. So do gays, Blacks, lots of folks. It’s not a matter of liking. You don’t have like Black people; a lot of White people don’t. And a lot of straights are not too fond of gays. But how can we deny that gays and surely Blacks have the same set of basic rights that any human does?

I have nothing against Female Rule in principle, assuming they were capable. But I don’t think they are. And I don’t want to live under Female Rule. The chicks will dig it (I guess! Or maybe they won’t?!), but it will suck for the guys. We already have a Matriarchy with the Politically Correct crowd, and honestly, it sucks.

Male Rule sort of sucks for women, but they seem to be happy, and the men surely are happy. Female Rule violates Nature* and seems to make both sexes increasingly miserable.

I don’t think that females ought to be allowed to install their Female Paradigm in society. Think about it. Is there any society that ever let the women rule? I can’t think of one. Why is that? Surely it must have been tried in the past. Not all human males are patriarchal shits, and a lot of us are lazy. Surely there were times in the past when the lazy guys said, “We give up. You do it. You rule. Go for it.” I assume it was tried in many cases in the past, and the result was the same as it is now: chaos. In which case, the sane people realized that either you have Male Rule or you have Chaos.

Allowing the Male Paradigm to rule society works, and most societies work that way, but it also often violates women’s rights at least somewhat most of the time and keeps them down. But in a lot of these societies, like Hispanic ones and many other traditional societies, women seem to like living under Male Rule. You go to these places, and as long as Male Rule isn’t too evil, everyone seems happy. It’s like they know they are Living In Nature.

I don’t hear a lot of complaints from the Hispanic females around here about the Male Rule they live under. Women get to be feminine, men get to be masculine, and everyone is happy. I don’t think Hispanic women want to rule. They want some relative equality, at least in terms of earning power, and around here they are granted that. Hispanic women can make quite a bit of money, and some do here. But they’re still quite feminine.

On the other hand, White women seem to have so much greater freedom than Hispanic women, but they seem to be so much more miserable! It’s like the more freedom you give women, the less happy they are, and the more they complain about Male Rule.

Even when the women are in charge, increasingly the case nowadays, the women keep complaining about the Patriarchy. As Female Rule deepens, the women get angrier and angrier (paradoxically as they get more and more rights and power!) and become more and more masculine. This upsets Nature, and Nature doesn’t tolerate defiance. She demands balance, just like in the forests and jungles.

As the women get increasingly masculine, the males will have to become increasingly feminine to compensate and create the balance that Nature demands. As women become increasingly masculine, they get more and more unhappy, because it violates women’s own nature. On some level, the female organism knows that acting masculine is fucked up, and this throws the organism into disarray.

Of course, as males become increasingly feminine, they get more and more miserable too, because femininity violates man’s own nature. So you end up with Northern California White People, where even the straight people act like queers and dykes.

It follows from this scenario that you would see increasing situational and opportunistic homosexuality in both sexes. As males feminize, they tend to engage in increasing amounts of homosexuality. As females masculinize, they also tend to engage in increasing amounts of homosexuality.

As Female Rule deepens, women will increasingly reject continuous marriage and raise fatherless men. Once again, a violation of Nature. Nature demands that both males and females have fathers. Nature punishes those who defy her. She punishes fatherless males by turning them into criminals who lash out at the world as a surrogate for missing father. She punishes fatherless females by turning them into sluts, trying to screw their way to Daddy’s missing love.

Both criminals and sluts are often unhappy, probably because most men are not supposed to be criminals and most women are not supposed to be sluts. Both criminals and sluts frequently lead at least difficult and often tragic lives.

Women can have power, but only if they either don’t upset Male Rule or at least only try to be equal.

*I am applying Nature in the sense of Natural Law, especially the Catholic or philosophical sense. When I say something violates Nature, I mean it violates Natural Law – that is, it’s unnatural in terms of mankind’s evolution.

Of course violations of Natural Law occur, but as they violate our evolutionary imperative encoded in our genes, there will be ill effects, since humans are not meant to violate Natural Law. Violations of Natural Law will have consequences.

Feminine men and masculine women are miserable. Female Rule (matriarchy) violates Natural Law and results in chaos and even unhappiness for females, since even females dislike Matriarchy deep down inside because it’s unnatural. Fatherless families violate Natural Law and result in criminal boys and slut daughters, both of whom are miserable.

When I say something violates Natural Law, I mean it violates our evolutionary imperatives coded in our genes. The result will be unhappiness and pathology, as our natural and genetic imperatives are violated, thwarted, and twisted.

Why Are All Racists and Sexists Reactionaries?

This is something I don’t really understand.

Lots of Black people act bad. Before you say Whites do too, there’s way more bad Blacks actors than bad White actors, percentage-wise. Living in a poor all-White town was instructive, as was moving to a poor Hispanic town. It finally made me realize that this fucked-up behavior doesn’t have much to do with economics. Sure, there were idiots in the White town. But it seemed like in the Hispanic town there were 3 times more of them per capita, and the bad actors acted about 3 times worse than the White bad actors. Of course I’m guessing here, but that’s my perception.

