November 28, 2015 WP: Virginia adds insult to the injury of eugenics Luke Ford No sacred cows.

WP: Virginia adds insult to the injury of eugenics

Posted on November 28, 2015 by Luke Ford

FORMER VIRGINIA governor Mark R. Warner (D), now a U.S. senator, took a bold step in 2002 when he became the nation’s first governor to apologize formally for the state’s unspeakably cruel, half-century-long program of forced sterilizations — surgical procedures that deprived as many as 8,000 people of the ability to conceive children. Unfortunately, Virginia, which sterilized more of its citizens than any state but California, then dropped the ball, failing to follow up by making significant reparations or even trying to locate and alert surviving victims.
The victims in Virginia, as with nearly 60,000 others in 31 other states, were men, women, black and white, all deemed by the state as genetically deficient in some way — mentally ill, epileptic or “feebleminded,” in the parlance of the 1920s and ’30s, when the program was at full throttle. In many cases, the men and boys who underwent castrations or vasectomies, and the women and girls whose fallopian tubes or ovaries were removed, were not aware of what had been done to them, let alone the consequences of procedures carried out without their consent — all in the pseudo-scientific cause of enhancing the nation’s genetic stock.

Notice how the Post doesn’t bother making a case against eugenics. It just hurls slurs.

America practiced eugenics much more than Nazi Germany.

Comments at WP:

* The U.S.Supreme Court approved of this practice with the opinion written by the liberal justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

* Why is it that aborting babies who test positive for Down Syndrome is never referred to as eugenics (which is precisely what it is), but is defended with nice-sounding words like “choice”, “self-determination” and “reproductive freedom”?

If the editorial board of this paper wants to pretend to be against eugenics and strike a pose, fine–but it’s utter hypocrisy.

* Another dredged up outrage to fume about–as Shelley once wrote, “I faint, I fail.”

* Eugenics was a Progressive initiative. The seminal case, Buck v. Bell (1927), was hailed by Progressives as a great victory.

The decision was 8-1, and the lone dissenter was Pierce Butler, then the only Catholic on the Court. Holmes even criticized Butler for letting his religion influence his decision not to join Holmes’s majority opinion.

* Now IVF clinics practice eugenics every day. And their customers love it.

From American Renaissance in 2015:

Eugenics has a bad name. Over the past 70 years, its opponents have linked it to racism and even genocide, and some Christians call it a blasphemous attempt to improve on God’s creation. In its heyday in the 1920s, however, eugenics was developed by leading biologists, including the founders of modern genetics. Their work was promoted and often put into policy by eminent statesmen and intellectuals. Eugenics was supported by a broad coalition, including progressives and socialists. On the Right, the Nazis supported it as well, but it is an absurd caricature to call it “Nazi science.”

The basic principles of heredity on which eugenics was based have not changed. It is our approach to science–and our rejection of it–that have supposedly discredited eugenics. In fact, dramatic advances in genetic engineering are constantly opening up new possibilities for modern eugenics.

People are eugenicists by instinct: They want to mate with healthy partners who show signs of intelligence and other desirable traits. Legal prohibitions against incest, meant to reduce the chance of inbreeding, go back at least as far as the Code of Hammurabi–c. 1750 BC–and the Old Testament. Plato and Aristotle promoted eugenic measures, and every society that domesticated livestock discovered the importance of selective breeding.

Even in today’s harshly anti-scientific atmosphere, parents frequently practice eugenics even though they never use the word. People with certain conditions seek genetic counseling in the hope of avoiding passing on genetic diseases to their children. Amniocentesis, or genetic sampling of the fetus, is a common procedure that has the same goal. When infertile couples go to sperm banks or seek eggs, they look for positive qualities in donors.

Not even the most militant political correctness has been able to root out popular understanding of certain basic truths: Parents pass on their traits to their children, and it is foolish to pretend they don’t.

The science of eugenics

It was Francis Galton who coined the Greek-derived term “eugenics,” meaning well born or good breeding. In Hereditary Genius (1869), he argued that mental abilities, just like physical features, are heritable. Through an analysis of the pedigrees of eminent families in England, he concluded that talent does not occur randomly, but instead runs in the families. Therefore, it would be possible, through arranged marriages, to breed people with desirable traits such as good health, intelligence, and noble character. A society of such individuals would far surpass the average abilities of the original population.

Until the Industrial Revolution, healthy and eugenic fertility was the rule in Europe, with the most capable people having the most children. In England in the 1620s, for example, the middle classes had 4.4 children per woman compared to 2.1 for the working class. There were no antibiotics or advanced lifesaving medicine, so less healthy people often died before they could reproduce.

Mass production of rubber condoms by Goodyear in 1860 started the era of affordable and efficient birth control. Middle and upper classes quickly adopted this novelty, while lower classes did not, thus ending the age-old correlation between high social class and larger families.

The First World War was a horrific slaughter of some of Europe’s best men. Indeed, IQ testing was introduced in the army in part to decrease the chances of using men of ability as cannon fodder. After the Second World War, eugenics became widely associated with Nazi atrocities, and by the 1960s and ’70s it was almost universally rejected.

However, it is dangerous to reject eugenics. Without it we have dysgenics, or the spread of less desirable traits, and the ability to maintain civilization declines. Here are some of the most sobering trends.

It is generally accepted that for a population to maintain its numbers, every woman must have an average of 2.2 children. The industrialized nations of Asia and Europe, which have the highest-IQ populations, have the lowest birth rates and are not reproducing themselves: 1.4 births per woman in Japan, 1.25 in South Korea, 1.6 in Russia and Canada, 1.44 in Germany and Italy, etc. The highest birth rates are in the most impoverished countries of Africa: Niger–6.76, Mali, Burundi, and Somalia–6, Burkina Faso–5.86, Angola–5.37, Ethiopia–5.15, Zambia–5.72, Uganda–5.98, etc.

