The Latest Outrage from the Feminist Enemy

Feminists are outlawing paternity testing.

France has actually made it illegal for a man to do paternity testing on the kid that his wife had. Incredible. And it is de facto illegal in Germany. In France, you need the woman’s approval to do paternity testing (!?) and good luck getting it! I can’t believe how insane this is.

This is exactly where women will go if you let them. Everything for the woman, nothing, or less than nothing, for the man.

In fact, there is a significant feminist movement in favor of “social parenting rather than genetic parenting.” That means you are on the hook for child support even if the kid that your cheating whore wife bore isn’t even yours! WTF.

There is a reason why male cheating has traditionally been more tolerated than female cheating. Female cheating is hated so much that the male victims of it are typically shamed or humiliated as “cuckolds.” If you read Shakespeare you will see many references to cuckolding. At that time, the worst insult you can say to a man would be to accuse him of being a cuckold. In fact, the word “horny” comes from the cuckolding concept. So does the idea of creeping up behind a man and putting a peace sign over his head. When you hold up two fingers over a man’s head, those are “horns.” It means he is wearing horns, that is, he is cuckolded, and this is where the word “horny” comes from.

The concept is also seen in the Spanish language, where cabron is the worst thing you can say to a man, and will often get you punched or even killed. Men in Latin America will kill over that insult. To call a man a cabron is to call him a male goat. Male goats have horns. If a man is “wearing horns” he has been cuckolded.

Let’s face it, no matter how much a woman’s partner cheats, when she has a baby, she can be assured that it is her child. This is very important – ownership of the child is very important. If a woman cheats on her man and has a baby, the man has no idea whatsoever whether that kid is his or not. He cannot be assured that that is his child (see above for women always being assured of ownership).

So when a woman cheats, her man is not sure of ownership of the child, and when the man cheats, she is at least sure that she owns any children that come out of her. Owing a child is very important. If a man is not sure that his child is his, he ends up raising another man’s child born by his woman. That is the last thing on Earth any man wants to do. Biologically, any male would consider raising another man’s child unknowingly to be a complete waste of time and resources.

This is why women’s cheating is so much more serious. In order to discourage women from cheating, men who got cheated on by their women were utterly humiliated by all of society. The fear that a man had of being humiliated in this way was enough to make sure he kept his wife on a tight leash all the time.

It also gave rise to the common reaction when a man catches his woman in bed with another man. It is quite common in such a case for the wronged man to kill both his woman and her boyfriend. In addition, many patriarchal societies simply murder women who are caught cheating. It’s right there in there social structure. This is probably another reason female sexuality was kept on such a tight leash by societies the world over. It needed to be controlled because otherwise you would have women cheating all over the place and paternity and jealousy issues with the attendant humiliation and homicide. In order to prevent these bad things, societies considered female sexuality a wild animal that needed to be kept in a very secure cage.

The Arab-Muslim

Someone sent this text to me and asked me to publish it. Judging by his name, I believe he is a Slav. This is pretty inflammatory stuff, but if you have been around a lot of these people as I have, there does seem to be a lot of sad truth in this piece. Read it and weep. Read it and think.

The Arab-Muslim

The Arab-Muslim is wanting and desperate in his want. Not just his most basic needs but his dreams as well. The Arab-Muslim never produces anything of his own, whether concrete or intellectual property. And he rarely earns his property, concrete or intellectual. He steals concrete property by direct robbery or by fraudulent use of the law or by taking spoils in war. He steals intellectual property by using it, and if asked about its origins, claims it as his own. Has the Arab-Muslim given up on this world, when he says, “My true life is in Paradise,” and “I will be backward for the sake of my deen”? No, he has admitted defeat in challenging his poverty. But this defeat is without dignity. He would rather not lose face and deign to feign victory: “I am poor but I am religious! You can have all the fortunes of this world; God is giving me my fortunes in Paradise, which you won’t be entering haha. But still, the kuffar must not have those fortunes unless I have them too! And I can take their property, including their women, as booty too!” When the Arab-Muslim says his life is in paradise and not this world, this shows his sense of entitlement. Give me, give me, because I deserve it, because I believe in the right thing though I haven’t earned anything by doing anything. Because the Arab-Muslim is Muslim, he’s going to heaven for sure. He need not worry about improving his condition in this life because it’s not worth it. How easy is it to get to heaven? As easy as a few simple instructions. Doing the hard things, like telling the truth, acknowledging the painful reality, being honest when it is harmful, disciplining oneself, is no requirement to enter heaven. Doing easy things like praying five times a day, reciting the Qur’an without ever having to understand what it says, and appearing pious only superficially are simple requirements to enter heaven. Does the Arab-Muslim ever reject the numerous benefits allowed to them: free housing, free education, free healthcare, and monthly allowance without ever having to work for any? No, because they are not ascetics or monks. They crave the good stuff but are too lazy to work for it. The Arab-Muslim’s condition in this life is poor, so everyone else’s condition must be poor. What the Arab-Muslim doesn’t acknowledge is that he failed. Because he failed, nobody else must succeed. Those who succeed must be brought down to below his level. To see kuffar and ajam on top of the Arab-Muslim is painful to the Arab-Muslim. What does this say? That the Arab-Muslim craves the good things of this world despite having given up on trying improve his life. And he wants to be on top of everybody and to have more than what everyone enjoys. If he can’t be on top of everybody, then nobody can be below him. Otherwise, he is humiliated. The Arab-Muslim wants to be chosen, wants to be special, wants to belong to something great whose greatness exceeds the lives of its adherents. The Arab-Muslim becomes Muslim. He enjoys something that is only for the privileged, for the believers. Those who are outside the circle are unchosen, and by not following the teachings of Islam, they are lowly and contemptuous. Their behavior is contemptuous, their way of life is contemptuous, what they believe and they hold onto is contemptuous. The smirk on an Arab-Muslim’s face is the look of arrogance. The look of hatred on an Arab-Muslim’s face is the look of one who was challenged or rightfully confronted. The look of pained anxiety on an Arab-Muslim’s face is of one who worries about his good name being tarnished in the eyes of his fellow Arab-Muslim’s (not the kuffar’s though.) Smug, hateful and anxious: these are the three basic expressions on a Arab-Muslim’s face. The eyes are sunk lower, the eyebrows either frowned or not, the corners of the mouth raised, the smile slight and cunning: this is the smug face. The eyes are sunk lower, the lips narrowed and puckered, the eyebrows either slightly or intensely frowned: this is the hateful face. The eyes are wide, the eyebrows frowned intensely, the lips slightly puckered: this is the anxious face. The Arab-Muslim is smug when confronting his prey, hateful when confronting a challenging contender, and anxious when helpless before his enemy. Arab-Muslim women and girls differ little in this regard. The Arab-Muslim is also smug in praise, hateful when envying another, and anxious when a scandal is about to break out. What the kuffar have earned, what the kuffar have produced that is good and wealthy, the Arab-Muslim is entitled to. Entitlement once again. The Arab-Muslim takes from the kaffir what he has never earned but deserves by virtue of being Muslim. The kaffir makes, the Arab-Muslim takes. The ajam makes, the Arab-Muslim takes. This is ingrained deeply into the Arab-Muslim’s mindset, and questioning his right to it is questioning the core of his identity. The Arab-Muslim is perpetually angry with unresolved problems and ever ready to break out into violence. What angers him is those who have wronged him and those who have taken the side of the wrongdoer. This is a common phenomenon in Arab-Muslim countries. Injustice is common thanks to the pent-up hatred of Arab-Muslims and their penchant to destroy what they never made and they can never have (envy). The worst judge is an Arab-Muslim judge. The Arab-Muslim hates human rights and thinks it heretical to Islam. He hates the concept of people happy and enjoying rights as he is miserable and deprived of his rights. And the Arab-Muslim hates justice. But he wishes human rights for himself and wishes justice to be done for his sake. For this reason, as a prisoner of war, he crows for rights he will never give to others, and demands justice that he would hate to see given to his belligerent. For this reason, an jihadi prisoner of war should be stripped of his last right and his day in court made a show-trial akin to Stalin’s trials. The only kind of court a jihadi deserves is the only one that he can make: a kangaroo court. The Arab-Muslim is extremely cruel, knowing nothing of mercy. Hurting others to him is victory. Mercy to him is weakness. Pleas for mercy mean that his victim is finally weak and ready to be killed. He will kill and overkill. The Arab-Muslim doesn’t just kill, he mutilates. Killing is not enough, mutilation is not enough, no, burning is not even enough. The Arab-Muslim is never satisfied in his revenge. Even afterwards, he still wants more revenge. Imagine the anger, the pent-up rage, on having been done wrong, perceived wrong, either real or imagined. And finally comes the moment of redemption. “Destroy!” says his mind. There is never enough destruction. Finally, the wrongdoer gets the justice that was never handed to him by his judge or the police. Fighting back against Arab-Muslim aggression is necessary, and no mercy should be shown to him despite calls for mercy because mercy is only a weapon in his hands. The Arab-Muslim: a thief, a wrongdoer and a destroyer.