I figure in a poor Black town, there will be 8-9 times more bad actors per capita, and I figure they will act 8-9 times worse than White bad actors.

So really it’s not a case of bad actors. Kids of every race act like shits. But to us Whites, it seems like the Hispanic and Black bad actors are way worse than our own and there’s way more of them to boot.

It’s pretty clear that once a White city turns Hispanic or Black, there’s a decline in all sorts of variables. It’s much worse in the case of a White city turning Black, and this process has been viewed in realtime by millions of Americans. As a general rule, the city turns into a crime and squalor ridden Hellhole.

Given these obvious facts, I really don’t understand why the only White racists are reactionaries. Aren’t there any White liberals who are tired of Blacks and Hispanics too?

And why are racists so reactionary in every other way, too? They usually hate all of modernity – modern art, modern literature, modern music, modern culture, recreational drugs, the Sexual Revolution, the works. I don’t get it. If you’re a racist, you don’t like to rock out, get high and fuck your brains out? Why not? Aren’t there White dopers, rockers and sex freaks that are tired of minorities too? Aren’t there any Whites who dig David Bowie, Thomas Pynchon, Marcel Duchamp and Picasso, yet can’t stand Blacks? If not, why not?

Why do most White racists support Israel? Because, Arabniggers being an inferior race and all, it was cool of the superior White Jews to steal their land, kill them and ruin their lives? Why was that an ok thing to do? Because one is a superior race and the other is an inferior race? Really? So the superior races just get to kill the inferior races, ruin their lives and steal their land, everywhere on Earth, simply due to their superiority? Is there anything that is not ok for the superior to do to the inferior?

Anyway, why, just based on religion or test scores of whatever, does one race get to deliberately fuck over another one anyway? On what basis? Superiority? If so, wow, what an appalling mindset!

I’ve noticed something else. Sexists are all reactionaries too. There are plenty of woman-hating sites all over the Net. They’re pretty entertaining, but they’re all reactionary. I don’t get it. Women are a pain in the ass, and lots of normal humans end up having had quite enough of them. Hell, I know women who don’t like women. Aren’t there any liberals who’ve had it up to here with female shenanigans too?

Racist and sexist ideology aside, the more you learn about racists and sexists, the less appealing racism and sexism is based, if not on ideology, then at least on the reactionary assholes who are attracted to it.

We Don’t Respect You

The post will deal with the extent to which Whites respect one race or another.

First of all, an anecdote to start it off. I received a link from Stormfront linking to one of my articles about genetics and race. There was a chart there (see below), that, if interpreted in one particular way, could show that Amerindians are the closest large race to Caucasians, or Whites (this assuming that Whites are closely related to all other Caucasians, which they are). The competition was Africans, Amerindians, Siberians, NE Asians, SE Asians, Oceanians and Australoids. Of these groups, Amerinds appear to be the closest to Caucasians.

The question of the closest race to Whites or Caucasians is an interesting one. First of all we need to leave out some groups that are on the border between races.

Berbers and Bedouins are two groups of Whites that are quite close to Blacks. Bedouins and North Africans in general lump Caucasian though.

Ethiopians, Somalis, etc. are, I believe more and more, an intermediate large race in between Caucasians and Blacks. Nevertheless, on most charts they lump African so we will deal with them as Africans here.

Hispanics are a recent mixed race people that is left off most charts.

There is an axis extending from Turkey to Chukotka that I call the Asian-Caucasian Axis. On some charts, many of these groups are pretty much on the border between Asians and Caucasians and some are damned hard to put in one category or another. This includes Turks, Jews, Armenians, Iranians, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pakistanis, South Indians, Nepalese, Kazakhs, Turkmen, Kirghiz, Altai, Shor and associated North Turkic Siberians, Buryats, Mongolians, North Chinese, Koreans and the Chukchi. It also includes all associated groups.

The Chukchi are fascinating as they are an obviously Asiatic people that actually lump Caucasian on some charts.

We will leave all of these separate groups out of the analysis since on major charts, they are just lumped into Caucasians or North Asians.

However, on these same major charts, it does look like Amerindians are the closest major race to Whites.

Here is the chart in question. As you can see, the cluster of NE Asian - Siberian/Eskimo - Amerindian is the closest major race to Whites (Caucasians). According to my reading, which may be in error, the Amerindians seem to be closer to us than the others. There are other charts that also show Amerindians as very close to Caucasians.

The commenter on Stormfront noted this and commented on it, saying that he had often felt that they were the closest race to Whites. He said that when you look at them, it’s like looking in the mirror at what we used to be thousands of years ago and we could become again. In addition, he noted that he respected them as a race.

This got me to thinking. In the US anyway, Whites respect Amerindians as a race. They didn’t used to, but even in the old days, there was massive intermarriage. There is something about an Indian woman and a White man that is hard to stop. The Latin American Whites have been trying to stop White men from breeding with mestizas and Indias for centuries, and it’s a futile cause. And I respect Indians as a race too. Sure, they’ve got their problems, but they are mostly just their own problems – drugs, alcohol, self-destruction.

