November 9, 2015 Steve Sailer: Missouri to Get University Worthy of Its 6th-place Football Team Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Steve Sailer: Missouri to Get University Worthy of Its 6th-place Football Team

Posted on November 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: One of the older American collegiate jokes is a college president promising to build a university worthy of its football team (this may go back to the U. of Maryland in the early 1950s).

With the U. of Missouri football team firing the president and chairman of the board, it looks like Mizzou will get an administration worthy of its football team, which is 1-5 in conference play and has wracked up quite a record in recent years for sexual assault and domestic violence charges…

On the other other hand, Manhattan-born Paul Singer uses his giving on Presidential candidates (it was front-page news when he endorsed Marco Rubio), fundraise for the Manhattan Institute, push for gay marriage, Israel, and more immigration (for America, not Israel). But I can’t find any word of him donating to an American college football program. You can buy a lot of think tank staffers for the cost of first rate offensive coordinator.

COMMENTS:

* Mindless obsession with sports is the height of goyish stupidity. How can worldly middle-aged men take the “success” of a bunch of illiterate ghetto thugs as their personal success? Truly these are strange days.

* I look at what institutions wealthy (or even just upper middle class) Southern White Republican donors give their money too and I just sigh. There is just very little regard for anything beyond even a five year time horizon. Most Americans still have the notion that these large institutions (government, academic and corporate) actually give fig about their well-being. I’m sure they still think, for example, a company like GE always has America’s best interest in mind.

We may criticize Paul Singer but buying influence at places like Brookings or AEI goes much farther than donating money for an alumni center at FSU. Shame on us.

Posted in Diversity | Comments Off

Steve Sailer: UVA Frat Sues “Rolling Stone” for $25 Million Over Haven Monahan Catfish Hoax

Posted on November 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: You can always tell whether the fix is in — are the media trying to CYA on this by making it sound as technical and tedious as possible — by whether or not they mention the two words “Haven Monahan.” Without the words “Haven Monahan,” this is just a boring story about proper procedures not being followed. With the words “Haven Monahan,” however, it’s hilarious.

According to Google News, the words “Haven Monahan” do not appear in any of today’s coverage of the lawsuit.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off

The Many Loves Of Matisyahu

Posted on November 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

From Wikipedia: Matisyahu met NYU film student Talia when she interviewed him for a documentary about men and women not touching. They were set up by Rabbi Dov Yonah Korn, NYU’s Chabad chaplain,[41] and they married in August 2004.[42] Together they have sons Laivy (2005), Shalom,[43] and Menachem Mendel (2011).[44]
In a 2014, Matisyahu confirmed that he is divorced from his wife approximately two years prior, but they remain on good terms and share parenting duties.[45]
Matisyahu has also fathered a child named Sasha Lillian, who was born while he was on tour with Adel Tawil in Germany. Former girlfriend Toma Danley gave birth to their daughter on April 2, 2014 in Portland, Oregon where the newborn was diagnosed with a rare heart defect. Sasha underwent open heart surgery in May 2015 and reportedly recovered well. Sasha has lived with Danley since her birth. Matisyahu and Toma met while he was attending a wilderness program in Bend, Oregon in 1997

Posted in Jews | Comments Off

Diversity Has Jumped The Shark

Posted on November 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Ann Coulter wrote in 2009: It cannot be said often enough that the chief of staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, responded to a massacre of 13 Americans in which the suspect is a Muslim by saying: “Our diversity … is a strength.”

As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the beautiful mosaics — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”

By contrast, the canard “diversity is a strength” has now replaced “at the end of the day,” “skin in the game,” “blood and treasure,” “jumped the shark,” “boots on the ground,” “horrific” (whatever happened to the perfectly good word “horrible”?), “not so much,” “I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here,” and “that went well,” as America’s most irritating cliche.

We should start making up other nonsense mantras along the lines of “diversity is a strength” and mindlessly repeating them until they catch on, too.

Next time you’re at a cocktail party, just start saying, “Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony” from time to time. Eventually other people will start saying it, without anyone bothering to consider whether it makes sense. Then we’ll do another one: “Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine.”

Before you know it, liberals will react to news of a mass murder by muttering, “Well, you know what they say: Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine,” while everyone nods in agreement.

Except mere nonsense makes more sense than “diversity is a strength.”

If Gen. Casey’s wildly inappropriate use of this lunatic cliche in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre doesn’t kill it, nothing will.