At the same time, in industrialized countries modern medicine have greatly relaxed the environmental pressure that winnows out defects, which increases the frequency of heritable diseases. Also, parents are having children at increasingly later ages, which raises the number of spontaneous mutations–especially in sperm but also in eggs–which are then introduced into a child’s genome. Chemicals used in consumer products, radiation, and radio-wave-emitting devices could also contribute to higher mutation rates.

Contraception continues its dysgenic effect, not only because high-IQ groups have fewer children but because they have children at later ages, thus further decreasing their relative contribution to the gene pool. Because IQ is estimated to be 80 percent heritable, this skew lowers the average IQ in each successive generation. Welfare also encourages lower-IQ groups to have more children.

Finally, emigration from poor to rich countries probably lowers the average intelligence of both the sending and receiving countries. African emigrants, for example, are often of above-average ability in their home countries, but still bring down the average in Europe or America.

The combination of all these factors is highly damaging.

Genetic load

One of the key concepts in evolution is genetic load. This is the number of damaging and even potentially lethal alleles (gene variants) in the gene pool. Spontaneous–or de novo–mutations contribute to genetic load. In order to keep the load stable, the rate of such mutations must not exceed the rate at which they are eliminated–which happens when the person carrying them fails to reproduce. De novo mutations are not alleles passed on in the usual manner from parent to child; they are simply genetic copying errors.

Every child usually gets 60 to 80 de novo mutations. The majority are neutral; only two or three can potentially disrupt gene functions. Most of the deleterious variants are recessive, which means that they cause damage only in unusual cases, in which a child inherits the same mutation from both parents. Still, a de novo mutation at the wrong spot can be devastating.

Favorable mutations are exceedingly rare. The human genome has evolved through chance mutation for millions of years; at this point, a copying error is much more likely to upset a carefully evolved structure rather than improve it. These errors come in various types with specialized names–copy number variations, chromosomal deletions, microsatellite expansion or contraction, aberrant methylation, etc.–and their cumulative effect compromises fitness.

The number of de novo mutations a child gets depends largely on the father’s age; each additional year of father’s age contributes an average of two to three more such mutations. Although older mothers are known to contribute chromosomal abnormalities, such as trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), 80 percent of de novo mutations come from the father. These mutations are passed down to succeeding generations. There will be a significant accumulation of genetic load as more and more generations live under conditions of relaxed genetic pressure in which a high percentage of the population succeeds in reproducing.

Medicine is one of the greatest contributors to genetic load, because it blocks purifying selection. The left-hand graph shows how much modern medicine and public health has reduced death rates (in Australia), especially in the first few years of life. Although it may seem harsh to say so, early deaths kept genetic load in balance by removing deleterious alleles from the gene pool. According to one study, if approximately 16 percent of each generation fails to reproduce, that removes enough de novo mutations to maintain balance.

However, now that so many more people are surviving to child-bearing age, many unfavorable conditions are increasing. Gene pool deterioration is most obvious in heritable conditions that were once fatal but now are not. For example, before the development of insulin treatment, babies born with Type I diabetes died before reaching maturity, whereas now they can survive and have children. In many countries, Type I diabetes is increasing at roughly 5 percent a year, and in Finland, it increased 338 percent over a 32-year period in children ages one to four. These rates are clearly far more rapid than genetic change in the population, so such increases appear to be the result of a combination of increased genetic load and little-understood environmental factors.

In the distant past, deafness could have been a lethal condition if it meant an inability to hear an approaching predator. More recently, it made it difficult to find a spouse. Now, advanced countries have special schools for deaf people where they meet and marry other deaf people. This further propagates undesirable alleles.

Asthma and allergies do not usually kill people, but before the development of modern treatments, they undoubtedly reduced reproductive success. Now, they need not interfere with reproduction, and their incidence is rising. Asthma has at least tripled over the past 25 years, and now affects more than 22 million Americans. Allergies are also increasing, with such things as peanut allergies–virtually unheard of 50 years ago–appearing in day care centers and schools. Both asthma and allergies are heritable.

A rigorous investigation by the Mayo Clinic found that the incidence of celiac disease (CD) has increased 450 percent in the United States since 1950. CD is highly heritable, and now affects one in 133 Americans (0.75 percent). Its incidence continues to grow, and people with the condition must avoid food with gluten. The Mayo Clinic found that if they were unaware of their condition they were four times more likely than those without it to die over a 45-year period.

Twin studies have shown that autism is highly heritable, and its frequency in the United States has increased 600 percent since mid-’70s. Half of this growth is attributed to better diagnosis and awareness of the condition; the other half remains a mystery. People have proposed various environmental causes but there is strong evidence that accumulated genetic load is partly responsible: One study suggests that 10 percent of cases are due to de novo variants.

Similarly, recent research has found that the number of genes expressed in the brain is compromised by de novo mutations in people with autism, and that older parents are more likely to have autistic children. It may be that autism is increasing more rapidly than the accumulation of genetic load because of the highly interconnected nature of the genes that affect the brain. It may be that the number of mutations above a certain threshold can cause the entire neuronal network to function abnormally, thus leading to autism and possibly other neurological conditions.

The average IQ of autistic individuals is around 70, which means that, in varying degree, half suffer from what is considered intellectual disability (ID). More than 3.5 million Americans have some form of autism spectrum disorder. The average cost of lifelong support for an autistic person with ID is reported to be $2.4 million, and $1.4 million for those with IQs over 70. The annual cost of autism in the US is reported to be $236-262 billion.

Genetic load could build up to the point that medicine cannot cope with the associated health compromises. This is especially likely for neurological conditions, such as autism, for which there is no known treatment. Likewise, the appearance of “superbugs” that have evolved immunity to all common antibiotics is a serious potential threat. If drug-resistant bacteria become common, our immune systems will have to combat these pathogens unaided, which was the rule before the discovery of antibiotics.

Accumulation of genetic load could have similar results. If medicine is unable to keep up with the rising genetic load, the number of people who die before reproductive age will start rising again. This would happen even with the medicine functioning at a very high level. In other words, purifying selection will resume so as to prevent further load accumulation.