Even in Latin America, Indians are not so much despised, really, or not as much as Blacks. At any rate, they are not regarded as very troublesome. They are seen as potentially verbally violent, and sometimes physically, but this is not a real problem. As one White Latin American said, “Give an Indian a handful of tortillas and a six pack and he’s good for the night and won’t give you any trouble.”

This got me to thinking about whether or not we Whites respect other races. As I said, we respect the Indian. We also respect Hispanics. Since most here have a very large amount of White in them anyway, this just makes them even easier to respect. One thing you notice very quickly is that Whites don’t really hate Hispanics all that much. It’s hard to get even redneck Whites interested in hating Hispanics. We have too much common with them, and they have too much White in them. They are similar to us genetically and culturally.

Whites marry Hispanics very readily, and the usual format is White man – Hispanic woman. Hispanic women are seen as more submissive (= feminine) than White women, so it’s a natural match. A similar principle is working with White men and Indian women and White men and Asian women. A possible reason for these similarities is that Indians originate in Asian and are still quite Asian-like.

Anyway, finally getting around to the title of the post, it then occurred to me: Whites do not respect Blacks! We flat out do not respect you. Period. Exclamation point. In what way do we not respect you?

In the deepest way possible. Whites do not respect Blacks at their very difficult to change essence. We don’t respect you as a race.

As a White man who has lived his whole life in White culture, this is painfully and obviously true for the majority of Whites.

Now, the White racists will say that Blacks do not deserve to be respected for a variety of reasons, particularly behavioral ones. Let us just leave that question aside for a moment. Regardless of whether Blacks deserve it or not, we just flat out don’t respect them at their very racial essence, and that’s the only point to consider right now.

Why do I bring this up? Because really, this is at the root of a lot of the problems between Whites and Blacks in the US. We don’t respect you. And in many ways, a whole lot of other stuff just flows right out from that. Now, if Whites respected Blacks as a race, I’m convinced that race relations would be a lot different in this society.

Just a mental snack for you to chew on tonight…

A Race Realist Argument For the Existence of a Black Race

Most Blacks nowadays are what we call people with dual consciousness, to borrow a particularly unpleasant anti-racist phrase. That is, they are profoundly ethnocentric (Blacks are much more ethnocentric than Whites) while at the same time drinking the PC anti-racist Krazy-Aid of race denial when it suits their interests.

Whenever Black folks do good things or when White folks do back things to Blacks, a Black race does in fact exist. Whenever Blacks folks screw up or don’t cut it, automagically, the Black race ceases to exist. Wa-la, like a rabbit out of a hat. Can’t be us, cuz we don’t exist in the first place.

After all, if race really does not exist, as the race-denying crazies insist, then consequently racism must not exist either, right? Racism means hatred of others based on their race. But the race-deniers say there is no such thing as race. Hence, it is not really possible to hate people based on something that does not even exist at all.

This post will set out to show how Blacks are in fact different from other races in a variety of ways. In many cases, I think that these differences are biological. That does not mean that Blacks are doomed to their genes for better or for worse, but it does mean, that absent a Super-Culture such as Islam, Communism or some other “gene-warping” culture, Blacks will have a tendency to behave in this way on average.

This post will also address some racial myths.

First of all, a Black personality.

One myth is that due to widespread racism, Blacks hate themselves, and they all want to be White. Black men like White women because their own women are too ugly. There really is no evidence for this. Frankly, it’s amazing, considering the shit we Whites constantly say about Blacks, that Blacks don’t hate themselves. I think if I were Black I would. I cannot imagine being Black and having to deal with all the evil crap other races say about me. Being a neurotic, I think it might go to my head.

Nevertheless, the evidence is clear. Blacks have no problems with self-esteem.

Blacks do not think they are ugly. Black men think Black women look just fine, in fact, they seem to prefer them to other women. Black women think Black men look just fine. They definitely prefer them to other men. Quite a few White women also think Black guys are good-looking. I’ve talked to quite a few such White women. If Black men are good looking (by the objective views of many White women) Black women must be good looking too.

There’s nothing about Black features that looks good on a man but bad on a woman (or if there is, please make a case in the comments). Racists seek to objectively prove that Blacks are ugly. But anyone knows that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. An argument that it can be scientifically proven that Blacks are ugly must be rejected. Standards are beauty are not really in the realm of science anyway.

Following on this line, White nationalists as usual lie feverishly, and don’t make any sense. First they throw lots of data at you showing that every race really prefers to associate with and mate with their own. Fair enough. However, they use this to justify their own racism, as one might figure.

But if this is really true, then why the obsessive worry about miscegenation and the coming Extinction of the Great White Race? I mean, if people only want to breed with their own, why worry about race-mixing, right? The answer is because humans do not only wish to breed with their own; many outbreed.

In an effort to make even less sense, White nationalists then insist that every other race secretly hates themselves and wants to be White. If they can’t be White, they want to mate, breed or fuck White. Wait a minute, I thought everyone preferred their own? At the same time, further muddying their argumentative mess, they argue that all humans are profoundly ethnocentric such that they hate everyone who is not one of the Tribe. But if this were so, what’s with all the non-White self-hatred and desire to screw White wimmins?