Among the worst aspects of America’s “diversity” is that liberals’ reaction to a heterogeneous population is to create a pecking order based on alleged victimhood — as described in electrifying detail in my book, Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America.

In modern America, the guilty are sanctified, while the innocent never stop paying — including with their lives, as they did at Fort Hood last week. Points are awarded to aspiring victims for angry self-righteousness, acts of violence and general unpleasantness.

But liberals celebrate diversity only in the case of superficial characteristics like race, gender, sexual preference and country of origin. They reject diversity when we need it, such as in “diversity” of legal forums.

After conferring with everyone at Zabar’s, Obama decided that if a standard civilian trial is good enough for Martha Stewart, then it’s good enough for the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is coming to New York!

Mohammed’s military tribunal was already under way when Obama came into office, stopped the proceedings and, eight months later, announced that Mohammed would be tried in a federal court in New York.

In a liberal’s reckoning, diversity is good when we have both Muslim jihadists and patriotic Americans serving in the U.S. military. But diversity is bad when Martha Stewart and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are subjected to different legal tribunals to adjudicate their transgressions.

Terrorists tried in civilian courts will be entitled to the whole panoply of legal protections accorded Stewart or any American charged with a crime, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, the right to exclude evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights, the right to a speedy trial, the right to confront one’s accusers, the right to a change of venue, the right to examine the evidence against you, and the right to subpoena witnesses and evidence in one’s defense.

Members of Congress have it in their power to put an end to this lunacy right now. If they don’t, they are as complicit in Mohammed’s civilian trial as the president. Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution give Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to create exceptions to that jurisdiction.

Congress could pass a statute limiting federal court jurisdiction to individuals not subject to trial before a military tribunal. Any legislator who votes “nay” on a such a bill will be voting to give foreign terrorists the same legal rights as U.S. citizens — and more legal rights than members of the U.S. military are entitled to.

In the case of legal proceedings, diversity actually is a strength.

Posted in Diversity | Comments Off

Movements That Can Save Us

Posted on November 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Brett Stevens writes: “The Red Pill focuses on honest talk about the differences between sexes; Neoreactionaries point out the failure of Crowdist (individualists in groups) leadership; the New Right shows how dysgenics, consumerism and multiculturalism are destroying us; the Alternative Right shows the absurdity of a lack of social order and our participation in sacred fictions and virtue signaling. All of these point to the same thing: everything is broken.”

Brett Stevens writes: Neoreaction stands out among right-wing movements because it is essentially a toolkit of arguments to use against the vast flood of liberal propaganda in which we are immersed constantly. Liberalism has dominated the discourse for 226 years by generating a constant flood of “new” ideas which are picked up by compliant voices among intellectuals, media and the arts.

One of the best arguments to come from Neoreaction is the notion that liberalism operates mainly by “virtue signaling,” or allowing preening individual animals to show how good and moral they are by repeating the right dogma. I propose a more radical amendment: liberalism is virtue signaling in order to throw others off the scent of success, which is achieved by conservative methods.

In addition to explaining the somewhat schizophrenic nature of liberals, who tend to embrace realism when it concerns their own profits but publicly condemn realism and preach liberalism, this theory explains the utility of liberalism: it enhances success by allowing individuals to hide their actual motives behind flowery words, like politicians donating a few bucks to the poor and grafting millions behind the scenes.

Interesting, Tom Wolfe covered this years ago as part of his analysis of how competition for social status as a means of distinguishing the individual from others is the basis of all contrarianism, which is the essence of liberal thought. In other words, people hope to get ahead by loudly endorsing dogma that makes them seem different and unique from the rest of the herd:

“Status groups, Weber contended, are the creators of all new styles of life. In his heyday, the turn of the 19th century, the most stylish new status sphere, no more than 30 years old, was known as la vie boheme, the bohemian life. The bohemians were artists plus the intellectuals and layabouts in their orbit. They did their best to stand bourgeois propriety on its head through rakish dishabille, louder music, more wine, great gouts of it, ostentatious cohabitation, and by flaunting their poverty as a virtue. And why? Because they all came from the bourgeoisie themselves originally and wanted nothing more desperately than to distinguish themselves from it. They seldom mentioned the upper class, Marx’s owners of “the means of production.” They seldom mentioned Marx’s working class, except in sentimental appreciation of the workers’ occasional show of rebelliousness. No, as the late Jean-Francois Revel said of mid-20th century French intellectuals, the bohemians’ sole object was to separate themselves from the mob, the rabble, which today is known as the middle class.