If, in the future, there is a failure of the medical system or in the welfare policies that make medicine available to people who cannot afford it, there could be a devastating jump in the number of people of all ages who die.

In China and Russia in the 19th century, as many as half of all babies died before adolescence. Imagine genetic load accumulating to the point that death rates returned to that level (16 to 20 percent would be a theoretical minimum) despite modern medicine. Then imagine a societal collapse that eliminates modern medicine or sharply limits its availability.

This nightmare vision is not new. Nobel Prize winner Hermann J. Muller is his famous 1950 paper “Our Load of Mutations” argued that a steady accumulation of genetic load will lead to immense suffering for future generations. In his view, the only way to eliminate mutations was through “rationally directed guidance of reproduction.” He thought “abstention from reproduction” was far more desirable than the eventual alternative: “failure in a struggle for existence.”

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off

Pride Vs Denial About Heritage

Posted on November 28, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comment: I don’t think it’s healthy to reject half of your heritage. Be proud of Jewish achievement but acknowledge Jewish vices and past sins without obsessing about them too much. Just as I think for Germans there’s a golden middle between holocaust denial and full-blown self-hatred, similarly I think there should be a golden middle for Jews. You shouldn’t always apologise for what Jews did or are doing, nor should you hate a tribe which is yours on your parents’ side, but there’s no reason to deny that a lot of bad things were done by Jews or, indeed, is being done at this very moment.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off

Young, Male, and Single

Posted on November 28, 2015 by Luke Ford

Anthropologist Peter Frost writes: It sucks being young, male, and single. Don’t think so? Go to the Interactive Singles Map of the United States and see how it looks for the 20 to 39 age group. Almost everywhere single men outnumber single women.

And the real picture is worse. For one thing, the imbalance is greater among singles without children. This is not a trivial factor, since single mothers are “single” only in the sense of being available for sexual relations. They are still raising offspring from a previous relationship and many are not interested in having more children.

Then there’s polygamy—or “polyamory,” to use the preferred term—where a minority of men controls sexual access to a larger number of women. If we compare the 1940-1949 and 1970-1979 cohorts of American adults, we find an increase in the number of median lifetime partners from 2.6 to 5.3 among women and from 6.7 to 8.8 among men (Liu et al., 2015). Because this figure is more variable for men than for women, young women are more likely to be sexually active than young men. This is crudely seen in infection rates for chlamydia—the most common sexually transmitted disease. Hispanic Americans still show the traditional pattern of greater sexual activity among men than among women, the rates being 7.24% of men and 4.42% of women. White Americans display the reverse: 1.38% of men and 2.52% of women (Miller et al., 2004).

Finally, there’s a racial angle. This sex ratio is more skewed among White Americans than among African Americans, mainly because the latter have a lower sex ratio at birth and a higher death rate among young men.

It’s hard to avoid concluding that a lot of young white men are shut out of the marriage market … or any kind of heterosexual relationship. This wife shortage was once thought to be temporary, being due to baby-boomer men getting divorced and marrying younger women from the smaller “baby bust” cohort. With time, they would get too old to compete with young men, and the problem should resolve itself.

Today, the crest of the baby boom is entering the seventh decade of life, yet the update to the Interactive Singles Map shows no change to the gender imbalance. So what gives? It appears that demographers have focused too much on the baby-boomer effect and not enough on other factors that matter just as much and, more importantly, show no signs of going away. These factors can be summarized as follows.

Re-entry of older men into the mate market

We have a mate market where 20 to 50 year old men are competing for 20 to 40 year old women. That in itself is nothing new. But something else is.

The baby boom eclipsed an equally important but longer-term trend: more and more men are living past the age of 40. With or without the baby boom, we’ll still see large numbers of older men getting divorced and marrying younger women. The cause isn’t just liberal divorce laws. It’s also the fact we have far more older guys out there as a proportion of the population.

Sure, we will also see younger men pairing up with “cougars” but there are limits to that option, as noted in a New Zealand study:

The male partner may want to partner up with someone younger or have children, which may not be possible with an older woman (for physical reasons or because she chooses not to have (more) children). The younger male partner may not want to become a step-father to existing children. Research has shown that childbearing can be the ultimate deal breaker in this kind of relationship. (Lawton and Callister, 2010)

Persistence of the imbalanced sex ratio at birth

About 105 males are born for every 100 females among people of European origin. This sex ratio used to decline to parity during childhood because of higher infantile mortality among boys. It then declined even farther in early adulthood because of war, industrial accidents, and other hazards. This isn’t the distant past. If you talk with women who came of age in the postwar era, they will tell you about their fears of remaining single past the age of thirty. At that age, very few single men were left to go around.

Well, things have changed. The skewed sex ratio at birth is now persisting well into adulthood, thanks to modern medicine and the relative peace that has prevailed since 1945. Women begin to outnumber men only in the 35-39 age group in the United States and in the 40-44 age group in the United Kingdom.

Equalization of male and female same-sex preference

Historically, same-sex preference was more common among men than among women. This gender gap appears to be closing, according to a recent study:

The percent distributions were quite similar for men and women; however, a higher percentage of men identified as gay (1.8%) compared with women who identified as gay/lesbian (1.4%), and a higher percentage of women identified as bisexual (0.9%) compared with men (0.4%). (CDCP, 2014, p. 5)

Disparities in outmarriage

At present, there are more White American women outmarrying than White American men, particularly in younger age groups. This disparity is mainly in marriages with African American men, there being no gender difference in marriages with Hispanic Americans and the reverse gender difference in marriages with Asian Americans (Jacobs and Labov, 2002; Passel et al., 2010). Overall, this factor further skews the ratio of young single men to young single women in the White American community.

This disparity isn’t new. What is new is its extent, for both legal and common-law marriages. An idea may be gleaned from statistics on children born to White American women, specifically the proportion fathered by a non-White partner. For the U.S. as a whole the proportion in 2013 was between 11% and 20% (the uncertainty is due to 190,000 births for which the father’s race was not stated). By comparison, the proportion in 1990 was between 5% and 13% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013; see also Silviosilver, 2015).