One classic argument made by many Whites, not just White nationalists, is that all over the world, everyone prefers that luscious lighter skin to that yucky suntanned look. Of course, the lightest of all are those wonderful Aryan folks from Northern Europe.

But in Africa, Black men show no preference at all in terms of skin color, and Blacks do vary considerably in skin tone on the Dark Continent. Furthermore, in aboriginal Tasmania, darker skin was preferred, and up to a certain point, this was true on the dope smoke-shrouded Southern California beaches and ski slopes were I misspent much of my golden youth.

Further, this is usually the case only with women and not with men. That is, men want a lighter woman (no one really knows why) but women don’t give a damn how dark a guy is. Hell, they even like ’em dark and handsome. And this was the case in China before the Chinese had ever heard of White people, so it’s not a case of Chinese thinking Whites are superior.

Furthermore, in most human groups, females have lighter skin than the males. This means that evolutionarily, most groups of males have been preferentially selecting lighter females. There is no lightening effect seen in any male group anywhere. Reasons for male preference for a lighter female are not known.

As we might expect, Blacks think they are better looking than Whites. This statement is confusing. It does not mean that Blacks think they are better looking than White people. The surveys were done of high school students. 11-16 year old Blacks rated their attractiveness higher than Whites did.

Nor do Blacks suffer from low self-esteem or low confidence in terms of their academic skills. Their poorer average performance is due to the fact that they are not as good at this stuff, not because they are insecure about their abilities. I have not seen studies, but I would assume that the highest scorers would be the most neurotic and insecure about their abilities. Blacks think they are better at reading, science and history, even though they had poorer scores. Taken together, these findings suggest an overconfidence that we will discuss below.

Blacks also have better self-esteem, worry less and are less neurotic. This has long been known and is part and parcel of the “Black personality.” I have an old Abnormal Psychology textbook from 1957, that, while dated, is very interesting.

That Blacks have few of the classic neuroses was taken as a given. Obsessive-compulsive neurosis (now OCD), perhaps the ultimate neurosis in the sense that it is driven heavily by conscience, fear, timidity, guilt, doubting and near-miniscule levels of aggression, is quite rare among Blacks. However, since I work with OCD patients, I have since met 2 Blacks with OCD. Both were, as one might expect, highly intelligent. One was from South Africa.

The book stated that the typical mental illness among Blacks was sort of a wild acting out manic-type episode. I believe that studies have found that depression is lower among Blacks, and the Black suicide rate has always been much lower than the White rate, though in the past 20 years there has been a disturbing rise in suicide in young Black American males.

Anyone who spends a lot of time around Blacks will realize that if there is any problem at all, it is excessive self-esteem and overconfidence, which in my opinion, leads to a lot of problems for Black people. You will also find that Blacks don’t worry all that much. Blacks seem to think that White neurotics are completely idiotic and somewhat baffling fools.

Blacks are less neotenous than Whites, and Whites are less neotenous than Asians. Asians are the slowest developing race of all, and Blacks are the fastest developers. Blacks are also the loudest babies, and Asians babies are known for their serenity. Blacks are more active at an earlier age than other groups. In addition, they mature more quickly.

I see no reason why there should be a cultural component to this, and it’s clear to me that these differences are genetic. Asians even seem to retain a neotenous (child-like) appearance far into life, definitely into early adulthood. These differences hold across all cultures, everywhere on Earth.

Yet another possible attribute of a Black personality is reduced ability to delay gratification. A classic 1961 study found that Black children are much more likely than White children to ask for a small candy bar today than wait a week for a bigger one. This study has been repeated many times with similar results. The reduced tendency to delay gratification is probably genetic, but it’s probably not irremediable, that is, a culture could probably make Blacks delay gratification more, though it would be an uphill climb.

This is what we might expect from a more extroverted group, and Blacks are the most extroverted of the three major races, Asians being the least. Asians are probably the most likely to delay gratification. I’ve known many White extroverts, and one thing they were lousy at was delaying gratification. Delaying gratification is glorified in America, but it’s definitely a drag, speaking from one who has spent most of his life doing just that.

Unfortunately, reduced ability to delay gratification probably has something to do with the much elevated Black crime rate.

References

Mischel, W. 1961. Preference for Delayed Reinforcement and Social Responsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62:1:1-7.

Does Welfare Cause Crime?

Repost from the old site.

In the comments, Uncle Milton says:

I have spent extensive time in third world countries. In general I found them much safer than the inner cities of the US which are filled with people who collect checks from the government and still feel strongly they are owned something and will take it out on each and anyone wandering into their midst.

 

The notion that “welfare causes crime” is very problematic. I don’t believe that the folks pushing this argument have ever proved their case. In Europe, there is a good model backed up with many studies that shows that the more socialism you have in the system, the less crime you have.

The more capitalism, the more crime. This is proven in the transition from socialism to capitalism in the FSU, Eastern Europe and China which were followed by tremendous crime waves.

If you cut all those folks in the ghetto off of all the welfare, would they be any less criminal?