I thought bohemia had been brought to its apogee in the 1960s, before my very eyes, by the hippies, originally known as acid heads, in reference to the drug LSD, with their Rapunzel hair down to the shoulder blades among the males and great tangled thickets of hair in the armpits of the women, all living in communes. The communes inevitably turned religious thanks to the hallucinations hippies experienced while on LSD and a whole array of other hallucinogens whose names no one can remember. Some head–short for acid head–would end up in the middle of Broadway, one of San Francisco’s main drags, sitting cross-legged in the Lotus position, looking about, wide eyes glistening with beatification, shouting, “I’m in the pudding and I’ve met the manager! I’m in the pudding and I’ve met the manager!” Seldom had so many gone so far to feel aloof from the middle class.”

“Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world–so ordained by some almighty force–would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.”

“More recently, I returned to Washington and Lee for a conference on the subject of Latin American writing in the United States. The conference soon became a general and much hotter discussion of the current immigration dispute. I had arrived believing that, for example, Mexicans who had gone to the trouble of coming to the United States legally, going through all the prescribed steps, would resent the fact that millions of Mexicans were now coming into the United States illegally across the desert border. I couldn’t have been more mistaken. I discovered that everyone who thought of himself as Latin, even people who had been in this country for two and three generations, were wholeheartedly in favor of immediate amnesty and immediate citizenship for all Mexicans who happened now to be in the United States. And this feeling had nothing to do with immigration policy itself, nothing to do with law, nothing to do with politics, for that matter. To them, this was not a debate about immigration. The very existence of the debate itself was to them a besmirching of their fiction-absolute, of their conception of themselves as Latins. Somehow the debate, simply as a debate, cast an aspersion upon all Latins, implying doubt about their fitness to be within the border of such a superior nation.”

Brett Stevens: “This shows the importance of Nationalism as the vital cornerstone of a successful society. With Nationalism, people work toward values; without it, they become chaotic beings competing with each other to see who looks coolest according to an unrealistic and delusional ideology. Others argue that we need conveniently one-step fixes like a restoration of religion, and a return to pure capitalism, and while we need those also, they will get nowhere without a return to rigid nationalism. Only the group with an unbroken identity can construct for itself a society that does not tear itself apart from within.”

Posted in Dark Enlightenment | Comments Off

Nastiness threatens online reader comments

Posted on November 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

News media hate losing control of the narrative. They prefer to lecture us on what is acceptable to say.

Yahoo: Research this year by University of Houston professor Arthur Santana found anonymous comments on online news sites can often bring out the vilest of views, particularly on hot topics such as immigration.

– ‘Locusts, vermin’ –

“Often the targets of the incivility are marginalized groups, including racial minorities,” Santana said in the Newspaper Research Journal.

Santana found readers referred to immigrants as “cockroaches, locusts, scumbags, rats, bums, buzzards, blood-sucking leeches, vermin, slime, dogs, brown invaders, wetbacks,” among others.

Santana said that newspapers “have expressed frustration with rampant incivility and ad hominem attacks in their commenting forums,” but may also be hurting their own reputations by becoming a place for mud-slinging.

The problem is not limited to US news sites: “flame wars” have forced the shutdown of comments on South Africa’s largest online news publisher 24.com and Independent Online has done the same.

Controlling online forums can be especially tricky in countries where news organizations may be held liable for defaming content from readers.

Some news organizations have sought to clamp down on incivility by requiring registration and banning anonymity.

– Facebook as a tool? –

One tool is from Facebook, whose plug-in verifies the identity of those who post comments, requiring people to use their real names.

Some evidence indicates the Facebook platform and other tools have helped the tone.

A 2013 University of Kent study found that by making users “accountable,” the Facebook system makes them “less likely to engage in uncivil discussion.”