Whenever this issue comes up for discussion, there are often reassurances that the disparity will disappear in a post-racial world that has been cleansed of “White privilege.” I’m not so sure. The European female phenotype seems to be very popular, and this was so even when white folks were geopolitical weaklings. Today, the term “white slavery” is merely a synonym for prostitution, but it originally meant the enslavement of fair-skinned women for sale to clients in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. At the height of this trade, between 1500 and 1650, over 10,000 Eastern Europeans were enslaved each year for export (Kolodziejczyk, 2006; Skirda, 2010). The overwhelming majority were young women and pre-pubertal boys who were valued for their physical appearance. And yet they were powerless.

No, I don’t think this kind of preference will disappear as whites lose “privilege.”

Exit strategies

So more and more young men are being left on the shelf, particularly in White America. How do they cope? Mostly by turning to porn from Internet websites, videocassettes, or magazines. Love dolls are another option and may grow in popularity as they become more human-like, not only physically but also in their ability to talk and interact.

Another option is outmarriage. In the past, this trend largely concerned older men marrying East Asian or Hispanic women, but we’re now seeing plenty of young men outmarrying via Internet dating sites. Despite the local supply of single women in the African American community, there is a much stronger tendency to look abroad, generally to women in Eastern Europe, South America, or East Asia.

Posted in Sex | Comments Off

Well-Behaved Women Rarely Make History

Posted on November 28, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I’m surprised to see so many HBD types saying “gender” without irony when they mean sex. It was originally a grammatical term. The gender of a noun doesn’t always correspond to the sex of what it designates. If you’re learning German, you’d better not assume that Mädchen is feminine because it means girl. I’m sure it was because of this that feminists substituted gender for sex – it emphasises the concept of sex as something that’s fluid or arbitrarily assigned.

* “Well-behaved women rarely make history.” Because historians and other moderns are prejudiced against them. Exhibit A: these women.

Phyllis Schlafly probably had more of an effect on 20th-century America than any other woman, including Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton– pushing the Goldwater nomination, which birthed the revival of the right; blocking a constitutional amendment three states from ratification; bringing both movements together for the GOP’s Reagan revolution. But she still only has one biography.

Check out Bill Kauffman’s sympathetic treatment of the antisuffragists in With Good Intentions.

Or do a comparison of the treatment of contemporaries Anne Hutchinson and Deborah Moody. Deborah who?, you ask. Precisely the point.

* I’m relieved to see a party for women at last. Now we can expect them to sweep into power on a promise of stopping the importation of millions of backward Muslim misogynists, and the dismissal and prosecution of every last public employee in places like Rotherham who turned a blind eye to the Pakistani rape epidemic. You want women to have an equal start in life – how about not being raped before you’re thirteen?

* >Here’s a clip from QI with Sandi Toksvig discussing whether women are funny*. Jack Dee delivers quite a zinger if you can hang in there till the end.

* Getting OT, but I’d be remiss not to include a link to Christopher Hitchens sharing his thoughts on this topic as well.

* Sandi Toksvig – a tubby, leftist, ugly bulldyke is propagating the latest CM misandric abuse. Well I’m shocked, shocked, SHOCKED!!!

* Usual suspects; kosher and/or queer.

Posted in Feminism | Comments Off

NYT Editorial: “False Alarms About a National Crime Wave”

Posted on November 28, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* So, is there any correlation between the size of those communities and their city’s place on the list? (Note: the US is about 12% African American.)

Here are the top ten cities from highest to lowest rate of homicide increase:

City, Homicide +Incr/-Decr, % African-American
Baltimore, +77, 64%
St. Louis, +51, 49%
Chicago, +50, 32%
Milwaukee, +45, 40%
Houston, +44, 23%
Washington, +32, 50%
New Orleans, +22, 60%
Louisville, +21, 33%
New York, +18, 25%
Tulsa, +17, 16%

And here are the bottom ten cities, from lowest rate of homicide decrease:

City, Homicide +Incr/-Decr, % African-American
Boston, -15, 24%
Memphis, -13, 31%
Las Vegas, -10, 11%
Riverside, -4, 7%
Arlington, -4, 9%
Miami, -4, 19%
Fresno, -4, 8%,
Corpus Christi, -3, 14%
Santa Ana, -3, 1%
Raleigh, -3, 29%

* A long time hobby horse of the New York Times is: “Since crime is down, there is no need to keep violent criminals in prison.”

* Amanda Blackburn was killed by overspill from the hyper violent black gang culture which the media – especially the NYT – have been covering up for 50 years.

Anything that forces the truth about the black gang culture out into the open helps future Amanda Blackburns.

* The NY Times knows what’s important: Getting Woodrow Wilson out of Princeton!

The NY Times knows what’s not important: 11 to 16 percent more murders!

This is an obvious Sailerian point, but in a weird way the NY Times editorial endorsing that Princeton should bury Woodrow Wilson explained what was so obvious about the video of President Eisgruber and the kids in his office: the strange inversion of power. It was clear in that clip that Eisgruber had no power and the girl yelling about how walking past a building named after Woodrow Wilson constituted genocide had all the power. You might think on first blush that this was just some strange mesmerism, some trick of who can talk louder, but the much more sensible explanation is that Eisgruber’s world is dominated by the NY Times editorial page and people who think like the NY Times editorial page, the MacArthur grant committees and National Book Award committees and so forth. (There is also the question of how much the average important donor has shifted to reflect Today’s Priorities- no longer are schools courting that average millionaire who just wants his two field hockey-playing daughters to be given an extra look in admissions season; now they’re courting megagazillionaires who have been to Davos and know the score. )

This may also explain some of the anti-majoritarianism implicit in the NY Times editorial. The University had given the kids what they want, they were launching some official process of investigating whether to change the name and soliciting broader input, yadda yadda yadda. But that kind of dialogue is not what the arc of Justice bends towards- the NY Times editorial page already knows that it bends towards the Black Justice League!