**

The Arab-Muslim is naturally a slave and tyrant. Tyranny and slave-mindedness exist in the same person. One needs the other; one cannot do without the other. A slave-minded person who accepts his slavery as necessary and good for him is a tyrant to his subordinates and a sycophant to his superiors. The Arab-Muslim metes out disgusting and obnoxious sycophantic behavior to his superior, whether his superior is his parent, his boss, his teacher or professor, his president or God. Notice how the Arab-Muslim relates himself to God? In his supplication, he makes God a tyrant who demands that He be showered with endless praise before one simple thing can be asked of Him. This is not to say insolence and thanklessness is how a worshiper should ask of something from God. He unconsciously does the same for his other superiors: his boss, his professor, his parents. He showers them with all kinds of praise, whether imagined or real but exaggerated (but not the kind of praise he gives to God), before asking for one simple thing. And he demands the same from his subordinates. God has his own Will, he gives to whomever he wants and takes from whomever he wants. And so it is the same with the Arab-Muslim. He accepts to fulfill demands or rejects fulfilling them according to his own wishes. His subordinates either bite the bullet and shrug their shoulders or jump for joy that their superior accepted their demand. Is that not tyranny? This is deep in the Arab-Muslim subconscious: to enjoy over subordinates what God naturally enjoys over mankind. They strive to have a bit of God’s powers and privileges. That is their will-to-power. They desire to be worshiped not by prostration but by words of praise and hand-kissing. The paganism of the Arabs has never departed as Arab-Muslim’s seem to venerate the black stone, a copy of a Qur’an, the remaining hair of Muhammad(s), the imam and “scholar” (who have a certain sanctity not shared by others) and much more. The lowest subordinate is the jobless black woman or one who is disabled or is a bastard child, one who broke one of Arab-Muslim society’s most delicate rules. The highest superior is God, chauvinistically called by His Arabic name, Allah. The most disgusting and obnoxious sycophancy is meted out to God, the most horrible and depraved cruelty is meted out to the lowest subordinate for her bad fortune. A tyrant on the throne does not necessarily mean tyrants in common society. But a tyrant elected to office means a tyrant picked out from a common society of tyrants, especially if that tyrant comes from modest beginnings and speaks in the common language. This is the source for the Arab Spring’s failure. The Arab-Muslim is strong before the weak and cowardly before the brave. He is either your slave or your superior but never your equal. If you hate having him be your superior, make him your inferior. Do not wrap your arm around his shoulder and call him your equal. By that, he’s seen an opportunity to overcome you and you will pay the price.

**

The Arab-Muslim is a cannibal. Not a literal cannibal. But one who kills his own, his own daughter, his own wife, his fellow Arab-Muslim, over a petty (non-)crime. He hates his daughter and hates his femininity. He is driven to a wild out-of-control rage when he finds out that his daughter has committed an act of indiscretion. Like a newly-made zombie, he acts to kill without thinking twice and feels no remorse afterwards. Instead, he feels satisfaction because his dignity has been restored. When his daughter has sex outside of marriage, his manhood is gone. “His own daughter,” he thinks, “committed this unspeakable sin?! What will the neighbors think?” Such questions drive an Arab-Muslim to the edge of oblivion. Why does the murdering Arab-Muslim kill so easily, you ask? Because his conscience is always clear. He is self-righteous, meaning he can only do good and he can never do any evil. If he did evil….it was necessary or it was a good and how dare anyone question otherwise! When one’s conscience is always clear, one can do any evil and not be affected by it. One can kill and that killing was necessary or was done in the name of good. Killing in God’s name is holy because God is holy, and God prescribes for man only good and never evil. Therefore, how can killing in God’s name be evil? So goes the thought.

**

Why is the Arab-Muslim a cannibal? Because

  1. He doesn’t mind his own business
  2. He cares about other people’s business, and what they are up to
  3. He cares deeply about other’s opinions of himself.

When was the last time an Arab-Muslim lost himself in the demands of a mind-taxing affair, forgetting all around him? The Arab-Muslim has two watchful eyes and a divided concentration. A part of his attention is busy watching the environment surrounding him lest something unusual happen, and he spies with his little eye and later tells his idle friends a funny story of what just happened. Or watching for an unusual person or an enemy so that he spring into action and attack. The other part of his attention is inadequate for the task at hand. The little eye also spies on women, especially young unmarried girls, watching closely what they’re up to. Should they commit a horrible deed, their deed will be documented, spread to the last corner of the neighborhood and the indiscretionary woman judged. Big Brother has always been watching everyone in the Muslim society, because Big Brother is everyone in the Muslim society. There is a Youtuber, not famous enough to be mentioned here, who is an active sport in more ways than one (sans dirty language). One of his favorite things to do is to go to different cities around the world and ask random locals in the street, “What do you think of Arabs?” In other words, “What is your opinion of me?” “Why does he care for another person’s opinion?” you might ask. The Arab-Muslim will agree with the nature of the question, and adds with an air of declaration, “You shouldn’t care about what others think.” Ask him, “Why do you care for the people’s opinions?” “Because,” he answers, “Because…” The people’s opinions matter, because they hold his honor. What is the Arab-Muslim concept of honor? Honor is how other people regard the Arab-Muslim. The Arab-Muslim does not derive his worth from discipline or achievement but from the opinion of others. For this reason, he is constantly conscious of himself and constantly trying to please the people by acceding to their demands. They demand at the spur of the moment, and their demands are unrealistic and taxing. The orthodoxy of Muslim society is strict and exact, thus being harsh and confining. It covers all aspects of human life, and thus it is totalitarian. The life of Muslim society is one of despair, deception, lies and hypocrisy. An Arab-Muslim’s honor, if dragged through the dirt, must restore its lustre. The people demand the right thing, and demand that honor be redeemed. Honor can be redeemed by anything from ostracism to killing.

**

When you walk down a neighborhood of Arab-Muslims, it is instinctively felt that you are being watched. You become conscious of your own movements and feel anxiety. As a matter of fact, everyone around you is watching everything around them though they seem busy. Everyone is busy talking about the unusual thing that is you, because you are unusual, though they seem busy talking about something else. Slowly, the tension builds, and the portent nears its actualization. Portent is the golden word: the fear that at any moment, sudden mindless violence will break out just around the corner. “The temperature is at boiling point,” said an Australian journalist when he was “hemmed in” by a crowd of Wahhabi predators harassing the renegade Arab-Muslim next to him. The hostility is felt just before the blow. They try, by hook or by crook, to justify hitting you. It doesn’t matter if you did anything wrong, they want to hit you, to strike you a blow. Why? Because they hate you. Why do they hate you? Because you, not you but your government, “killed their brothers and sisters in Muslim lands” (whom they would hate had they an opportunity to live side by side with them). Notice that they cannot mask their anger. It appears in their face and their finger-jabbing. And also: that they’re impatient and can’t wait to hit you. They keep escalating because they can’t wait any longer: they must hit you. And perhaps the reason for hatred is deeper. They hate the Norwegians who inhabit their Norway, they hate the Brits who inhabit their Britain, they hate the Jews who share their France. Why do they hate the British, the Norwegian, the Jew? The Briton is dignified, and the Arab-Muslim is not. The Briton is free, proud of his freedom and doing what he is free to do, and the Arab-Muslim can only do the good and the evil that his imam shoves down his throat and threatens to punish if violated. The Briton loves and is loved back; the Arab-Muslim can only hate and hate back in revenge. The Briton is wealthy and happy, the Arab-Muslim is not. The happiness, joy, freedom and dignity of the Briton feels like a dagger in the heart of the Arab-Muslim. The Arab-Muslim instinctively hates the European. It is a feeling as primary as hunger. Osama bin Laden once said, “Ever since my childhood, I have always hated Americans.” The Americans were the thorn in his side. He studied in America and hated Americans and their culture. Instinctively. They gladly take benefits and human rights from their European country of adoption and give hatred, hostility, murders, assaults and rapes in return. This does not include every Arab-Muslim but only the orthodox Arab-Muslim who either carries out the crime or actively supports it or tacitly supports it. They build their mosques with the blessings of the local governments and use the mosques to preach hatred against the same people who let them build the mosque, not to mention overthrowing the government of their adopted country. In the Quran, rebellion against the state is punished with either:

  1. Death
  2. An arm and a leg {literally}, or
  3. Expulsion

And Islamic scholars are of a consensus that Muslims should obey the laws of a land within the House of War, and should the adopted land persecute or make the lives of Muslims difficult, the Muslims should leave that land and go to the House of Islam. The run-of-the-mill imam is conveniently silent on these two little facts.

**

The Arab-Muslim suffers from neurosis. This is because he believes in absolute purity and achievable perfection. Purity is homogeneity, that is: a thing being consistent throughout its material contents. Purity of deed means never, ever sinning and doing only one good after another. Purity of society means

  • everyone being of the same religion or race, and
  • everyone being pure in deed

What is impure? That which is tainted with something different, not necessarily something filthy, i.e. repugnant to the human senses. Fecal matter and urine, for example, are repugnant to the human senses: they smell bad and look disgusting. Loose, flirtatious behavior is not repugnant to the senses but is actually refreshing and exciting. But the bad taste it leaves afterwards is repugnant in more than just an aesthetic way. Purity can never be attained absolutely. You can never keep clothes completely clean from dirt. You can never keep yourself away from sin. Your clothes must have some trace amounts of dirt, you must have committed some kind of sin even yesterday. To believe that purity can be attained absolutely is a delusion. The Arab-Muslim conflates different with filthy. Both are impure, but one stands out in the midst of sameness, and the other stands out in the midst of cleanliness. If sameness and cleanliness are the same thing, then their opposites, difference and filth, are the same thing. Is the Christian who believes differently filthy? Is the liberal Muslim who dissents filthy? Is the girl who fornicated with her lover filthy? What is a pure Islamic society, as proposed by a bearded ogre?

  • One where everyone believes not just in the same essentials: God and his state of being just One, the Angels and jinns, the prophethood of Muhammad and the divinity of the Qur’an but also think alike in every little way.
  • One where everyone is pure in action, always doing good and never doing evil.