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off

Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own

Posted on November 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

From Amazon.com:

Over the last few decades, economists and psychologists have quietly documented the many ways in which a person’s IQ matters. But, research suggests that a nation’s IQ matters so much more.
As Garett Jones argues in Hive Mind, modest differences in national IQ can explain most cross-country inequalities. Whereas IQ scores do a moderately good job of predicting individual wages, information processing power, and brain size, a country’s average score is a much stronger bellwether of its overall prosperity.
Drawing on an expansive array of research from psychology, economics, management, and political science, Jones argues that intelligence and cognitive skill are significantly more important on a national level than on an individual one because they have “positive spillovers.” On average, people who do better on standardized tests are more patient, more cooperative, and have better memories. As a result, these qualities—and others necessary to take on the complexity of a modern economy—become more prevalent in a society as national test scores rise. What’s more, when we are surrounded by slightly more patient, informed, and cooperative neighbors we take on these qualities a bit more ourselves. In other words, the worker bees in every nation create a “hive mind” with a power all its own. Once the hive is established, each individual has only a tiny impact on his or her own life.
Jones makes the case that, through better nutrition and schooling, we can raise IQ, thereby fostering higher savings rates, more productive teams, and more effective bureaucracies. After demonstrating how test scores that matter little for individuals can mean a world of difference for nations, the book leaves readers with policy-oriented conclusions and hopeful speculation: Whether we lift up the bottom through changing the nature of work, institutional improvements, or freer immigration, it is possible that this period of massive global inequality will be a short season by the standards of human history if we raise our global IQ.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* There are some charts here of projections of falling global mean IQ from 1950 to 2050.

* Read Garret Jones’s comments on mass immigration from here:

But from there you conclude that low-IQ immigrants should be allowed to come to countries with good institutions. That might be reasonable as a moral case but I’m no expert on morality so I’ll leave that to others.
I would emphasize a different conclusion: That the low-IQ immigrants will tend to worsen the institutions of the higher-IQ countries they move to. Low IQ immigrants will, to some degree, tend to make the country they move to more like the country they came from.

Jones is also an econ professor at GMU. He clearly sees a negative impact on host countries from mass immigration but seems to avoid the controversial subject in a public light. That is completely understandable because it is often frowned on for serious technical experts to get involved in public controversies.

Bryan Caplan has expressed huge admiration for Jones and hosted him as a guest blogger. Jones avoided immigration in his blogging. I find it odd that Caplan is such a fanatical public advocate for mass immigration policy, yet his peers sharply disagree. And their views don’t seem to logically inhabit the same universe. The mass immigration skeptics like Jones seem completely reasonable and sane.

* All the schooling in the world and all the “better nutrition” (whatever the hell that means for r-breeding-strategy populations that have doubled in numbers again and again eating dirt cookies and bats) may in fact “raise” their IQ. Eventually. At huge cost to the more advanced host/overseer population.

From a mean of 65 or 70 or 75 to a mean of 70 or 75 or 80.

At those massively costly minorly improved levels, at plus-one SD the bulk of the population will still fall well below 95. You’d think somebody using the hive metaphor would understand population distributions a bit better.

And that’s ignoring the panoply of problematic behavioral traits that have been selected for in r-breeding-strategy populations (the opposite of patience, cooperation, and long/complex/abstract memory). Those traits will still be there even if IQ does raise the few meager points.

Also, the far more advanced host population will continue to develop its IQ base, ever shifting to the right. I.e., the undertow never will catch up and will only drain the host.

* Hilarious account of how many online “news” sites cannot handle disagreement or public opinion, so they are being forced to end reader comments. They want to have a monopoly on the narrative, and on being nasty.

* Is it possible to have a decent comment section in a very general forum like mainstream news without real names for commenters? Even with real names, for the most general mainstream news that have a mass audience, the pool of potential commenters is big enough that enough people who don’t mind ranting and dominating conversations (like the proverbial crazy Uncle at Thanksgiving dinner) will be attracted to the comment threads.

* Your comment and some subsequent comments regarding immigration and IQ made me think of something that happened over here a couple of years ago.

There was a trial in London (England) which began on 5 February 2013. Vicky Pryce (wife of a Member of Parliament) was charged with perverting the course of justice.

The trial collapsed because the jury, who it seems were mostly new Londoners, were too stupid to understand what was going on.

““After 30 years of criminal trials I have never come across this at this late stage. Never,” said Mr Justice Sweeney after reluctantly discharging a jury which had told him it was “highly unlikely” to reach a verdict on whether or not Vicky Pryce had been guilty of perverting the course of justice. “

“they didn’t even understand basic concepts such as “reasonable doubt”.

“A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law does not allow me to help you with,” replied the judge to question four (out of 10 the jurors had submitted). T heN there was arguably the most stupid question of the lot which the jurors had asked in all seriousness: “Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?” In other words: is it OK if we just guess? “The answer is a firm no,” responded the judge, “because it would be completely contrary to the instructions I have given you.” ”

Link

The Daily Mail noted that:

““Of the eight women and four men on the Vicky Pryce jury, only two were white — the rest appeared to be of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin.””