* The New York Times has a lot of nerve. It was the Times’ editorial board (which is slightly less black than the Ferguson police department was in August, 2014) that fanned the flames in Ferguson by citing Missouri Department of Motor Vehicle data to charge the local white power structure with dispensing justice unequally.

Aside from the obvious problem with pointing to higher rates of traffic stops for blacks than whites compared to their percentage in the general population as evidence of white racism, the same data that shows blacks stopped at a disproportionately higher rate than whites, shows whites stopped at a disproportionately higher rate than Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and Others. So, if disproportionate traffic stops are evidence of racism, then the racist white cops in Ferguson were racist against their own race in four out of five non-white racial categories.

The data were in the very same chart the Times’ editorial board cited to prove their case against local whites in Ferguson. They simply discarded the data that destroyed their case. In other words, the editorial board violated basic journalistic ethical standards to whip up racial hatred against whites. And now, they seek to deny the very result for which they bear a great deal of responsibility. I hope, someday, they are held accountable.

* Margaret Sullivan, is the former editor of the Buffalo News and current Public Editor of the NYT. There was, just a few years ago, a mass shooting in Buffalo at the City Grill, a downtown bar. Eight blacks were shot and four died. The shooter Ricardo McCrea, was arrested and convicted of this crime. However, Ms. Sullivan had the temerity to point out that seven of the victims had prior arrests or pending warrants, most for felonies. The local black community jumped on her with both feet. However, she did not apologize, but stated that the timing of the story might be insensitive….but true. Of course, the Buffalo News, a Warren Buffet property, doesn’t have the gravitas of the NYT.

* What’s really perverse is that a horrible terrible evil racist like me is far more broken up about those 1500 additional African deaths than the Race-Baiter in Chief. Admittedly, I’d be more broken up if those were 1500 whites murdered by Africans than the current African:African situation, but just as leftists cannot comprehend statistics and probabilities, they cannot understand hierarchies of attachment, only those of status. I’d rather see a pile of 1500 dead cats than 1500 dead dogs, but above all I’d rather not see any dead dogs or cats. For the leftist all that matters is status, such that African lives matter only if they’re taken by white heterosexual males who aren’t copulating with or eagerly cuckolded by Africans. Even then, it’s not the African’s life that matters, but the leftists’ opportunity to claim and gloat over their imagined social status supremacy. How many leftists do we observe spending all their time in the ghetto forming human protective shields around the innocent vulnerable black bodies of the Africans being wantonly and egregiously gunned down by racist cops?

* It’s Noah Smith. The worst “public intellectual” out there — even dumber and less thoughtful than Genius T. Coates. Noah Smith is really big on virtue signalling, contrived statistics, and picking internet fights with his intellectual superiors. He’s a joke.

* I do feel sorry for Noah Smith: smart enough to understand the statistics; too sincere to ignore them; too weak to come to terms with them.

But he does have a point. Whites try to insulate themselves from the worst blacks and often succeed, but whites are too numerous and blacks too poor for blacks to insulate themselves from the worst whites*. In fact, many whites are able to insulate themselves from the worst whites and forget they exist. But they do.

*Obviously, in this statistic, “whites” includes Hispanics, but there are some pretty terrible white white people too.

* Before I even knew who Noah Smith was, I stumbled onto an entry on his blog where he was talking about what a decrepit wasteland “flyover country” is, and how the people there should all vote Democratic. All of the observations he mentioned came from a friend of his who drove through the midwest.

It became clear pretty quickly that this friend drove through during the winter, and it was obvious that Noah Smith had never considered the fact that, if his friend had driven through while there were crops in the miles and miles and miles of farmland, it would hardly have seemed like a “wasteland”.

He also quoted a Facebook comment from a different friend who described the people he saw in flyover country as “shuffling sacks of humanity”. I asked him if he would be OK with someone calling poor black people “shuffling sacks of humanity”, and if not, why he was OK with calling poor white people that.

The whole comment thread then vanished, to be replaced by more innocuous comments from others.

I guess the moral of the story is that Noah Smith doesn’t seem to be very smart, or if he his, it’s the kind of intelligence that can’t even foresee the most basic objections to his theories.

* On closer analysis of Noah’s numbers, it is clear that he has made a basic math mistake. He has compared the number of murders of blacks by (whites+Hispanics) relative to the number of blacks with the number of murders of (whites+Hispanics) by blacks relative to non-Hispanic whites.

Its not clear whether he is trying to score points by coming up with a new way to create confusion or he is just an idiot who is making a basic math mistake. I will give him the credit of the latter.

Poor Noah, he doesnt understand that the game is to ignore black crime. There is no way that black crime stands up to any scrutiny AT ALL.

* Black guy robs white college student, drives her to MLK Jr. Blvd, rapes her on Black Friday.

“Tuscaloosa police looking for a teen accused of kidnapping a girl from a mall on Black Friday and raping her. At approximately 07:30 am this morning Tuscaloosa Police Dept. officers responded to University Mall (170 McFarland Blvd.) on a robbery and sexual assault. The victim, a 19 year old white female, stated she was sitting in the parking lot of the mall when the suspect, a 17 year old black male, walked up to her car and asked to use her cell phone. She agreed and the male got into her car. The suspect told the victim that he had a gun and forced her to drive to an ATM machine and withdraw money. He then forced her to drive to an abandoned property off Martin Luther King Jr Blvd where he sexually assaulted her. The suspect then fled the area. The victim then made contacted the police and she was taken to DCH ER for treatment of injuries. Over the past several hours, investigators have developed Cedrick Lamar Collins as a suspect and developed probable cause to obtain a Kidnapping I, Rape I, and Robbery I warrants on him. Collins is described as a black male, 6’00”, 160 lbs, brown eyes, black hair, and medium complexion. See the attached Wanted Poster. Any information on Collins’ location please contact Tuscaloosa Police Dept. or you local law enforcement. Collins should be considered armed and dangerous.”