In this society, there is no place for anyone who believes differently. There is no room for Christians, Druze, or Jews. And in this society, there is no place for dissenters who differ on small technical issues. These people violate the sameness of the pure Islamic society. “This society is pure and innocent of your filth (read: differentness)!” so rants the angry Muslim. In this society, everyone is doing good and never doing evil. Those who do evil taint the active purity of the Islamic society, the purity in the action of its individuals. These people violate the actual sameness of the Islamic society by behaving differently. “This society is pure and innocent of your filth (read: differentness)!” so roars the irate ogre. Orthodoxy, absolute and pure, all around. Perfection is the Arab-Muslim’s aim. It is pronounced in every aspect of his life: his prayer, his clothes, his (re)production of art. In his prayer, he seeks absolute orthodoxy, by reciting exactly what is supposed to be recited in each station of each unit of prayer, and he seeks perfection by absolute orthodoxy and painstaking choreography. In his clothes, he wears his traditional clothes, but keeps them painstakingly clean and flawless. The Muslimah is painstaking about her manner of dress: she takes extra care to cover the corners of her face with her hijab and to make sure her dress does not suggest even the slightest angle of her feminine curvature. In his songs, he does not produce anything new, but instead is painstaking about getting every lyric and melody of the song exactly as it is in the original production. In his printing of the Qur’an, there is not a single mistake in the wording, lettering or even the curve of a letter throughout the entire copy. This is about 300,000 letters and 29,000 words. Painstaking dedication to the highest authority (God), painstaking dedication by painstaking orthodoxy to established rites and traditions, and painstaking dedication to perfection. Tyranny, purity and perfection. One of the most important aspects of modern Islamic culture is the idea of purity. God forbade man the eating of pork, the drinking of blood and the drinking of alcohol. But did he ever say that to have it on one’s clothes is to make that cloth impure? No. It came from the “scholars”, who by ijtihad (personal effort in coming to the truth), found that alcohol, pork stains and blood on one’s clothes make that cloth impure, thus with it, one cannot pray, hold a Quran in one’s hands, or go around the Kaaba. How does this register in the mind of an Arab-Muslim simpleton? Alcohol is filthy, pork is filthy; those Westerners eat pork and drink alcohol, therefore they are filthy, and their women are filthy. “Alhamdulilah,” he says, “I am pure!” Pure of impurities not repugnant to the senses but outside of the established orthodoxy.

**

The Arab-Muslim: insolent and arrogant in prosperity, angry and hate-filled in poverty; covetous, desiring of luxury; rapine, desiring of women; loving the glory and wealth of this world, and optimistic and certain about the glory and wealth of the next world; chosen by Allah and proud, looking down on those who willfully remain unchosen, looking up to those who are holy in attire and manner; believing in mortal perfection, and striving to absolute purity. He can live with the similar but must be above or far from the different. And this is one of the main problems of the 21st century.

Which Is Worse? White Collar Crime or Street Crime?

Jason Y writes:

Financial crimes are far worse than low IQ crimes cause they affect the job market . For instance, the 2009 economic meltdown was caused by high IQ creeps, who played Wall Street like Vegas. Of course, their gambling might have been legal, but you get the point. They could have also did illegal things.

Either way, their fuck-ups hurt common people, on the same level or more, than some low IQ petty crime. Look at corporate executives who decide that cheaper wages are to be found in Indonesia than Detroit etc..

Sure but I can live with the financial criminal types. When I’m walking down the street at midnight in a strange neighborhood and I see some White guy in a suit and tie following me, I don’t get all nervous and start thinking, “Oh no! That guy’s about to violate some work and safety regulations at his business! I better run!”

I agree with you that financial crime does more damage long-term to society, but Americans seem to love their financial criminals so there doesn’t seem to be much we can do about it.

And I would much rather be a victim of a financial crime induced recession than to be a victim of street crime, even if all they’re doing is stealing my hubcaps, stealing stuff out of my car and coming into my house as friends and stealing stuff while I turn my back on them. All of those things have happened to me since I moved here, and they unnerved me for more than the recession which also occurred after I moved here.

There is something really creepy and unnerving and personal about someone stealing something right out of your car or home. It feels like you’ve been violated. Or raped. It feels really bad.

I would also much rather live in a city where most of the criminals were financial criminals as opposed to a city where most of the criminals were ordinary street crooks. Street crime just ruins everything somehow.

Why Race Realist Politics Is Often Wrong

IC says:

Well, it is important for policy making. If it is genes, no child left behind policy is wasting money and should be discarded. Also criminal rehabilitation program is also waste of money.

This is the classic political agenda that tends to flow from HBD or race realist folks. All race realist and HBD’ers are committed to this sort of politics without exception. This is a rightwing political agenda of using the genetic reality of race as an excuse to reduce or eliminate social spending for races that score lower in school or commit more crime than other races.

As a man of the Left, of course, I oppose this sort of thing. Furthermore, almost all of their arguments are based on lies. Not one single dollar has ever been spent in the United States “trying to bring Blacks up to par with Whites.” The only thing we spend money on in the US is trying to educate Black folks. They get the same education as other races; in fact, they probably get a much worse education. Instead of blowing money trying to get them up to par with Whites, Black schools are classically underfunded. At any rate, all people of all races are deserving of a decent and normal education suited to their needs and abilities.

I’m afraid that this policy prescription is something like, “Blacks score lower on IQ tests, so let’s stop educating them altogether!” That is simply breathtaking. Even an ethnic group with an average IQ of 85 benefits dramatically from a K-12 education as opposed to no education at all.

It’s the same thing on crime. Although it is nowhere near proven, I believe that Blacks have an inborn elevated risk of criminal behavior. But even here, this is not destiny. There are even Supercultures that are such effective circus tents that they envelop and overwhelm the genetic tendency, rendering it inoperative. For instance, an African tribe numbering 1 million in Burkino Faso has a homicide rate equal to the Japanese. I assume they have the same inborn genetic tendency towards crime as other Africans.

Genes are rarely destiny as far as crime goes. All you will inherit is a tendency, and we all inherit a tendency to be criminals. I assume I inherited a fairly low risk, but others end up with a higher risk. Even among those with a high inherited risk, many will live law-abiding lives. Genetic tendencies are triggered, increased, subdued or neutered depending on environments that either allow one’s genetic legacy to be expressed or suppressed. Someone with a higher genetic loading towards criminality can certainly be rehabilitated the same as someone with a lower risk. It’s just that rehabilitation will be less successful with the high loading group.

I am afraid this is just another excuse for reactionary policy. “Nigger are genetic criminals, so spending money trying to rehabilitate them is useless, since as soon as we let them out, their genes will force them to commit crimes again. So lock the nigger criminals away forever and never let them out. And don’t waste one nickel of my taxpayer dollars with your libtard rehabilitation program.”

You can see where this crap is headed. The science of HBD is used as a fake fig leaf to give lab coat approval for reactionary politics that reactionaries want to impose anyway whether the science is there or not. The science gives them one more excuse for retrograde politics, a shiny veneer of academic approval.

No Child Left Behind was always insane. All children have a right to an education. There is no excess money spent trying to bring low scorers up to par with the rest. In fact, poor schools spend much less money than the rest. Both low scoring and high scoring students have the right to an adequate education.

If it can be proven that a given criminal rehabilitation program works, and especially if it is cost effective, then we should go ahead and do it. Anyway, even Black crime rates fluctuate wildly, so it’s not all genes driving the rates. Even someone with an elevated genetic tendency to be a criminal can be easily convinced to stop committing crimes, commit fewer crimes or commit less serious crimes.

Smart and Dumb Crooks and Hoods

Cannabis for Autism writes:

What I don’t get, notwithstanding the suggestion that crime is justice to those for whom law is injustice, why you think ‘criminals’ with an above-average IQ are any less dangerous than those with a lesser IQ?

You have two societies. One is a very high IQ society, say IQ = 113. They have a certain number of criminals running around in their country. Then we have another society. This is a very low IQ society, say IQ = 90. Of course there will be lots of criminals running around here too, probably a lot more criminals per capita than in the high IQ society. There will be bad people in both societies. In the high IQ society, there will not be much street crime. Nerds are skinny and don’t like to get their hands dirty. There will be quite a bit of crime, but it will be financial and white collar. Scams, ripoffs, fraud, embezzlement, all sorts of financial crimes, lawyer crimes, doctor crimes, accountant crimes, shakedowns, blackmail, stock market crimes. They may be an Underworld with some Organized Crime. This may or may not be a problem for me. I figure if I stay away from Organized Crime types and scenes, I will probably be ok. I will watch my money very carefully because there may well be a lot of financial crime in a high IQ society, but honestly lower IQ societies are flooded with fraud, ripoff, white collar crime and corruption too. As long I do not have a lot of money on me to play around with business-wise, I am not too worried. I will walk down the street at 3 AM and not worry about a thing. I will make friends with my neighbors and even total strangers. I might even give rides to hitchhikers if I felt daring. Now I move to the low IQ society where the average IQ is 90. The real problem here is that in the low IQ society, the nature of the criminals will change. I will be dealing with stupid criminals rather than smart criminals. Offered a choice, I would much rather deal with smart crooks than dumb crooks any day. Smart crooks tend to be a lot less violent because they think about their actions before they do them and often try not to be violent because this increases the chances of them going to prison. As long as they stick to their nonviolent financial crime, they stand a good chance of staying out of jail. Now in the low IQ society, the criminals are just morons. They don’t care whether they are violent or not, and dumb people are more violent than smart people anyway. They don’t think about the consequences of anything they do because they can’t plan ahead and they don’t think about the future. They just live in the moment and commit whatever crimes they want to and figure they won’t get caught. I will experience a lot more hotheadedness, idiots losing their temper, drunk and drugged out kooks, impetuousness, impulsiveness, etc. In general, physical and even emotional violence and aggression is going to be way higher in this society because people are not smart enough to control themselves. I will start experiencing some theft. They steal little things here and there. I have to start locking my car because if you don’t they steal out of your car. My hubcaps are gone. There will probably be street gangs which are a lot less predictable than the Organized Crime gangs in my other country that tried to limit violence to stay out of jail. I will not walk down the street at 3 AM and probably not even after midnight. I am careful of who I hang out with and make friends with. Gunshots ring out 50 yards from my door. Some of my neighbors go to jail from time to time. The police come around looking for them sometimes. Little girls are being prostituted. Someone gutted three stray cats and hung them in a tree as part of a gang dispute. A street gang rules my neighborhood and considers it theirs. My friends are becoming crime victims. My friend suffers two attempted robberies while just walking about the neighborhood. Sure, there are criminals in both cases, but in answer to your question, yes, I would prefer dealing with smart crooks over dumb crooks.