There doesn’t seem to be any theoretical model for why welfare would cause crime. Why would giving someone stuff turn him into a criminal? According to Uncle Milton, it is because they “feel they are owed something.”

But aren’t people owed something under Communism? Basic needs were provided for everyone. Perhaps Communism was the ultimate welfare state. At least this is what conservatives say. How then did Communist states have the lowest levels of crime around?

Furthermore, I would point out that the 3rd World equivalent of our ghettos are often vastly more dangerous that US ghettos. I worked in the ghettos and barrios of Los Angeles for years and I lost one car battery in East LA and I had the wires cut on another car battery in Watts. Of course, I was usually out of there before dark.

I lived in Oakhurst, a town in the Sierra Nevada, for 16 years. I don’t know the figures, but word is that the welfare use rate was very high the whole time I was there. Girls got pregnant as soon as they got out of high school (18-20 or so) and the guy may or may not be around.

Many just became single Moms for various periods of time. I suppose there were guys floating in and out of their lives, but that’s how it goes with single Moms in general. In my apartment complex, there were two single Moms out of six tenants.

The guys support the kids in some cases and marry them in others, but in quite a few cases, they don’t marry the woman, and in other cases, they do not support them either.

Although the rate of this sort of thing among the Amerindians in town is insanely high, I would like to focus on the Whites. There is a very high rate of welfare use among Whites in this town. This includes all kinds of welfare – food stamps, Medicaid, welfare proper, etc. There was very little crime in this town.

The crime rate was so low that I often did not lock my car at home and often left the house without locking the door. I did that for years with no break-ins. Violent crime was nearly nonexistent. Gangs did not exist, and juvenile crime did not seem to be significant from my POV.

I had heard that it took a long time for a welfare culture to develop as kids come of age and become pathological due to being raised in a welfare family. I watched this scene for 16 years and no welfare culture develop. I assume that was enough time.

It’s an interesting question why high welfare use seems to be associated with mass pathology in some groups (Hispanics and Blacks) but not in others (Asians and Whites). Even in Oakhurst, relatively high levels of pathology coincided with extremely high welfare use among Amerindians. Nevertheless, with Amerindians about 5% of the population, they were not a significant crime problem.

So much for welfare causes crime.

“The Burden of Being Equal,” by Alpha Unit

New post by Alpha Unit.

This one is really great! She and I really see eye to eye on a lot of issues, and this is one of them. To me, it’s the idea that men are men and women are women and you just have to deal with that. Radical feminists have decided that men acting men means men being evil, while women acting like women means being the penultimate in righteousness. A lot of the rest of the time, radical feminists seem to be waging a war against biology and indeed reality.

I’m all for single Moms. No problems there. But it ought to be clear by now that boys growing up without fathers is not such a good thing.

True, outcomes are different in different communities. A lot of the young Hispanic gang members and delinquents that I know were raised by single Moms. In one family I am thinking of, the boys just went insane after the father died of cirrhosis. The mother tried, but she just couldn’t control them at all. In the White community, it’s different, and you end up with these wimpy, passive-aggressive, super-immature Momma’s boy cum psychos.

What’s interesting is the resentment you see in a lot of fatherless boys, especially the ones who were abandoned by their fathers. They really hate their Dads for leaving them like that.

Hating your father is not the end of the world. 37% of adult males have a poor relationship with Dad. Obviously, they didn’t all end up gay. The notion that hating your Dad makes you queer is nonsensical. But one thing seems clear, if you hate your Dad, you have an elevated risk of being a criminal.

Go to a prison and ask those guys about their fathers. The ones who had active fathers all hate them and will tell you they want to kill them. The rest had no active fathers.

But most of these guys love their Moms, and I bet their Moms still love them. Having a good relationship with Mom is a good thing for a man; it doesn’t necessarily make you a Momma’s boy. Try calling those prisoners with Mom tattoos Momma’s boys. As soon as they get released, a lot of those grown, hardass men end up on Mom’s doorstep, if only temporarily.

On the other hand, it seems like if you have a good relationship with your Dad, it’s hard to be a criminal. How many male criminals get along great with Dad?

Hating your Mom does not seem to be good for a man. It’s possible for men who hate their mothers to be normal, but many are not. A lot of them turn into misogynists. They simply project their feelings about Mom onto all the women in their life, or recreate their relationships with Mom with all the new women they meet. Just about every mass murderer or serial killer of women hates his Mom.

Hating your Mom is a lot worse than loving your Mom too much, a “problem” much blown out of proportion by society, especially women. Women and girls always resent the mothers of the guys in their lives. This is a fact of nature. The two females are competing for the attention of a male, and females don’t compete all that well. So the females in men’s lives are always accusing their guys of being Momma’s boys if these guys have any affection at all towards their Moms.

Fuck that. There are Momma’s boys, but I don’t think there are as many as you think. Society cures you of that affliction pretty quickly.

The worse thing that happens to a Momma’s boy is he turns into a wimp, and about 50% of young males these days seem pretty wimpy/faggoty in outward behavior already, so it hardly seems like it’s the end of the world.