And..

“At least twice, the court finished 30 minutes early because a jury member had a ‘religious observance’ to keep.”

Link

* The MOST successful countries (e.g. Japan, Singapore, etc.) have a uniformly high average IQ but there is another model that works, somewhat – the Brazil/S. Africa/Israel model. You have one small high IQ group that is smart enough to run things and then you can have a much large class of people who provide the labor and who don’t have to be all that smart. If this doesn’t go well and the dumber group ends up running the show, you have Zimbabwe or Detroit, but if you can maintain the status quo more or less you have a viable (if not ideal) society. You do tend to end up with a lot of people working as security to keep the have-nots from taking the haves’ stuff.

This is where the US is heading (and Europe t00). It won’t resemble the America or Europe of the past but the demographic die is cast and it will be what it will be. If you look at the US today, on the one hand you have places like MIT and Google which are tops in the world with people who couldn’t possibly be any smarter and then you have places like Benjamin Franklin High School in Philadelphia where 1% of the students are proficient in science.

The real issue is that we don’t have ANY use for many of the latter group. There are only so many waiters and bus drivers, etc. that you need to begin with and many of those positions are going to be automated out of existence by the MIT/Google guys in the next 20 years.

* Brazil’s demographics are ~48%/8%/43% white/black/mixed. South Africa is 8%/80%/9% white/black/mixed. Israel is 75%/21% Jewish/Arab.

No one thinks South Africa is going well.

* 8% is clearly pushing the minimum needed for a long term viable society. A very talented group (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews) can punch at perhaps 10x their weight (i.e. the 2% of the US population that is Jewish can produce 20% of the Nobelists, billionaires, etc.) but for an average white population that’s too much to ask. Detroit at 10% white was not a viable city either.

Israel’s demographic issue is not only Arab/Jew but Ashkenazi/Mizrahi (Middle Eastern) Jews. The Mizrahi (often called Sephardic but properly this refers only to the descendants of those expelled from Spain, which is a much smaller group) range from quite talented and Europeanized (the former Syrian and Lebanese Jews) to Yemenite and Ethiopian Jews who are not much brighter than their fellow countrymen – they average out well below 100IQ and are around 1/2 the Jewish population. Even so, Israeli GDP is pushing European levels – having a population that is 1/3 Ashkenazi is enough to drive an economy.

I guess of the 3 countries I mentioned, the future of the US and Europe will most resemble that of Brazil. Again, not an ideal society but if you look at the skyline of Sao Paulo , they are not living in grass huts either.

* My belief is that juries are around 1SD dimmer than the population. Brighter people, while arguably more civic minded, would have important things to do in their lives and could more easily conjure methods for being excused. This also plays into racial jury nullification which has become a major issue in criminal trials in many jurisdictions. Sailer’s VDare colleague Nicholas Stix has written extensively on this phenomenon where African juries will simply refuse to convict African defendants regardless of facts in evidence adduced.

Posted in Immigration, IQ | Comments Off

Steve Sailer: College Football Team Fires University President

Posted on November 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Chaim Amalek: “I love everything about this story. Also, that this university president proved to be so weak willed that he let himself be driven out under these circumstances tells us that his departure is no great loss for anyone save those who drove him out.”

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* This Black-grievance controversy will benefit the Republican Party, especially in Missouri.

In the 2008 election, Republican John McCain defeated Democrat Barack Obama in Missouri by only 49.36% to 49.23%.

In the 2012 election, Republican Mitt Romney defeated Obama in Missouri by 53.76% to 44.38%.

Thanks to these recent controversies — Ferguson and the university football team — Missouri is becoming a rock-solid Republican state.

I think there will be many more Black-grievance controversies throughout the USA between now and the 2016 election.

The Republicans have an excellent chance of winning the 2016 Presidential election by a very decisive margin.

If Donald Trump is nominated, he will flip the entire Rust Belt into the Republican side.

* The march of diversity through our public institutions continues to destroy our public institutions one-by-one. Instead of Blacks learning how to live and thrive in an industrial society sponsored by those who helped create it, Whites can learn how to live and survive in the “hood” from Black university professors hired under affirmative action. It’s called reducing everything to the lowest common denominator.