Why the Question of Nature or Nature Really Is Not Even Important

At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter. All that matters are the statistics, not how the numbers ended up that way. Let us take an example: Group B has a crime rate 7X that of Group A. Who cares whether it’s due to their genes or environment or God cursed them or it’s something in the air? I am sitting here in my country, Group A’s country. We are thinking of taking in a bunch of Group B immigrants. We figure they are going to have 7X elevated crime rate over our own people. Why would it matter what’s causing the elevated crime rate? Genes? Environment? Why is this even an important question that we need to debate? If I were sitting on a committee of Group A’s country trying to figure out whether we should flood ourselves with Group B’s people, I would say, “No, we should not.” You figure these people are going to have a 7X elevated crime rate over our own. If you want to be very selective, set an IQ limit for them – in the US, I might say “Ok, take Group B’s people, but only if they have an IQ of 100+.” Or you can say, “Ok, we will take them, but only if they have an advanced degree. Otherwise we are turning down 99. Can someone please tell me why this is bad policy? Can someone please tell me why it is so important that we learn whether it’s genes or environment that’s causing Group B to act up so much? Why is this such a crucial question for everyone? Someone fill me in here.

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

Jason Y writes:

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

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

Westernization and Re-Africanization of New World Blacks

Jason Y writes:

What about blacks? Again, no connection to race, the bad attributes of some of them are due to choice, and environment. The genetic role is way exaggerated.

I used to believe that about Black people too, until I started doing some research on the Blacks of the Caribbean and then I had extensive dealings with the Blacks of Africa. It slowly began to dawn one. This is an exaggeration of course, but my God! They’re the same everywhere! That’s what I thought. It isn’t 10 Bottom line is that as much as we like to put down US Blacks, they are far more civilized than African Blacks, and I think they are even more civilized than Caribbean Blacks, who have done a pretty good job of being civilizational incompetents down there. I will say though that Caribbean Blacks also are much more civilized than African Blacks. This begs the question of why, as their genes are the same. US Blacks do have some White in them at 1 Similarly, US Black IQ’s are 13 points higher than we would expect them to be based on White admixture. What’s going on? Blacks have been breeding eugenically. Since 1900, Black head size has increased dramatically, and in addition, archaic features have faded while more progressive features have heightened. Hence modern Blacks and Whites look more like each other than either resembles their own ancestors. I believe that some combination of eugenic breeding, epigenetic factors, improved environment and nutrition probably account for the unexpected 13 point IQ rise in US Blacks. For UK Blacks, it is probably just an improved environment that is raising IQ’s by up to 14 points. In addition, Blacks have been in the US for 200-350 years. During at least a good portion of that time, they were Christianized and in addition, they were raised under the umbrella of White civilization. White civilization is generally a civilizing environment. US Blacks were Christianized, Westernized and raised in a civilizing White environment for up to 350 years. Over that period, I would assume that a lot of the African has gone out of US Blacks. In addition, Caribbean Blacks seem much more civilized than US Blacks. They are experiencing a booming Flynn Effect in IQ, but so is Kenya for that matter. What else is going on? Most Caribbean Blacks, like US Blacks, have been raised under White civilization for about as long as US Blacks have. The best developed Caribbean islands have a White core that holds down the ship, creates and helps maintain a civilized appearance and keeps the economy chugging along. It’s not that Bahamas is where it is simply due to its 1 The equivalent of Africa in the Caribbean is Haiti. There are many Caribbean islands that are nearly all Black and which only have a miniscule White population. However, most of these were White colonies for a long time and long has a solid White core to hold down the ship and keep things moving along. Haiti has not only lacked a White colonizer for 2 centuries, but for 200 it has not only lacked a White core, but furthermore, has developed completely in the absence of any White civilizational structure to envelope or or even to keep the trains running. Haiti is what you get when you pull all the White people out of a New World Black population and let Black culture take over. The result is a return to Africa. And indeed, in Haiti, African civilizational structures in many forms have carried on to this very day. Haiti is a Black nation that has been “re-Africanized.” Pull all the Whites out of any New World Black population and over time, a Haiti situation should develop. It may take some time, but that seems to be the inevitable result. “Back to Africa” or re-Africanization can even occur in the 1st World. In the worst of our inner city Black ghettos, much of the sheen of 350 years of civilizing impulse seems to have weathered away. And indeed, the scariest slums of America nearly resemble the squalor, casual violence, disease, dysfunction, chaos, dilapidated, corrupt, criminalized and insipid modern African nations. At the same time, during horrific national disasters like Hurricane Katrina with no government response, law stripped bare and society gone anarchic, the civilizational veneer is rapidly stripped off and Africa comes rushing in as sure as those roiling muddy 30-foot killer waves. In short, long exposure to White civilization has been excellent for New World Blacks. Their health, education, lifestyle, values, and behavior are all dramatically improved by growing up in under the cloak of a White society. Indeed, a White tent over the land may even be good for Black people’s brains at the physical level. Culture is a powerful superstructure that can drastically alter human beings socially and maybe even physically. Yet in the darkest ghettos or when all Hell breaks loose and the rule of law withers away, even US Blacks can re-Africanize very quickly, even in a matter of days.

"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.

From Civil Rights to Modern Antiracism, a Moral Inversion

Found on the web:

After the chicken’s chicks were all killed at eaten by the fox, a liberal chicken then said to the surviving chicken “Ya know, not all foxes are like that.”

Nice. Increasingly, modern antiracism is simply becoming absurd, stupid, dangerous, belligerently abusive and pro-suicidal. Thinking back to our salad days in the Civil Rights Movement, I remember how things were so much different back then. We Whites were fighting for good people! Good, fine, upstanding Black people, of which there were plenty at the time and even now. Was James Meredith a dirtball? Of course not? Was Rosa Parks a slimebag? You kidding? Were the Little Rock a bunch of scumbuckets? Huh? If you think of yourself as a good person, it feels good to be fighting for the rights of other good people. And it is painful to see good people being so mistreated merely because of who their parents were. It’s so wrong it hurts. This was the essence of the moral impetus behind the Civil Rights Movement. We won most of our battles, and here it is, 50 years on, and anti-racism is so far away from the Civil Rights Movement that it seems like it’s on another planet altogether. Now the antiracist movement does nothing but support criminals. All of the modern antiracist heroes have been criminals, often pretty bad ones. Most of them are dead and in the ground now, which is really where they belong if you ask me. It’s hard to feel good about supporting a bunch of scumbuckets. It’s hard to feel sorry for them, even if they are getting their rights violated. And typically, the people who aggressed on the Black criminals were the victims in one way or another of the crooks, or they were law enforcement or school officials trying to arrest or discipline the crooks. The ultimate hero of the antiracist movement is none other than OJ Simpson, a narcissistic sociopath who decapitated his girlfriend with a meat cleaver before he sliced her boyfriend to blood-spattered bits. Many of the antiracist cause celebres have involved Black criminals who get shot by cops, sometimes under dubious circumstances. One thing you will notice that everywhere Black folks move in the world, this racist phenomenon called police brutality rears up its head. There is  this mysterious phenomenon whereby cops all over the world want to fuck over and kill Black people for racist reasons and only racist reasons. Here is what happens:

  • Lots of Blacks moved to a country, often a Western country.
  • Over a period of time, they start to commit lots of crime, particularly violent crime, including homicide. They also start joining gangs and dealing a lot of dope.
  • This goes on for a while, and the police start arresting a lot of the Black criminals, for good reason.
  • The Black community starts to hate cops for “taking so many of our good men away.” Police are seen as a hostile because they are doing their job, which is to arrest Black criminals.
  • Sooner or later, a Black criminal is shot dead or badly beaten under possibly dubious circumstances. There is nothing necessarily racist about this. Most Western police departments have wildly stringent anti-discrimination policies and are far more PC than your average workplace. Police commissioners are tired of getting sued for this stuff so they are taking pre-emptive action.
  • What happens is once Black people start committing tons of crime and getting arrested all the time, sooner or later there is going to be a questionable shooting. It’s the law of averages. If Whites committed crime at Black rates, there would be a lot of dubious police shootings of White people. Dubious shootings are part and parcel of a group that commits lots of crime.
  • Blacks start rioting because one of their criminals got shot dead or beat up badly by police, which is a pretty bad reason to tear down a city if you ask me.
  • Antiracist movements begin to take up the “antiracist” cause of police brutality, an issue that usually has little to do with race.

These antiracist movements spend almost all of their time defending the absolute worst of Black society, the scum of the Earth. These are their heroes. If you are on the Left, you are supposed to support the lionization of these sociopaths. If you point out what scumbags they are, you are accused or racism yourself. You see how far we have come? Pointing out that the Black criminal cause celebre du jour who may have been victimized is actually a piece of dirt is racism! It’s racism for good people to call criminals what they are! That’s pretty breathtaking. It goes far beyond that. All criticism of mass dysfunction in Black America, typically in the more ghetto areas, is slammed as racism. Good people are called racists for complaining about bad people acting bad! Wow! That takes my breath away. If you try to counter an anti-White myth such as that Whites are more likely to be child molesters or serial killers by pointing out that actually Blacks have higher rates of both serial killing and child molesting, you are a racist! Whoa! It’s racist to pore through crime statistics to try to catch people telling racist lies about crime rates of various races! It’s racist to point out that Group X commits way more of Crime Z than Group Y. Pointing out the obvious is racist. Telling the truth is racist. Hard and fast statistical truths are racist. Apparently, The Truth itself is racist. The only way not to be a racist in this modern era is to be a liar! This idiotic movement extends to the rest of the world. Much of the 3rd World is very screwed up. A lot of it is non-White. Pointing out how lame, dysfunctional, and pathological these failed states and cultures are is racist. Damn! Good people criticizing bad people overseas for acting bad is racist. People from decent cultures criticizing sick cultures for being stupid and evil is racist. Pointing out that Country X is swarming with crooks, liars, cheaters, frauds and thieves, not to mention violent crooks, is racist. Telling people to avoid these shitholes is racist. In fact, we are ordered to travel to these shitholes just to prove how antiracist we area. In this sense, modern anti-racism is pro-suicidal. They want good people to go to places were lots of terrible people who act awful and stay there a while (presumably until they get victimized, which won’t be long) just to prove their antiracist mettle. If you say, “I don’t see why I should risk my life and limb to associate with this group just because a few of them are good people,” you are racist. Modern antiracism does nothing but defend bad people. All of its heroes are criminals, often very bad criminals. These are the leading lights of the movement. It is racist for good people to criticize the bad behavior of these criminal heroes. The only cultures it defends are non-White 3rd World cultures where a large percentage of the people act terrible, where states are failed, where cultures are toxic when they are not flat out wicked. Yes, to modern antiracism, the worst, most dysfunctional, corrupt, amoral and idiotic cultures of all are actually the best ones of them. These are the “heroic cultures” of modern antiracism. Modern antiracism fetes barbaric cultures above all else. Cultures are crappy because they are full of crappy people – who behave in lousy ways and think in even worse ways. There is no such thing as a crappy culture full of good people. Good people make good cultures. Lousy people make lousy cultures. The bottom line is that antiracism criticizes good people for attacking the behavior of bad people. It’s racist for good people to defend themselves against bad people – I assume we are supposed to let them kill us to prove earn our antiracist stripes in the afterlife. Anti-racism attacks people from good, competent, successful cultures for attacking lousy, incompetent and failed cultures. Once again, it punishes the good for attacking the bad. I could go on here, but I think I will stop. You get the idea. All I have to say is that this is a complete inversion of the moral principles I signed up for in the Civil Rights Movement. We were the good guys fighting for the good people against the bad people. Now it’s the other way around. Let me off this bus please, Rosa.