Wimpy guys is a woman issue. Women hate them. But I could care less about wimps. If you’re a wimp, that’s your problem. Why should I care? Women are going to be kicking your ass forever anyway, so why should I join the cackling Domintrices in the Misandry Fest? Forget it. I believe in Solidarity with my Brothers. Even the wimps.

On to Alpha Unit!

If you want to know the end result of Equality Between the Sexes, look no farther than the Black Community.

For in the Black Community you can observe what happens when women are seen as equal to men, just as capable of heading families as men, just as capable of raising boys as men.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was correct when he stated in his controversial report of over forty years ago that such a community asks for and gets chaos. And the reason for that is an indisputable although politically inconvenient fact: fathers are indispensable for the well-being of children.

But my focus in not on fatherhood and parenting as much as it is on the idea that women are essentially the same as men. Well, the experience of Black women shows that a woman is great at being a woman but she is a piss-poor substitute for a man.

The concept that a woman should have as much autonomy as a man is one we’ve taken for granted for quite some time now in the West. Like most people, I enjoy having as much freedom as I can in the world, and I don’t think I would ever be happy in a place where women are controlled in nearly all their behavior both public and private.

But that concept degenerated some time ago into the idea that there are no important differences between men and women; and while some feminists will acknowledge that there are, in fact, important differences, the damage has already been done. Many people think that a woman should and must be able to hold her own in the world alongside men.

As I said at the beginning of this post, if you want to know how that experiment turns out, the Black Community in America will give you a good idea.

All the historical reasons and explanations for this are a well-traveled road. Everyone can tell you that slavery and segregation demanded that Black women be as “strong” and capable as men.

Often it was a matter of survival, not choice. To this day, Black women are accused of being “unfeminine” – as if America ever gave them the luxury of being “feminine” to begin with!

So you say to a group of women, “You’re not some dainty, feminine flower in need of sheltering – you are as capable as any man. Now get out there and pull your weight the same as any man.” You say this to them in an environment in which some women are indeed seen and treated as feminine, and in an environment in which no group of men is prepared to tell them anything different.

Wouldn’t they end up assuming the traditional roles of men? The only problem is that they are no good at it. Black women are no good at assuming the roles of men. It’s because they’re not men. They aren’t like men. They are no more like men than any other group of women are like men. They were never up to the task of what was expected of them, and they still aren’t.

They are weak and incompetent in assuming the roles of men – just as anybody else’s women would be.

Black people will recite the familiar refrain that Black men couldn’t assume the traditional protective role toward Black women, because Black women (and men) were the property of White men. And after slavery, Black men, most of whom were in the South, were not allowed to assume the traditional role – because Black men (and women) were under the control of White men.

All the excuses have been set in stone by now.

But it’s very clear what happens when women are left to their own devices in a society that says they can do anything a man can do.

What everyone gets is exactly what Moynihan said they would get.