* An article published in 2014 about violence in Chicago referred to a total cost to Chicago of $2.5 Billion to treat gunshot victims. In 2014 there were 2500 Chicago gunshot victims, many of whom are left with lifetime disabilities. One victim, who was left paralyzed was uninsured and ran up a bill totaling $10 million. Of course actual numbers for a specific city can be staggering, for example, July Fourth weekend, 2014, in Chicago, saw 80 shot with 14 fatalities. Those are Battle of the Bulge type numbers. So any reduction would be a blessing. And one more thing, violent crime may be down because people are consciously avoiding certain areas of dangerous cities.

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off

The Realignment

Posted on November 28, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* “Republicans and Democrats tend to live in different types of families. Two-thirds of Republicans (67%) are married, and 57% are married with children. Among Democrats, only 45% are married (38% are married with children). Democrats (9%) are twice as likely as Republicans (4%) to be living with a partner without being married. Among independents, 52% are married and 48% are unmarried.”

“As for rising childlessness, 29% of Americans say this trend is bad for society, 11% say it is good and the majority—55%—say it makes little difference. There is little difference in attitudes by gender, but there’s a distinctive pattern by age. This trend is the only one tested about which the youngest adults are more concerned than older ones: 37% of 18- to 29-year-olds say it is bad for society that more women do not have children, which is nine or 10 percentage points higher than older age groups.

By race and ethnic group, the increase in women without children is of more concern to blacks (39%) and Hispanics (42%) than to whites (25%); whites are more likely to say it does not make much difference.

Childlessness has risen rapidly in recent decades. In 1980, 10% of women ages 40 to 44 had no biological children. In 2008, that share had risen to 18%. Childlessness has risen among all racial and ethnic groups, but white women are the most likely not to have had their own biological children.” (Pew)

* One obvious caveat is that what it means to be a Democrat or Republican changes, sometimes very dramatically. If there should be a fundamental realignment of American politics under Trump, for instance, assuming he doesn’t self-destruct, the Republican Party of tomorrow might contain a lot people who currently identify as Democrats and Independents, particularly among immigrant and minority groups. And to judge by the unhappiness of the so-called Republican establishment, it might lose a few people also; or perhaps a completely new party will arise, in reality if not in name, to replace the Democratic Party over a period of decades, which will finally overthrow the New Republican ascendency.

What we do know for sure is that the future belongs to the fertile and that the religious are more fertile than the the non-religious. So the future of religion — or, rather, of religions — in America might be the real story.

* Quebeckers went from the world’s highest to the lowest fertility in a single generation. Look at Céline Dion, one of 14, but barely squeezing out two for her gerontological beau. And I see the same process in my wife’s family– her 100%-French Canadian grandmother was one of fifteen or sixteen, then had three (albeit with a long period of infertility before the first and widowhood before the second). And the next two generations are contracting further– except for us!

Same with politics. When the Democrats turned on Southerners, their most loyal supporters, Southerners turned on them. The Goldwater map looks a lot like the FDR one just 20 years before.

However, one thing that will never change is the propensity of poor, non-white immigrants to vote for the more statist party.

* Liberalism is a memetic virus that induces sterility, so to survive it’s infecting the children of more conservative people. To do that it needs control of education and entertainment.
Liberals are like the ottoman turks, turning the children of their enemies into their soldiers, the janissary.

* Currently neither party really emphasizes the importance of Americans, and whites in particular, having as many children as possible. Democrats think women should slave for corporations and having children is just submitting to the mysterious ways of the evil Illuminati-Patriarchy. Republicans are hostile to any state help for parents — which ends up hurting whites more since poor blacks and Hispanics get this help anyway. But with the rise of Trump and beside him a vibrant alt-right / nationalist tendency, things may change. This is fueled of course greatly in reaction to the BLM and campus-crazies movement where even well-educated liberal whites are starting to get a visceral feel for what being a white minority in an America of Color is going to feel like.

And so as the alt-right develops ideologically, it will be important to present an inclusive theory of (white) fecundity that for example celebrates the power of female reproduction and can appeal to the urban, localist, Bernie Sanders-voting white people.

Just is is happening in France, where many people who formerly identified with the left are supporting the Front National, the rise of Trump is starting to radically blur these ideological distinctions. It’s anecdotal for sure, but I am hearing more and more people from the left shifting to the Trump camp. I’m also hearing people from the left on Facebook talking about how they are defriending an increasing number of people for coming out loud and proud for Trump.

* I keep coming [across] articles from outlets like Salon with titles like: “how to argue with with your racist uncle who supports Trump at Thanksgiving”. The implied thinking with all these kind of articles is that they are the majority whites and the whites that support Republicans are a small fringe (i.e. that racist uncle), how do they reconcile the fact that whites that vote Democrat are an ever shrinking number ?

More importantly, do they not realize that the days of having family members with opposing political viewpoints are being rapidly replaced where politics is driven by race, which means people with opposing political viewpoints will increasingly not meet at Thanksgiving at all. Despite all their “right side of history” talk, its like they are permanently stuck in 1960, will they ever come to realize that it is they are will be the fringe family member?

* To the extent that genetics is unrelated to politics, much of the rest correlates with the milieu in which one is raised – the politics of your town, your peers, etc. That may favor conservatives even more than the genetic component, as birthrates tend to be much higher in conservative towns, even for Democrats.

Here’s a quote from a USA Today article from about 9 years ago: “House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic mother of five from San Francisco, has fewer children in her district than any other member of Congress: 87,727. [The execrable, unlamented, now former] Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, a Mormon father of eight, represents the most children: 278,398…Republican House members overwhelmingly come from districts that have high percentages of married people and lots of children, according to a USA TODAY analysis of 2005 Census Bureau data released last month. GOP Congress members represent 39.2 million children younger than 18, about 7 million more than Democrats. Republicans average 7,000 more children per district.”

The only things that have changed since that article was published in 2006 are that Hispanic birthrates crashed, and life in big lefty towns like San Francisco and New York got even more expensive and less child-friendly.