Four False Ideas about Overpopulation

Steve is a left-leaning commenter who posted a video with a deceptive title that nevertheless has some interesting things to say about overpopulation – namely, the global birth rate is at replacement, all nations are trending downwards, and many 3rd World countries are trending towards replacement level also. Global population, instead of growing exponentially,  will instead hit 11 million around the year 2100 and will level off after that. However, I disagree with the scientist who made this video that world overpopulation is therefore no big deal. This is simply a Pollyanna view of things.

This is in HD and the real title is ‘don’t panic- the truth about population’. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x175qup_bbc-this-world-don-t-panic-the-truth-about-population-h264-1280×720-aac-rmac_news

There are two sources of some very crazy views about overpopulation, one from the Right and one from the Left. A third view held by elites and even US liberals, is not much nuts as it is just wrong. The fourth view, which is portrayed in the Steve kindly linked to, is the most rational anti-overpopulation view of all. While certainly positive and hopeful, this view founders on the shoals of blind optimism. . Hard rightwing economic liberals or Libertarians who believe that in order for capitalism to succeed, you need a population that grows forever. These nuts, one of whom is named Simon (some Jew, figures), offer the Netherlands as an example. As if the whole world could be as overpopulated as the Netherlands and still function! The other nutcases are on the Left. These loons hate all talk of overpopulation because it shuns aside the causes of poverty, instead blaming poverty on poor people “having too many kids!” This is true to some extent, but it glosses over the fact that overpopulation is indeed a horrific problem in the Third World for many reasons, not least of which is the destruction of ecosystems, species and whatnot. And many 3rd World countries are not the slightest bit overpopulated. For instance, Bolivia is not the slightest bit overpopulated. If anything, they are underpopulated. Bolivia is one of the most underpopulated places on Earth. Why are they so poor? Because income is distributed so poorly. Others have high incomes but distribute wealth very poorly. For instance, Mexico, with a PCI of $15,000/yr, is a relatively wealthy country. Many nations with PCI’s like that are nice, modern and pleasant places to live. Not 3rd World at all. In fact, $15,000/yr is approaching 1st World incomes. Yet recently up to 5 Mexico City’s slums are horrifying. There is so much shitting outside going on that there are tiny bits of toilet paper and shit floating around in the air of Mexico Shitty all the time. I call this phenomenon “shit air,” and I assume Mexico Shitty is not the only place where even the very air you breathe is literally full of shit. The argument here is, “Mexico has too many people!” Actually they do not. California is more crowded than Mexico. Anyway, at $15,000 PCI there should be plenty to go around. There is a third false view about the overpopulation problem. This view is not so much crazy as it is simply self-serving and false. One group (often Democratic Party liberals and liberal or elite types in other nations) likes to put all the blame for 3rd World poverty on poor people having too many babies. If you mention that Bolivia is actually underpopulated, you get a wild argument that, “They have too many kids!” Yet with such an underpopulated country, even a fairly high birthrate should not be a major problem. They do not wish to discuss distribution problems because presumably they don’t really support redistribution of income. The other group (the Leftists) says that overpopulation is not a problem and anyway, saying 3rd Worlders have too many babies is racist. They also say that focusing on overpopulation takes away focus on income maldistribution, which is true. The third group is simply insane. High birth rates? No problem, good for growth. Overpopulated countries? Cool, the better to grow your economy with, my dear. The whole world can easily be as overpopulated as the Netherlands with no issues whatsoever. This argument is so insane that there is no use refuting it. These arguments are a bit circular. Poor people tend to have lots of kids. Telling them to stop making kids doesn’t really work. They rely on kids for labor and social security when they get old because the state has no elderly pension program. Until you distribute income better, you will never get low population growth. And as you stabilize incomes the way the loony Leftists want, the population naturally stabilizes anyway as women who have stable lives prefer not to have lots of children. Really all four of these groups are just wrong.

  1. The whole world cannot live like the Netherlands. Explosive birth and growth rates are hardly good for growth. Look at Latin America, the Philippines, India and sub-Saharan Africa. Babies popping out all over the place. See any growth there? Of course not. Exploding population growth seems to coincide with mass poverty.
  2. Overpopulation is indeed a problem in many ways. If you are a blind Leftist and can’t see that, there’s no hope for you. You are simply an irrational ideologue.
  3. Maldistribution is indeed a problem and it needs to be fixed, whether you liberals like it or not. Income inequality is a terrible thing, and it causes a whole witches brew of problems in and of itself.
  4. It is very positive and hopeful that the world’s birth rate is at replacement level, the birth rate is trending down in most nations, and even 3rd World countries are now at or near replacement birth rates. Nevertheless, this rose colored glasses view glosses over the problem that 7.2 billion people is already far too many for our carrying capacity and is causing many problems in the world in and of itself to both human and nonhuman life and environments. If 7.2 billion is already disastrous, one can imagine how much worse 11 billion is going to be. This false view seems to be that “a positive trend equals a positive result.” That is very tempting thinking, but the more you think about it, the more you realize its fallacious nature.

On Dhimmitude and the Zakat

From here:

squeezethejuice (Muslim): There is nothing wrong or immoral with Jizya, b/c those paying also get benefits that even we Muslims are not entitled to. And should always be comparable in amount to the amount of zakat that Muslims are expected to donate; same order of magnitude. Among the benefits, for example, they are exempt from joining the Muslim army and potentially fighting defensive wars against their own Christian or Jewish brethren, even those who have committed acts of violence against innocent Muslims. What ISIS and the others don’t understand about Jizya is that we Muslims are bound to offer security & protection to those paying it, i.e. no threats or anything. And there are more ways to pay Jizya than just money. While the Jews are rich and will never be in this situation, poor Christians can offer their young daughters in marriage to Muslims, and of course we should consider their Jizya paid for the next 5 years if they have done so. Angemon (non-Muslim): Zakat is 2. And it’s not that non-Muslims were exempt from joining the Muslim army – the Janissaries were originally non-Muslims abducted from their families – because they had a special status. It’s that Muslims were too afraid of letting non-Muslim owning weapons (for fearing a rebellion) or letting them fight (especially when Muslims were fighting against he native trying to get their land back). Think about it: if non-Muslims were paying the same amount of tax as Muslims and not being drafted to the army them human nature would cause Muslims to convert out of Islam and not the other way around. When Muslim conquered a new land they were in minority so they couldn’t risk letting the conquered getting their hands on weapons and starting a rebellion. And can you imagine a Muslim leader, indoctrinated to believe that Jews and Christians are always scheming against Muslims, let’s say, Christians from a land he just conquered to fight against Christians who were trying to drive the Muslims out of their lands? Why would Christians being forced into battle against their own people side with the Muslims? No, non-Muslims were forbidden from owning weapons and fighting because Muslims feared for their safety. Would they need to fear for their safety if they treated non-Muslims fairly? Even if we were to overlook the jizya, there are plenty of degrading conditions in the pact of Umar that make it quite clear that non-Muslims in a Muslim state don’t have the same rights as Muslims. Heck, let’s let Abu Waleed explain by his own words how “wonderful” life is for non-Muslims in a Muslim state: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJM_fPlWFgI Besides the barrage of lies about jizya and the status of non-Muslims in a Muslim state, poor stj makes a remark about Jews that was probably straight out of a deleted scene from Borat. What do you think it would happen to a Jew who couldn’t afford to pay the jizya in the hands of someone who seems to think all Jews are rich? We know what happened to Kinana when he told Muhammad he had no treasure hidden. He was tortured with fire on his chest and, since he neared death without saying anything, Muhammad had him beheaded. And since Muhammad is the example Muslims are supposed to emulate… stj also seems to believe that it’s ok for poor Christians to sell their daughters into marriage with Muslim men as payment for the jizya. So much for “security and protection”, non-Muslim women in a Muslim state are to be used as chattel for the enjoyment of Muslim men. Notice that he said that “There is nothing wrong or immoral with Jizya” because those who pay it, even if they do so by selling their daughters into marriage, are entitled to the “benefits” explained by Abu Waleed in the above video, so he doesn’t see anything wrong or immoral with using non-Muslim women as currency. So remember, if you think it’s immoral to sell a girl into marriage to someone who will regard and treat her as subhuman trash you’re an “Islamophobe”.