"The Burden of Being Equal," by Alpha Unit

New post by Alpha Unit.
This one is really great! She and I really see eye to eye on a lot of issues, and this is one of them. To me, it’s the idea that men are men and women are women and you just have to deal with that. Radical feminists have decided that men acting men means men being evil, while women acting like women means being the penultimate in righteousness. A lot of the rest of the time, radical feminists seem to be waging a war against biology and indeed reality.
I’m all for single Moms. No problems there. But it ought to be clear by now that boys growing up without fathers is not such a good thing.
True, outcomes are different in different communities. A lot of the young Hispanic gang members and delinquents that I know were raised by single Moms. In one family I am thinking of, the boys just went insane after the father died of cirrhosis. The mother tried, but she just couldn’t control them at all. In the White community, it’s different, and you end up with these wimpy, passive-aggressive, super-immature Momma’s boy cum psychos.
What’s interesting is the resentment you see in a lot of fatherless boys, especially the ones who were abandoned by their fathers. They really hate their Dads for leaving them like that.
Hating your father is not the end of the world. 37% of adult males have a poor relationship with Dad. Obviously, they didn’t all end up gay. The notion that hating your Dad makes you queer is nonsensical. But one thing seems clear, if you hate your Dad, you have an elevated risk of being a criminal.
Go to a prison and ask those guys about their fathers. The ones who had active fathers all hate them and will tell you they want to kill them. The rest had no active fathers.
But most of these guys love their Moms, and I bet their Moms still love them. Having a good relationship with Mom is a good thing for a man; it doesn’t necessarily make you a Momma’s boy. Try calling those prisoners with Mom tattoos Momma’s boys. As soon as they get released, a lot of those grown, hardass men end up on Mom’s doorstep, if only temporarily.
On the other hand, it seems like if you have a good relationship with your Dad, it’s hard to be a criminal. How many male criminals get along great with Dad?
Hating your Mom does not seem to be good for a man. It’s possible for men who hate their mothers to be normal, but many are not. A lot of them turn into misogynists. They simply project their feelings about Mom onto all the women in their life, or recreate their relationships with Mom with all the new women they meet. Just about every mass murderer or serial killer of women hates his Mom.
Hating your Mom is a lot worse than loving your Mom too much, a “problem” much blown out of proportion by society, especially women. Women and girls always resent the mothers of the guys in their lives. This is a fact of nature. The two females are competing for the attention of a male, and females don’t compete all that well. So the females in men’s lives are always accusing their guys of being Momma’s boys if these guys have any affection at all towards their Moms.
Fuck that. There are Momma’s boys, but I don’t think there are as many as you think. Society cures you of that affliction pretty quickly.
The worse thing that happens to a Momma’s boy is he turns into a wimp, and about 50% of young males these days seem pretty wimpy/faggoty in outward behavior already, so it hardly seems like it’s the end of the world.
Wimpy guys is a woman issue. Women hate them. But I could care less about wimps. If you’re a wimp, that’s your problem. Why should I care? Women are going to be kicking your ass forever anyway, so why should I join the cackling Domintrices in the Misandry Fest? Forget it. I believe in Solidarity with my Brothers. Even the wimps.
On to Alpha Unit!
If you want to know the end result of Equality Between the Sexes, look no farther than the Black Community.
For in the Black Community you can observe what happens when women are seen as equal to men, just as capable of heading families as men, just as capable of raising boys as men.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was correct when he stated in his controversial report of over forty years ago that such a community asks for and gets chaos. And the reason for that is an indisputable although politically inconvenient fact: fathers are indispensable for the well-being of children.
But my focus in not on fatherhood and parenting as much as it is on the idea that women are essentially the same as men. Well, the experience of Black women shows that a woman is great at being a woman but she is a piss-poor substitute for a man.
The concept that a woman should have as much autonomy as a man is one we’ve taken for granted for quite some time now in the West. Like most people, I enjoy having as much freedom as I can in the world, and I don’t think I would ever be happy in a place where women are controlled in nearly all their behavior both public and private.
But that concept degenerated some time ago into the idea that there are no important differences between men and women; and while some feminists will acknowledge that there are, in fact, important differences, the damage has already been done. Many people think that a woman should and must be able to hold her own in the world alongside men.
As I said at the beginning of this post, if you want to know how that experiment turns out, the Black Community in America will give you a good idea.
All the historical reasons and explanations for this are a well-traveled road. Everyone can tell you that slavery and segregation demanded that Black women be as “strong” and capable as men.
Often it was a matter of survival, not choice. To this day, Black women are accused of being “unfeminine” – as if America ever gave them the luxury of being “feminine” to begin with!
So you say to a group of women, “You’re not some dainty, feminine flower in need of sheltering – you are as capable as any man. Now get out there and pull your weight the same as any man.” You say this to them in an environment in which some women are indeed seen and treated as feminine, and in an environment in which no group of men is prepared to tell them anything different.
Wouldn’t they end up assuming the traditional roles of men? The only problem is that they are no good at it. Black women are no good at assuming the roles of men. It’s because they’re not men. They aren’t like men. They are no more like men than any other group of women are like men. They were never up to the task of what was expected of them, and they still aren’t.
They are weak and incompetent in assuming the roles of men – just as anybody else’s women would be.
Black people will recite the familiar refrain that Black men couldn’t assume the traditional protective role toward Black women, because Black women (and men) were the property of White men. And after slavery, Black men, most of whom were in the South, were not allowed to assume the traditional role – because Black men (and women) were under the control of White men.
All the excuses have been set in stone by now.
But it’s very clear what happens when women are left to their own devices in a society that says they can do anything a man can do.
What everyone gets is exactly what Moynihan said they would get.

Derrion Albert Beating Death Video

The video has been removed following discussions with WordPress staff. Try here instead.
This video shows the melee on the south side of Chicago in which groups of Black youfs from two different schools, all future NFL players, engaged in a fight in the streets which resulted in the death of Derrion Albert, a 16 year old boy said to be an honor student. The fight occurred on Thursday, September 24. The video is not that bad; it just shows a fight. After Albert goes down, his prone body is blurred out.
This sort of thing happens all the time in Chicago, but the fact that an honor student bought it this time has promoted a spate of articles.
Albert is said to be an innocent bystander who just accidentally strolled into the middle of the brawl or was accidentally caught up in it. That is certainly possible. The brawl took place as students were getting out of school and the streets were blanketed with students. When a brawl takes place in such a situation, obviously a bystander could happen to get caught up in it.
However, I have reviewed this tape extensively, and I conclude that Derrion Albert may not have been so innocent after all. Although the cellphone video is not the best and I don’t have the necessary tech to slow down videos or review frame by frame, after repeated viewings, it seems that Albert deliberately ran into the middle of the fight and then participated in some sort of fighting. The fighters on the other side seem to have retaliated against him for this. One hit him in the head with a large plank of wood.
After that, he falls to the ground, but gets up quickly. As soon as he gets up, he is immediately punched in the face and hit again with the railroad tie and goes down hard. This time he stays down. At least one person comes up and kicks him in the head several ties when he was down. Somewhere in this rain of blows, he suffered enough injuries that he was killed. Bystanders quickly surround him, keep people away from him, and then cover his prone body with some sort of a white sheet.
I don’t think this kid deserved to get killed, and he may well have been an honor student. But I’m not so sure, looking at the video, that he’s so innocent. Right before he gets hit with the board, it looks like he tries to punch a member of the opposing faction.
The fight occurred in SW Chicago in the 300 block of West 111th Street. My mother grew up around 65th Street in the 30’s and 40’s. Back then, the area where the fight occurred was White and safe, but not anymore. It’s now a heavily Black ghetto, but there seem to be a lot of Whites and Hispanics in the area too. The fight occurred around Fenger High School. This is a notorious ghetto school with tons of problems and lots of violence.
The fight was between two groups of youths from different areas, one from the Altglen Housing Project and one from an area known as the “ville.” Altglen is a notorious project. This is where Obama did some of his earlier community organizing work. His claim to fame there was asbestos removal at the project. This area is not far from where Chicago wants to host the 2016 Olympics. At this rate, they may as well call it the Gladiator Games.