If Missouri wants to reclaim quality education, it would have to fire the football coach and the faculty who walked out. It would have to expell the football players who went on strike.

The lesson learned: In this day and age, there can be dire consequences for an unknown person calling someone in an official victim class a name … at least as alleged by the person in the victim class.

It is now clear that I need to start saving money to send my grandson to a private university where he might actually learn something.

* Yeah, ya know its hell being a football players at a southern university. The chicks all ignore and deride you, the engineering students streak screaming through the library late at night while you’re studying hour after hour in a desperate bid to keep your scholarship. You struggle day after day in anonymity, playing in an empty stadium, unloved, unrecognized, your vital accomplishments in running with the ball or possibly preventing the other guy from running with the ball ignored by all. It’s unsurprising that somebody, somewhere supposedly saying a racial slur drove them over the edge. Especially when a cop 120 miles away had the temerity to not allow himself to be murdered sometime last year. How much can they take?

On a more serious note, god how awful is it that the left convinced most everyone that racial slurs are magical juju oppressing minorities. Now as long as anyone anywhere ever says one, or can be accused of saying one, well none of the ten trillion things that have been done to help minorities matter. Some powerless nobody said a magic word and destroyed all our efforts! The bastard! Most Americans believe in witchcraft, I guess.

In reality we just love specific insults–you tailor the insult for the individual you dislike, and we’ve got ones for every conceivable group or type of person. That’s the beginning and end of it. I’m sure slurs do bother loser groups more than non-loser groups in general, but cause and effect is reversed. It’s impossible to make me feel insecure about the accomplishments of white men cause white men are clearly collectively the best at doing approximately everything save running fast, jumping high and looking hot.

* Giving the football team the power to depose the university president sounds like a great idea. It’s hard to see how that could go wrong.

* It’s no surprise that Pinkel became a social justice warrior when Mizzou is 1-5 in the SEC. They only beat South Carolina (which is having a terrible year as well). Of the best SEC teams, Missouri only played Florida (and lost). They do not play Alabama or LSU. There are surprises every week in college football but there is no reason to suspect that Mizzou will win either of their remaining conference games against Arkansas or Tennessee.

It’s also not surprising that the players would latch on to a cause that lets them look like heroes instead of losers. Would Alabama’s players refuse to play if their university president did whatever Missouri’s president supposedly did? Not likely. Fans, including students, have very little patience for once-good football teams that are going to hell in a hand-basket. I know that Missouri did well in 2013 and 2014. That’s what makes it worse.

The interesting question is what the SEC will do, assuming that they can do anything. Does big time college football want the precedent established that players can refuse to play without repercussions? They would not necessarily need to organize as unions and have collective bargaining, etc. The main problem isn’t players on teams having miserable seasons whining about white privilege or whatever. What if really good teams or good players decide that they won’t play until they get a cut of the millions that they are making for their universities and conferences? Most players who are good enough leave college early and enter the NFL draft. Understandably, the vast majority of top players will take millions of dollars over college football glory in a second. So, while the best players will not jeopardize their NFL prospects over nonsense like what is going on at Missouri and good teams will not throw away their seasons, it would probably be a different story if the issue is money.

Posted in Academia, Blacks, Football, Rape | Comments Off

Steve Sailer: The Disappearing Federal Homicide Offenders Racial Ratio

Posted on November 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes:

Back in the previous decade, you could look up on the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics website a convenient graph in HTML form of “homicide offending” trends over time.
But the Obama Administration stopped maintaining that website (you can still find it here on Archive.com’s Wayback Machine). As of 2011 they made you look up the racial ratio in homicide offending rates in a less convenient PDF report. Here’s a screen capture of the homicide offending rates by race graph from that 2011 PDF:
But in 2013, the Obama Administration’s Bureau of Justice Statistics dropped the homicide offending numbers from their latest homicide report in favor of only mentioning homicide victimization.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* And yet, both the race of the victim and the race of the offender are data points collected by the interviewers who collect the data. Perhaps the fed’s will stop these questions in future in order to avoid unpleasant hate facts.

* Interesting to see from your last chart that the homicide rates for both blacks and whites started declining (peaking in the case of blacks) around 1990, but the drop-off is more pronounced among blacks than among whites since the rate is much higher to begin with. So the dramatic fall-off in crime since 1990 is largely a fall-off in crimes committed by blacks.

* Only white men can commit rape. When a Muslim immigrant gropes and kisses a woman unknown to him on the street it is cultural enrichment and vibrancy.