Note the Youtube video above. That is exactly what dhimmitude is supposed to be under the Islamic state, and for centuries, non-Muslims probably had to live in dhimmitude. However, state-imposed dhimmitude has been dead since about 1900. Even in Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, it does not exist. I believe some form of dhimmitude was enforced when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It looks like ISIS is trying to impose some sort of dhimmitude on the Christians under its rule. The Shia are faring war worse. ISIS simply kills any Shia they can get their hands on. They do the same thing to any Alawite they can get their hands on in Syria. ISIS also kills Yezidis at random and on sight. Both Yezidis, the Shia and the Alawi are considered to be heretics. When ISIS took over the Druze region of southern Syria recently, a number of Druze villages were ordered to convert to Sunni Islam or die. The villages duly converted. In truth, Druze really isn’t even Islam, although it looks a bit like it. Some Christians have also been given the “convert or die” or the “convert, leave or die” option by ISIS in Syria. Since dhimmitude for all intents and purposes has not existed for 115 years, it seems a bit silly to rant and rave about how Muslims force all non-Muslims into dhimmitude when they are the majority because it is simply not true. However, these Al Qaeda radicals do indeed want to bring back dhimmitude is some form or another. Jihadis have raided Christian homes in the Dora region of southern Baghdad and ordered Christians to pay the zakat or be killed. After ISIS took over a town in Syria recently, they ordered all Christians to pay a zakat. The zakat was quite a hefty amount, and most of the Christians did not have it. As you can see in the video, the purpose of dhimmitude is to make life as a non-Muslim under Muslim rule so awful and humiliating that many non-Muslims simply convert to Islam to get out from under the oppression. All of the arguments for the zakat are false. It’s not a protection tax; instead, it is more like a Mafia protection racket. The non-Muslims are told to pay protection fees to the Muslim Mafia. If they don’t pay up, bad things are going to happen just like if you refuse the pay the Mafia’s protection tax. There is no humanitarian aspect to this tax. The Muslims have always lied about what happened in the countries they conquered. In most lands it was the same story. Gradually, over time, more and more non-Muslims converted to Islam, although Spain, the Balkans and India were exceptions. The Muslims say that more and more infidels simply embraced Islam over time, apparently because it is so groovy. That’s clearly not what happened. They were terrorized into converting via dhimmitude. Egypt has a large number of Coptic Christians. However, under Mubarak, they were not allowed to repair their churches when they started to fall down. This is one of the tenets of dhimmitude – Christians are not allowed to repair existing churches nor are they allowed to build new ones. Also the periodic terror that is inflicted on non-Muslims in many to most Muslim countries can be seen a form of dhimmitude.

Robert Stark Interviews Matt Forney on Bowden & Sade

Here. Topics include:

  • Jonathan Bowden’s Mad
  • The theme of teenage angst and alienation with modern society
  • Jonathan Bowden’s Sade
  • How the Marquis de Sade symbolizes the dark side of the Enlightenment
  • Sade’s honest nihilism versus the politically correct moralistic degeneracy of modern liberal society
  • How human nature becomes animalistic once it is stripped of morality
  • How Bowden labeled Andrea Dworkin a female de Sade
  • Parallels between Dworkin, Sade, and Elliot Rodger’s manifesto
  • Camille Paglia as a dissident feminist

Should prove to be pretty interesting. I am a friend of Matt’s from back when he was running his In Mala Fide blog. Should be interesting to hear his take on the Marquis de Sade.

Christianity Versus Islam in Europe

When an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident, and strengthened by common doctrines, it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter. Christopher Caldwell, Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West

The future does not look good at all across the pond.

Rightwing Lie: China Is a Free Market Capitalist Country

I’m not a libertarian, my politics is best described as social democrat. I’m just a realist that understands what a spectacular failure the communist project has been. “Mao built up and industrialized China.” In 1988, average wages in China were about 3,00 Yuan, now it is 47,00 Yuan. Today’s China owes more to Deng Xiaoping than it does to that maniac Mao. China liberalized its economy but didn’t liberalize its politics. It’s a state capitalist economy, not communist by any means. I have first hand experience; I’m part-owner of a mid-size factory that produces goods for my company here. And have you ever been to Shanghai? The closest thing to capitalist paradise.

4 The system is set up so that the market is a tool which can be manipulated by the state any way they wish. They can even shut down whole industries if they want to. The market serves society and operates at the behest of the state in contrast to capitalist countries were society serves the market and the state is beholden to the capitalists, not the other way around. In China the market is a tool for the development for the productive forces only, not a form of politics as it is in most capitalist countries. In China the state runs the country and the market just makes stuff, as opposed to capitalist countries were the market not only makes stuff but also runs the state. I know a number of Communists and Marxists who approve of what the CCP is doing in China. Even on Maoist boards, the CCP has a lot of supporters. That right there implies that there is something other than radical free market capitalism going on. Almost all of the banking is done by large state banks. The government spends a tremendous amount of money on society in general and lately on developing the rural areas. I believe that all schooling continues to be free. The Chinese state is completely non-imperialist overseas. In fact it has extremely fraternal relations with North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Laos and Vietnam. No purely capitalist state would ever have friendly relations with those countries. If China were a pure capitalist state, they would be attacking all of those countries like the US does. Much of the growth in the Chinese economy has actually taken place in enterprises that are actually formally run by labor collectives and small municipalities. Cities run enterprises within their boundaries and compete with other cities for workers. The better the enterprise does, the more money the workers get. Not exactly the sort of exploitation Marx discussed in the Labor Theory of Value. All state firms are formally owned by their workers due to a Mao era law. All of the income from the firm goes to the workers themselves, but they are generally required to hand back 9 Capitalists in the West are yelling all the time that they are at an unfair advantage with their Chinese competitors due massive state subsidy of their Chinese competitors. But wait, I thought state subsidy made firms less competitive? How much superior are the capitalist firms when state-subsidized firms regularly kick their asses? Although much of the collective system was dismantled in countryside when they got rid of the village communes (an action that has caused severe problems) they still have local irrigation boards that control much of the farmland infrastructure. Those small farmers do not make enough money to fund irrigation projects and they won’t cooperate on them anyway. So the state moved in, and the state spends a lot of money running all of the irrigation in agricultural China and it does a great job of it. You can see that the state plays a large role in Chinese agriculture. There are homeless in much of the capitalist world, but there are no homeless in China. It is illegal to be homeless. If you are homeless, the cops will pick you up and put you into a shelter right away. If you are not from the city, then they send you back to your home in the countryside. Obviously the state plays a huge role in preventing homelessness. Most housing is state housing. Due to the many rural people leaving to go the cities (which is causing a lot of problems) the state is spending a vast amount of money to improve the rural areas to keep the people on the farm. Does that sound like something a capitalist government would do? No capitalist government would ever spend a vast amount of money on its rural poor. There have been 200 million excess deaths in India because India chose the capitalist road as opposed to the various socialist roads the Chinese have taken. Malnutrition in India is 5 Chinese life expectancy was the same as India’s in 1949 and since then, Chinese live much longer than Indians. Those extra years add up to 3-4 million excess deaths occurring in India every year, purely due to India’s economic system. 6 That China surpasses India in all of these regards is not the result of Chinese capitalism. It is the pure result of Chinese socialism. Without the tremendous buildup of agricultural, educational and industrial bases of the economy, none of this growth could have taken place.

Rightwing Lie: Families and Charities Can Take Over for Social Programs

Jason Y writes:

It’s funny when the right wing bring up churches (They bring up this topic on Fox News.). They say the church does the social service in a libertarian society. Really? I’ve not seen it. Another laughable right wing argument, is that charity from private individuals, would make up for any deficits caused by the end of socialism.

The rightwingers say we should wipe out all social programs for various reasons. First they do not like their tax dollars going to poor people. Second, they do not like the very idea of these programs because they are government social programs so in some sense they are a form of socialism. Rightwingers are automatically opposed to all forms of socialism no matter what as part of their ideology. They don’t care if these programs work or not. They don’t believe in them for ideological reasons. Another reason is that in the US, the Republican Party wants to get rid of the idea that the government can help you in any way whatsoever. They hate the idea that some of these programs may actually work because they want everyone to hate government and think it does nothing good for you. If government doesn’t help you, you will want a minimal government on an ideological basis. Once good working government programs start making people happy and giving them what they want and need, people will start thinking that government is a good thing and that it helps me. They will come to like Big Government and government social programs and they do not people to like those things. Rightwingers say that private charities and families can replace all the social programs they are going to wipe out. They are either ignorant or lying when they say this because they must know it’s not true. These guys are pretty smart, so I think most of them must know it’s a lie. Wouldn’t it be cool if private charities and families could just cover all this stuff? We could wipe out a lot of stupid programs that just make White people vote Republican, save a lot of government money and lower our taxes. Yes sure private charities, families and whatnot can bridge the gap somewhat. They are correct on that. But they already do that anyway to a great extent. And the fact that charities and families are not always able to step up to the plate and help everyone is the reason why we need government programs. I can’t pay for all my medical care, and my family can’t either. You think some private charity is going to step in and pay for my medical needs? Forget it. So many people get no health care because they have no insurance. So many don’t get enough food. So many cannot afford a place to rent. So many are unable to work due to disabilities. Charities and families are not able to provide monthly living support cash, rent, food and health care to a lot of these folks, so that is why we have government medical aid (Medicaid), government housing (Section 8) and government food assistance (food stamps).

Does Radical Capitalism Work Anywhere?

Capitalist Caucasian wrote:

Whites thrive under capitalism. Asians thrive under both, and blacks cannot thrive on any economic system, but totalitarian, authoritarian communism does the job of not letting a black society burn to shit. Like black Muslims, for example. Or the fact that some of the smartest, well behaved nigs are Nation of Islam members.