I grew up in a conservative town, and I know plenty of people who, as adults, turned into liberals. Generally, though, a person’s politics as an adult tend to mirror some blend of his parents plus those of his peers. If both genetics and environment are pushing whites in the conservative direction, the next generation of whites is going to be even more conservative than genetics alone would suggest. Toss in the increasingly batshit crazy elements of the Left, mostly related to race and “gender” (Black Lives Matter, Caitlyn Jenner), and the news gets even better.

The racial animosity constantly stirred up by the Left is going to cause whites to unify politically nationwide more than ever, just as they have in the South.

* He’s just rediscovering what I covered in a long series:

Who’s Having the Babies?

Expectations and reality: a window into the liberal-conservative baby gap

The fertility differential is pretty small across political orientation. The additive heritability is at least 0.6 (and perhaps quite a bit higher), but the low selective differential means that there is a very small genotypic change across generations.

It’d take well over a century for us to notice a difference – and that’s assuming trends remain constant.

What’s Up With All The Fat Incompetent Female Police?

Posted on November 28, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comment: Colorado shooting. Check out the tub of lard female police spokesman and then read about how the women on the force are suing to stop fitness requirements.

“Last Friday the Colorado Springs Police Department agreed to the demands of 12 female officers who filed a civil suit claiming the fitness tests are discriminatory. All the officers were over the age of 40.”

Posted in Fat, Feminism | Comments Off

Have You Had The Thrill Of Emancipating A Slave?

Posted on November 28, 2015 by Luke Ford

Perhaps Fetlife?

Comment: I have been trying to find an international anti-slavery society that will let me donate money to them to purchase African slaves (for immediate emancipation, of course). Unfortunately, they just want donations so THEY can buy slaves and emancipate them. I was thinking of something like Sally Struther’s “Christian Childrens Fund”, where you don’t just give the charity money, but get documentation regarding the particular child your money helps.

I would be happy to donate money to their organizations if I could just get bills of sale for slave purchases and documentation that the slaves were emancipated, returned to their native villages and given a grubstake.

What a great cocktail party starter: “I get the best prices for adult slaves in the African slave markets of Mauritania. Of course the cheapest and best fed children can be purchased in India and Pakistan. Where do you buy your slaves?”.

And when some black activist type goes off on slavery, I can tell them truthfully that “Not all slave owners are evil. I have treated every one of my Negro slaves (which I purchased from Negro slavers in Negro slave markets in deepest, darkest Africa) with the utmost concern and respect. Do you treat your slaves any better?”

Imagine the fun of getting a Federal tax write off for losses suffered by your African slave business: “I bought five slaves for $1000 in 2015, but suffered a business loss since I bought them clothes and food, immediately emancipated them and returned them to their villages.”

Just imagine the fun correspondence with the IRS: “I’m sorry Mr. Bill, unless you can prove you turned a profit on your Mauritanian slave business at least once in the last five years we are going to have to treat it as ‘hobby slavery’ and not a money-making business.”

Posted in Blacks, Slavery | Comments Off

Spanglish

Posted on November 28, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comment: I just saw Spanglish on the flight (I remember you had reviewed it).

Rarely has a film made me so upset; essentially it’s a bunch of hyper-assimilated Jews trying to tell Latinos not to make the same “mistake.”

Wasp culture maybe dry sans alcool but the movie was bloody ridiculously.

She made her daughter reject the Private School Scholarship so that they wouldn’t diverge. WTF did they move to the US then; is the height of aspiration staying in the Barrio?

Glad to see that our pan-Asian community in the Diaspora are diverging from this mad consensus (staying in the Barrio/ghetto is redemptive) and are following Jews of yesteryear in escaping from the Shtetls.

By the by I’m not suggesting that our Ethnic culture has no redemptive value, in fact I’m a big believer in blending East & West, but when in Rome.. Don’t stand apart simply for the sake of resistance or pride!

Posted in Latino | Comments Off

The Race Protests At Harvard

Posted on November 28, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Based on the blog post from whence the picture was posted, the Harvard deal is run by a Ghanian Muslim, an Arab Muslim who hates dogs, let it be known I hate Muslims, and a gay White Texan with a thing for Black men.

That’s it. That’s who is running it. They sense weakness and are seeking to run the whole place. Their classmates seem terrified to step in. Do anything. Future masters of America bum rushed by two Muslims and a gay.

Weakness has a price. This is it.

* I graduated from an Ivy League school a decade ago, and back then there was a group of black radicals on campus that was protesting basically the same exact things as all these black protesters in the news this year. But they were more or less ignored by the vast majority of people on campus. For all practical purposes, they didn’t exist. This was before social media was a big deal – when Facebook and Youtube had just started and before Twitter came along. This campus “crisis” this year seems to be a completely social media driven phenomenon. A small group of black radicals who would have gone unnoticed before social media, now has their antics shared and broadcast across the entire country by blacks and others on social media, This then gets picked up by the mainstream media and becomes big news, and the process feeds upon itself endlessly.

* I remember back in the 90s, a study group of Black students at Columbia Law decided to take action. They decided to go out side and document taxi bigotry.

Except, the taxi drivers stopped and picked them up. So, they moved further away from campus and still got picked up. And the drivers agreed to take them to places like the bad parts of Brooklyn. They were perplexed. How could this be?

Finally, it hit them. They were dressed for law class. They put on their urbanwear (or whatever it’s called these days), and bam! The cab drivers began to act as they expected, refusing to stop for them. Fortunately, as one wag from NR (IIRC) put it, it didn’t start an urban craze for wearing Ivy League sportswear …

* The blond girl slightly right of center is holding an ‘Amandla’ sign. ‘Amandla’ is Zulu for ‘Power’, and back during the Apartheid protest days in South Africa, the leader of a group would repeatedly call ‘Amandla!’ and the rest of the crowd would yell, ‘Awethu!’ (‘to us’). So the equivalent in English in “Power!” – “To The People!” – “Power!” – “To The People!”, etc.