More on the Biology of Crime

Repost from the old site.
This subject is absolutely deadly for progressives because there is a fear that an examination into the biology of crime will tend to focus on race. As is, in the US, Blacks, Hispanics, Amerindians and Polynesians have crime rates, 8, 3, 2 and 2 times higher than Whites, respectively. Asians have crime rates 5 times lower than Whites.
Leaving aside race for a moment, it is reasonable to pry into the extra-racial aspects of crime. For the moment, let us look at testosterone and MAO-A levels.
MAO-A inhibits the production of catecholamines, in particular serotonin. Persons low in MAO-A tend to be low in serotonin.
Persons low in serotonin have elevated rates of impulsive violent behavior, including homicidal and suicidal attempts and successes. These studies have been done on successful suicides and impulsively violent criminals behind bars. Serotonin is an inhibitory chemical. It follows that low levels of an inhibitory chemical would make a person less inhibited in some ways.
A UK study on abused children found that those who had good MAO-A levels did not develop antisocial behavioral problems. Those who had low MAO-A levels did become antisocial. In this way, chemical levels in the brain interacted with negative environmental effects to either promote or inhibit antisocial behavior. It’s clear that abuse alone is not enough to cause antisocial behavior de novo.
In Aggression: The Testosterone-Serotonin Link , Berger et al attempted to synthesize studies showing links between low serotonin and high testosterone to better explain the enigma of criminal behavior. With regard to testosterone, they noted that results indicated a positive correlation in boys between testosterone levels and serious aggression in social situations, but no correlation with playful aggression.
This is interesting. Boys with normative testosterone can be quite aggressive in play, but they are able to turn it off and keep from going over the edge into actual serious aggression. High-testosterone boys were aggressive in both play and in serious aggression.
A study of 4,462 men revealed that the overall picture among the high-testosterone men is one of delinquency, substance abuse and a tendency toward excess aggressive behavior. This is the classic picture of the teenage delinquent, gang member, etc.
These men have more trouble with people like teachers while they are growing up, have more sexual partners, are more likely to show disciplinary problems during their military service and to have used “hard” drugs, particularly if they had a poor education and low incomes.
As we can see, poor educational outcome and low income serve as additive effects for high-testosterone men who display antisocial or sociopathic tendencies.
Measurements of testosterone saliva levels in 692 adult male prisoners showed that inmates who committed violent or sexual crimes had higher testosterone levels than inmates who were incarcerated for property crimes or drug abuse. Therefore, theft and drug abuse is not necessarily related to high testosterone. Anyone can be a thief or a doper, but not anyone can be a rapist or commit violent assaults.
This study also showed that inmates with higher testosterone levels violated more prison rules, especially those involving overt confrontation.
When salivary testosterone levels of young adult delinquents were compared with levels of a group of college students, matched for age, gender and race, the delinquent subjects had higher testosterone levels than the student controls, a finding that was true for both male and female subjects. It is interesting that even female young adult delinquents tend to have higher testosterone levels.
It can thus be concluded that high testosterone levels play a role in some criminal behavior.
In a previous post, I suggested that interventions to lower testosterone may be one avenue with which to attack testosterone-driven crime and antisocial behaviors.
These interventions would involve Black females taking a drug to lower the testosterone of their fetus 20%. Or giving the same drug to their young sons with the same effect. Or, offering it to young Black males (or any males really) who display repeated antisocial behavior, have gotten into serious trouble due to this behavior, want to change, but can’t seem to. All of these interventions would have to be strictly voluntary.
To avoid the racial screeching, we could also offer to White prisoners who perhaps had gotten tired of offending, wanted to clean up, but felt prisoner to their urges.
Commenters have noted with horror the possibility of messing with the sex drives of Black males, but a 20% reduction would lower Black testosterone down only to the White male level. White males seem to be awfully horny last time I checked.
Now for the racial angle. Yes, Blacks do have higher testosterone than Whites. And Asians have the lowest levels of all. Precisely as we might expect from the crime findings.
Hmmm.

References

Birger M, Swartz M, Cohen D, Alesh Y, Grishpan C, Kotelr M. 2003. Aggression: the Testosterone-Serotonin Link. Israel Med Assoc J 5: 653-658.
error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)