Not really true. Look at the 19th Century White world in the beginnings of industrialization and tell me things were thriving. Or the Potato Famine. Look at how the gangster capitalists have looted the Ukraine since 1991. Latvia went radical free market and the economy collapsed worse than the Depression and all that remains is a hollowed out shell. Estonia lies in ruins. Greece and maybe Ireland are disaster areas. Europe was feudal until WW1, and Eastern Europe was feudal until WW2. The life expectancy in capitalist Albania in 1949 was 32 years. With the return to capitalism in Russia, there was an economic crash three times worse than the Great Depression, life expectancy collapsed, gangsters inside and outside the country stripped the place bare, and 15 million people died, more than Stalin killed. Radical capitalists came to power in Chile and Argentina, two White countries, ran the economies into the ground and murdered 15,000 people in Chile and 30,000 in Argentina. Capitalists caused all of these messes. Whites don’t do so great under radical capitalism either. Nobody does. The thriving White world you are talking about is mostly not run by Libertarian neoclassical free marketeers. Most of those countries are run by social democrats who call themselves socialists and are members of the Socialist International. Asians do well under well under capitalism? In 1949, China was ruined by war and warlords, the nation was under feudal rule, and life expectancy was 32 years. Not sure which Asians you are talking about? Filipinos and Indonesians do not seem to be doing well under radical capitalism. The only real hardcore free market Asian states are Hong Kong and Singapore. All the rest are either socialist to some degree or becoming that way. Blacks do pretty well under both Islam and Communism. At the very least, the resulting societies are orderly, well-behaved, calm and have little crime and chaos. Sometimes I think Black people need the “stern father” approach.

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.

About That Poverty-Crime Link…

Jason Y writes:

I live near West Virginia. Just wait in a few years, this place will be a ghetto. We got plenty of one parent homes, along with pill and meth abuse. The only thing keeping this ship from going down is all the people who aren’t doing drugs. In black inner cities, unfortunately, there aren’t enough good guys to outweigh the bad.

West Virginia is the second poorest state in the US. It also has the second lowest crime rate, and nearly all of the crime there is property crime. So much for that poverty-crime link. The catch? West Virginia is almost all White. The single parenthood thing is not good, but the White rate now is ~2 The drug thing in West Virginia has been going on for a very long time now. Most of it is pills – narcotics pills like Oxycontin. West Virginia in the past was way poorer than it was now. That place has always been Deliverance dirt poor. West Virginia ain’t turning into a ghetto any time soon. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

The Real World Consequences of Short Time Preference and High Impulsiveness

In high schoolers, time preference or ability to delay gratification correlates very well with academic achievement. Short time preference correlates with poor grades, increased drug use and violent behavior. Long time preference correlates with good grades, low rates of drug use and low rates of violent behavior. Impulsiveness is the same. Short time preference correlates very well with impulsiveness. The longer your time preference, the lower your impulsiveness. Impulsiveness also correlates with poor grades, increased drug use and violate. Low impulsiveness or reactivity correlates well with good grades, lower rates of drug use and less violent behavior. Tests of criminals in prison have shown that criminals imprisoned for violent offenses have shorter time preference than those in for nonviolent offenses. Time preference or ability to delay gratification is being studied like crazy especially in the context of secondary education. Short time preference along with impulsiveness are seen as serious societal problems in this context. Go read the journal papers out there. Researchers are really worried about this stuff. Fact of the matter is that short time preference and impulsivity correlate very well with delinquent behaviors in teenagers. Short time preference and heightened impulsiveness are not nonsense issues that we should laugh off, praise or not care about. It is starting to become apparent that both of these traits are tied to major problems in modern society. People on this blog are praising short time preference or saying it doesn’t matter. Tell you what? Which neighborhood would you rather live in? One where: A. folks are highly impulsive and have short time preferences or one where B. people have low impulsivity and long time preferences? I have lived in both of these type of neighborhoods and trust me Hood B is vastly better than Hood A. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

New Race Realist Book Out

And it is apparently written by a science journalist too. The view of it is by the horrific Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve was an excellent book although it was coming from a far right point of view. Murray’s view is that since some races are less intelligent and capable than other races, let’s cut them off of all the social programs! What the heck? If that is true, and in fact it is true that at the moment some races are on average less intelligent and capable of intellectual tasks than other races, it actually increases the case for welfare instead of decreasing it! Can’t you reactionaries see that? If all the races are equal, then that decreases the case for social programs because it implies that people are poor and it’s all their fault that they are impoverished. But if they are permanently less intelligent and they had nothing to do with this fact, then it’s not their fault that they ended up poor? See? Not only that, but we have a much better case for an extremely unequal society if all the races are equal. It they are all equal, then the high achievers deserve every nickel that they earned since they deserve at as they only got it via hard work and whatnot. On the other hand, equality implies that those who are losing in the money race are doing so due to the their own poor choices: it’s their own damn fault! Inequality between the races means that the monetary achievements and wealth of high achieving races are completely undeserved as they only got it by lucking out in the genetic lottery. So we should redistribute their undeserved gains to the lower achieving races who do not deserve their fate of falling behind. This is really is so obvious, but 9 About the book, the poor sod who wrote what looks like an excellent volume is about to creamed and smeared all over US society. I feel for him. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Do Blacks Commit Lots of Crime Because They Are Poor?

Johan Mayer writes:

As to violence, could you point me to studies that state that after accounting for neighborhood and SES, that the white/black violent crime rate continues? Sorry, to be clear, the difference between black and white crime rate?

Well West Virginia is the poorest state in the US and it has the second lowest crime rate in the country. It’s almost 10 Trinidad and Tobago has an average PCI of $20,000/year, yet they have an extremely high violent crime and homicide rate. $20,000/year is a middle-income country. Bottom line is Black people don’t commit tons of crime because they are poor. They commit tons of crime mostly because they are Black. On the other hand, I believe that a higher SES Black neighborhood would have lower crime than a low SES Black neighborhood. The worst behavior of all is not such Blacks and Hispanics per se, but poor Blacks and poor Hispanics. It’s like a double whammy. The Black crime rate is anywhere from 6-9 times higher than the White crime rate. The homicide rate is 8-9 times higher and the rape rate is 6 times higher. There are some crimes such as fraud where the ratio is not as high, but even with fraud, the Black rate is 2X the White rate. Blacks are also 2X likely to be serial killers and child molesters as Whites. There is not a single crime that Whites commit at a higher rate than Blacks, not a one.

Possible Environmental Factors in the Black IQ

Johan Mayer writes:

Have you tried correlating the IQ scores with local lead poisoning? The main gains from the Flynn effect ended by the late 1970s (birth years), suggesting that fuel lead didn’t play a role (as both whites and blacks would experience higher intelligence, thus raising the intelligence that 100 represents—rather, it was probably the elimination of malnutrition), and that some of the remaining gap should arise from differential lead paint. The calculation might look as follows: Deficit = sum(over n) Distribution of lead level(n) x IQ_deficit_from_lead(n)for each neighborhood. Add the deficit to the mean IQ calculated from the composition of the neighborhood, then re-estimate the (before lead) IQ of each group, fitting to composition and reevaluated IQ; re-normalize the black IQ to the white (raised) IQ. Elevated black blood lead (much more common than elevated white blood lead) suggests that at least another 3 IQ points can be gained for blacks on that count, using Detroit data. I did a similar calculation for national IQ and malnutrition (using 1991 data), on the basis that malnutrition knocks off about a standard deviation of IQ (15 points, although I also found a source that claimed 11), multiplying by the malnourished proportion of the population. This pushes sub-Saharan African National IQ to the range upper 60’s to upper 70’s. Black African skin bleaching tends to be between 30 and 7 African leaded fuel use will also greatly harm urban populations (who will dominate National IQ estimates), although they were phased out by 2006; the time to affect primary schools is about nine years, although the IQ estimates are based on the the 90’s. South Africa should suffer 7 points, and Nigeria probably the same. Thus the pre-environmental expected IQ of blacks is well within a standard deviation of whites. East Asian cities are often near coasts, and historically held much smaller portions of their respective countries’ populations, as elsewhere. Thus their early (for the third world) industrialization would tend to have a lower impact on IQ. Lead has been studied, and childhood lead is substantially lower than adult lead, which may account for much of the national IQ achievement of Chinese versus other societies; child rearing practices that avoid putting unknown objects in the mouth might play a role, but then again, given the relatively small family sizes and involvement of grandparents, more supervision might also play a role. As to the topic of your post, another possible cause for the lack of black achievement considering IQ is racism.

The author makes a strong case that US Black IQ’s can increase 3 points and African Black IQ’s can increase 10 points due to environmental interventions. This is certainly plausible. I have no problems with any of these environmental efforts. All the power to them. A gain of even 3 IQ points for Detroit Blacks would be a fantastic thing indeed. A 10-point IQ gain for African Blacks would be a great thing for them and for Africa as a whole. Many of Africa’s most serious problems would surely ameliorate with a 10-point IQ gain. An IQ in the upper 70’s would put Africa on a par with the IQ’s of some Gulf states such as Qatar that have created highly evolved civilizations. However, even US Blacks with IQ’s a full 9 points higher than the Qataris fail miserably at creating the highly evolved society that the Qataris created. One argument is that Qatar only exists in its current form due to oil wealth. Give Black people oil wealth, and they will create a Qatar. However, this has not happened in Africa. Nigeria has tremendous oil wealth, and it is one of the evil and diabolically failed states on Earth. Nearly all of the wealth has been stolen by a tiny elite and the rest of the population flounders in monstrous poverty. Gabon is a much better case, and oil wealth has allowed them to have a $20,000 per capita income. Gabon is  basically a middle income country. However, almost all of the wealth has been stolen by a tiny elite, ~5 Give a Black society money, and the most cruel and sociopathic Blacks will steal almost all of it for a small elite group, leaving the vast majority of the population to suffer in terrible poverty (the African model). Alternatively, give another Black society money, and income will be much better distributed, but the most cruel and sociopathic Blacks will create in monstrous violent crime rate, destabilizing a prosperous society. The African wealth distribution style is also seen in Haiti and was seen until the 1960’s in the Dominican Republic. The rest of the Caribbean has a much more equitable distribution system. Trinidad and Tobago has a PCI or $20,000/yr due to oil wealth, but they have one of the highest violent crime and homicide rates on Earth. A Trinidadian woman I spoke to said it was because local young men had imported gang culture from the US, and it was now spread all through the country. Still, a country with a $20,000 PCI and that high of a homicide rate nearly qualifies as something like a failed state right there, at least on that one variable. Although we have shown that Blacks can create wealthy societies (at least in the case of oil), those societies show significant problems either in democratization or extremely high violent crime. In the African model, a tiny elite will steal all the oil wealth and leave most of the people scrounging for scraps. In the Caribbean model, wealth will be distributed much better, but society will still be saddled with a horrific violent crime rate. As the comparison with Qatar and the US shows, there is a lot more holding Black people back than just a low IQ. With an IQ of ~83, the Arabs can create Dubai, along with a highly civilized state with a shockingly low crime rate. With an IQ of 87, US Blacks still cannot create anything like Dubai even with an IQ advantage. So obviously the problems of Black people extend beyond IQ, and a rising Black IQ is not a cure-all. What these problems are is unknown, but there appear to be genetic factors predisposing Blacks to greater crime and antisociality. What these factors are is unknown, but I am convinced that they exist. Antisociality will create thieving elites in Africa and Caribbean societies with better income distribution but extremely high violent crime rates. Getting a handle around Black problems involves not only raising Black IQ but dealing conclusively with whatever it is that is crimogenic or psychopathogenic in Black biology or Black genes. Once IQ is high enough though, whatever Black criminogenic issues are involved tend to wash out. I have read that setting Black IQ at ~113, the Black and White crime rates are equal. High intelligence often washes out criminal tendencies due to greater forward thinking, possibly greater empathy, guilt and worry and lessened impulsiveness. As IQ rises in any race of humans, empathy, guilt and worry tend to rise and impulsiveness tends to decline. I do not agree that racism affects Black IQ scores very much. Instead, moving from a non-racist country (Jamaica) to a racist country (the UK) results in a gain of up to 14  IQ points in the second generation. Blacks living in “highly racist” White societies typically have IQ’s ~13-18 points higher than Blacks living in non-racist societies such as the Caribbean and Africa. Skin bleaching products sold in the US probably do not have much mercury in them.