Like you often ask: aren’t people embarrassed by anything anymore? One would hope that analogy stretching and exaggeration to this degree – “an ongoing holocaust!” – would finally break through any reasonable person’s absurdity shields, but alas it is not the case. There really is no level of grievance that is so trivial that it isn’t susceptible to ‘affront recalibration’ if the high prestige press pretends to take it seriously and won’t call them out on it.

* It’s driven by social media. Everyone wants to be seen & become famous. I was at a social event last night & most of the people in their 20s & 30s were glued to their phones. Whole tables of people typing away not engaged in any meaningful conversations with the people they’re seated with. Strange times.

* I might add that my personal observation of multiple protests around the world is that crowd numbers are almost invariable exaggerated. The instigators, the police, the media, often the authorities, have different reasons for bigging them up.

Canny protest leaders try to pick their sites to enhance the crowdedness of the scene; ignorant observers also contribute by guessing wildly rather than calculating numbers carefully (there are ways to do it).

The Yugoslavian Otpor people were masters at this.

The current situation seems comically to have extended this to the point where great institutions quivver at the anger of a “crowd” of 10.

* I too see this phenomenon at professional conferences and trade expositions where networking is a key explicit raison d’être. During breaks and lunches, tables which in years past would have been engaged in lively discussion are today silent. The same thing happens within corporations where the primary goal of a cafeteria on-site was to promote cross-silo communication. Today the cafeterias are largely silent (except for the always noisy Africans) and one wonders if the revolution in personal communications has only sent everyone everywhere into virtual silos of the like-minded.

* Black chick is holding a sign: “Built From Slavery”

I thought Harvard was built by the Puritans circa 1636 or something.

Besides if slavery led to great prosperity Africa would be one of the wealthiest places in the world and Mauritania would be one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

* What needs to catch fire is a social network site that attacks the non-professionalism of “journalists” and the media, with just such pictures of “movements.”

* How do you read (black law prof) Randy Kennedy’s op-ed on the subject? As trying to signal, furtively, that the whole thing is bullshit? And if so, what does it say that he needs to write in code?

* Simple English translation of Harvard law Prof Op Ed: There’s no reason to believe that the taping incident was done by a white racist, and even that was the case, it’s pretty meaningless, but it has gotten us to talk about race, and that’s always good.

Talking about race is always good, because we don’t talk about race enough. Over to you, Starbucks.

* I somehow got the impression from reading that link at the other thread that the guy from Ghana is an “affirmative action” student at HLS. Now, I think “affirmative action” is a complete abomination and contrary to the “equal protection” clause of the U.S. Constitution and should have been ruled unconstitutional back in 2003 instead of upheld by a 5-4 vote (courtesy of Sandra Day O’Connor). But to extend that dubious principle to a man from Ghana is totally preposterous, since there is no way he could be said to have been harmed by the institution of slavery and later segregation in the U.S. I don’t think being black is a disadvantage in Ghana. And to think an American student lost a spot at one of the top law schools in the country because someone thought this idiot should be admitted to HLS boggles the mind.

* I don’t hate Muslims. Most of the ones I know are fine (of course, they practice an immensely watered-down form of the religion.) I don’t think we should import millions of them into our country right now, but I don’t hate them.

Immigration should be a matter of public policy and of what’s best for the country.

* The pictured group looks like a coalition of the socially poor and lonely. A sort of Social Marxism if you will.

* I rarely go out anymore to social events outside of in a business context. I went to an adult neighborhood Halloween party with my wife this year. Most of the hausfraus spent most of their time at the party taking and posting pictures to Facebook. It was ludicrous. Nobody knows how to converse anymore.

* Any black man can get a taxi ride if he dresses like a Mormon missionary: black pants, white shirt, and a cheesy polyester tie. Unfortunately, he will also get the sh!t stomped out of him at his ghetto destination for not “keepin’ it real”.

* Maurice Howie, star quarterback at Buffalo’s South park HS was convicted (2014) of second degree murder in the shooting death of a Buffalo cab driver. Howie, still in HS, and a friend decided to rob a taxi driver as an easy mark, after the robbery they forced the driver into the backseat of the cab and shot him to death. I am sure all Buffalo cabbies shook this aberration off and went cruising for young, black, male fares.

* They obviously don’t teach the basics at Harvard – eg fat lasses shouldn’t wear skinny jeans.

* The original NYT reporter’s article on the subject sent a semi-coded message that The Narrative couldn’t be trusted on this case. Now they are doing it again via the op-ed page.

* Social media may well be driving an increase in Protest about Nothing groups on campus, but 90% of HLS students are study machines with no time for social activism. Many look visibly aged by constant sleep deprivation. An atmosphere of panic is palpable in Hilles Library during all hours throughout the semester. The kind of students with time for lame SJW campaigns are the same ones who stroll into the library, dump a big pile of books and crap on a table, and then walk away almost immediately for water, bathroom, food, and chat breaks. Maybe they peek into one or two books for a few minutes now and again. Obviously, they like the idea of receiving a prestigious law degree but they have neither the heart nor talent to earn it.

* Once again, Hussein Obama is announcing his intention of grabbing for assault weapons, and not handguns, because (in no particular order):

1. The vast majority of shootings in this country are perpetrated by young urban black males (against other young urban black males), a tiny fraction of the population, using handguns…and handguns are not “assault weapons.”
2. Only a tiny number of murders are committed every year with “assault weapons.” “Mass shooters” with “assault weapons” kill under 100 people a year.
3. The press ignores 1.
4. The press trumpets 2.
5. Yuppie white owners buy handguns, and not “assault weapons,” to protect themselves from 1.
6. Hussein Obama has been the greatest salesman for “assault weapon” vendors in history, so why should he stop now?
7. While Hussein’s political allies favor handguns, which are used in the vast majority of gun crime, his political enemies, suburban and rural white Republicans and independents love to buy “assault weapons,” and commit very few crimes with them.
8. He loves getting his ass kicked by the gun lobby.
9. Hussein agrees with the media that Black Lives Don’t Matter.
10. Etc.

Posted in Blacks, Crime, Harvard, Journalism | Comments Off