The Future of Caste in India

Dota writes:

Caste based occupations may lose relevance in our era, but not the institution of caste itself. Caste is the most fundamental facet of an individual’s identity as individualism is non existent in Indian culture. As long as the majority of Indians select for caste when mating, the institution will endure. And as caste has so badly damaged the Indian’s empathy and consideration for his fellow man (taken for granted in the west) that even if caste were to vanish, it wouldn’t follow that Indians would wake up the next day and automatically become law abiding, civic minded, and compassionate people. Doesn’t work that way.

This is my feeling about caste. It is simply not going to go away. I can give you as an example the Punjabi Sikhs I know around here. Keep in mind that these are Sikhs, and Sikhs supposedly are not allowed to practice caste by their religion. Nevertheless, they become contaminated by Hindu society and now almost all of them practice it. Only one man told me that he did not practice caste. All of the others, with maybe one exception, practiced caste. How could I tell? I told before, I can read minds. When I bring up caste, they do not say so outright, but I can tell by how they are talking about the subject that they practice caste, they are proud of it, and they are never going to give it up, ever. They act like they will defend til the end. A lot of them seem to know it’s wrong, too. They know it’s wrong, but they don’t care. I haven’t asked around, but I assume that almost all Punjabis in the US are high caste. High caste Indians ferociously defend caste and act like they will fight to the death to keep it. As I have never met any lower caste Punjabis or even Hindus, I do not know how lower castes feel about caste, whether they defend it the way the high castes do. Caste gives high caste people a built in lock on the good life. Power does not give up without a fight, as Lenin said. The people with the power, the high castes, will not unilaterally disarm and give up their power (their caste is their power) voluntarily. The first people to renounce caste will be those who gain nothing from it, the low castes. The high castes will be the last to go. Further, as Dota notes, millennia of caste has so damaged the Indian’s sense of empathy and the common good that even if caste subsides, the cruelty, callousness, lack of empathy and lack of communitarian feeling that callousness, radical individualism, survivalism, opportunism, amorality, corruption and a scofflaw attitude towards laws and rules (the glue that holds the society of men together) will continue apace.

How Long Will Caste Last?

Steve writes:

The two were brothers, and yeah their parents care but they don’t care at all. Isn’t that interesting? The parents really care, and just one generation later and they don’t care at all. What about in three more generations when there is no first generation influence? Personally, I’m not sure they will even be Hindu. As for when it will die out in India. Caste is a rural, pre-modern social phenomenon. In cities, lots of people will enter jobs and professions that don’t match their caste. People will be forced to mingle more. Knowing human beings, people will fall in love and date outside their caste. There will be a gradual weakening of caste plus a significant influence from outside India as more Indians come online. People will become more open minded. As there is very little biological basis for caste, there is less reason for people to maintain its importance. There will probably be popular ‘liberal’ type of movements against it when India is more developed. It basically makes no sense and it will be hard to make an argument in favor of it. It will last longer in rural areas but what happens in the cities will gradually spread to rural areas. I might be wrong but I don’t see caste lasting on a time scale of one or two hundred years.

India has existed for 66 years. Has caste died out in that time? How many Indians now are marrying outside their caste? Look at all these Indian Hindu monsters who came to this blog. How many of them spoke against caste or denounced it? Basically not even a single one except maybe ILOR. High caste Indians don’t want to give up caste! Is caste dying out in Indian cities? Word is that 10 I have spoken to quite a few Sikhs around here, and almost all of them practice caste. If they come from India, they practice caste, period. They defend it, and they don’t want to give it up. 10 Bottom line is about 10 As far as the second generation goes, I have no idea. They are pretty Americanized.

Chomsky on India

Here. What about India baffles you the most?

I have followed India carefully, and have been there a number of times. It is an exciting country in many ways with its rich culture. But what is really striking to me about India, much more than most other countries I have been to, is the indifference of privileged sectors to the misery of others. You walk through Delhi and cannot miss it, but people just don’t seem to see it. Everyone is talking about ‘Shining India’ and yet people are starving. I had an interesting experience with this once. I was in a car in Delhi and with me was (activist) Aruna Roy, and we were driving towards a demonstration. And I noticed that she wasn’t looking outside the window of the car. I asked her why. She said, “If you live in India, you just can’t look outside the window. Because if you do, you’d rather commit suicide. It’s too horrible. So you just don’t look.” So people don’t look, they put themselves in a bubble and then don’t see it. And those words are from somebody who has devoted her life to the lives of the poor, and you can see why she said that — the misery and the oppression are so striking, much worse than in any country I have ever seen. And it is so dramatic. There is a lot of talk about how India is slated to be a major power, and I can’t believe it, with all its internal problems; China too for that matter, but less so. When my wife and I went to India a couple of years ago, my friend Iqbal Ahmed had told me that I would discover that the press in Pakistan is much more open and free than the press in India. I did not believe him first but when I looked into it, he explained, “The English language press in Pakistan is for you and your friends, and the government just lets them say whatever they want, because there are so few of them to cater to, just a couple of hundred thousand people.”

"Illegals Turning Our Towns into Cesspools"

Selma’s Crime Rate Highest in County

By Doug Hoagland dhoagland@selmaenterprise.com

Of all the cities in Fresno County, Selma ranked first in crime during 2010. At least that’s what one measuring stick used by the FBI shows. Citizens, city council members and police in Selma have been talking for months about a rise in crime. Some might see the FBI statistics as confirmation of an alarming trend in the city. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report — which comes out every year — shows that Selma had the highest crime rate per 100,000 population in 2010. Fresno was second, Kerman was third, Sanger was fourth and Parlier was fifth — rounding out the Top Five. The list then goes: Mendota, Kingsburg, Clovis, Coalinga, Firebaugh, Reedley, Fowler and Huron. Figures were not available for Orange Cove and San Joaquin. ———————————————————————————————————————————– When one reads the rest of the crime report article, the Selma Chief of Police is asked to cite the cause for the crime rate. He responds: “I really don’t know”. “I really don’t know”…..that response says so much about how California has capitulated to a degree of political correctness, derived from the realization that illegal immigrant invaders have saturated the entire state of California…..to the extent that is now impossible for a public official to utter the truth about the causative factors for soaring crime rates throughout the state. This state of denial is compounded by the need for public officials to continue coddling Hispanics “legalized through past amnesties” who support the illegal invasion as some misguided effort to boost Hispanic political power. This, despite the fact that they are all fowling the cesspool in which they live. Most of the white and black contingent of “legal” residents are now cowards; too fearful to speak out less they offend a Hispanic acquaintance. Fair enough: let them dwell in the squalor of illegal infestation. They have earned it. They have become so blinded to it that they don’t realize that a high quality of life exists elsewhere. Being cowards, they have adopted the practice of looking the other way at the graffiti, the gang activity, the soaring crime, the degradation of their children’s schools. Three decades ago, before past amnesties opened the flood gates to illegal criminals, all of the farming communities mentioned in this report were thriving small towns with low crime rates and an extremely pleasing quality of life. Now, every single one of these once fine little towns are cesspools of crime, infested with drug smugglers, anchor baby welfare trolls, where decent people can no longer walk the streets at night. According to the latest census report Selma is, like most of California’s invaded cities, 78 percent Hispanic….and likely half of them illegal. Also cited in this same report is the tragic fact that the local jails are so full these criminals must be turned out early to make way for the next fresh batch of arrestees. The Chief of Police lamented the fact that the “criminal early out” program allows the newly released criminals to go out and commit more crime. During my entire 22-year Air Force career I always dreamed of retiring to my sedate and peaceful little town where I grew up. Then I came home, took a look around, saw the gangsters and the prolific graffiti that graces every street in town and decided to dwell elsewhere. California is now a lost cause. It’s citizens have neither the will nor the backbone to drive the illegals out. For those of you who feel your town is immune from the ravages of illegal immigration, think again. Illegals are spreading across the U.S. in unprecedented numbers now. You have a chance to stop it before you are infested. The choice is yours. Write your Senators and Congressman and the President and tell them you oppose illegal immigration in any form. Stand strong against it…or be prepared to live in a cesspool.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)