* According to Robert Muggah, the Canadian founder of the Igarapé Institute, 99% of violence in the United States is concentrated in 5% of street addresses.

Let me repeat this: 99% OF VIOLENCE IN THE US IS CONCENTRATED IN 5% OF STREETS.

* Proposed solution:

Form a new college. Admission is open to all, and here’s how the GPA is determined:

GPA = IQ, tested by licensed psychologists, and then converted to a publicly available 4.0 scale, such that

1.0 = IQ < 90 2.0 = 90 <= IQ <= 100 3.0 = 100 <= IQ <= 115 4.0 = 115 < IQ+ cum laude = IQ > 130
+ summa cum laude = IQ > 145
+ magna cum laude = IQ > 160

and that’s it. No classes, no other tests.

Call it Bell University

* The drop in white homicide rates probably would have been fairly pronounced, too. Part of it is the graph has to be so broad to allow for the high black murder rate that the white graph is squeezed at the bottom, so even fairly significant changes aren’t as obvious, but would be if it were only white murder rates.

Even then it still may have been obvious on the graph, except for the other part of the problem – that the vast majority of Hispanics, for the purposes of crime, are counted as white, and the share of the population that is Hispanic has soared since 1990.

* When we purchased our home we were required to enter our race and ethnicity on the mortgage application. The application informed us that if we chose not to do so, the loan officer was ‘required to enter the information herself based on visual observation and surname.’ (I took a picture of that damn part of the application, I was so offended.)

I am as WASP as you can get. My wife is basically half WASP, half Scandinavian, and blonde.

We marked black for race and Hispanic for ethnicity. The loan officer just chuckled. We got our loan. As long as it was us lying there was probably nothing she could do. Hell, they were probably grateful to us for boosting their minority lending rates.

* I have been thinking that maybe one way forward maybe to re-brand the word racist and racism as something positive. Own it. Kind of like the homosexuals took back ‘faggot’. Racism is an “ism”, like idealism, environmentalism, pacifism, Communism, socialism, libertarianism, etc. Racism as a good thing. E.g. calmly, matter of factly ‘the benefit of racist policies would be x y and z’ or ‘a racist government would actually look after its citizens unlike…’ or ‘racism – a philosophy whose time has come!’

If used in comment sections and the like it would have an unnerving power to disarm one of the most potent weapons of the left, the ability to point and say ‘racist’ and have the race realist or citizenist or alt-righter cower and say ‘anything but that! Please, take my money!’.

I know it has been done before somewhat (e.g. ‘if such and such and such and such, then I am a racist!)’ but I don’t think in this way. In comment sections we have the left on the run, they are being routed. The Overton window is being shifted big time. Everywhere I look, be it Breitbart or some random blog, NYT comments, wherever, Overton is shifting day by day. What would have invoked the ‘you are a racistnazikkkwanttokill6mjews’ response goes unanswered. And the comments I talk about have nothing to do with antisemitism. It is quite hilarious, even tear jerking articles that would formerly have brought out the hankies and the green arrows for the leftist party line only 2 years ago do not sway the commentariat, or those who up vote. Now everywhere you can read about how traitors such as Blair, Brown and Merkel should be hung as traitors. It is fantastic!

The White comment reading and writing world is turning a kind of Semitically-neutral fascist. The empathy is drying up. Leapfrogging altruism is being abandoned. Most humans don’t do rate changes or long term thinking, what feels to them like the creaking of the glaciers to a changing climate is actually burning up on a human historical scale. 2 years? 10? It’s nothing! Merkel has inadvertently created her own ‘problem reaction solution’ social engineering works, a footgun of massive scale that is set to blow up in her own wretched cat lady face, a massive catalyst.

Maybe we should be out in person doing something instead of sitting back on our pimply behinds, but if you think that influential people don’t read comment sections you are kidding yourself. It is definitely having an impact. And that change in thinking is translating itself into political action.

What is kind of sad that if we could have been a bit more Japan-like about the whole thing, we could have maintained our empathy somewhat. It was not necessary to destroy our countries in this way through immigration.

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off

Why Is Israel A Low-Trust Society?

Posted on November 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

As a convert to Judaism, I see tremendous cooperation and trust between Jews. On the other hand, Israel, the Jewish state, is clearly a low-trust society. Why?

And if the Jewish state has low trust, does that not argue against Jews being cohesive in pursuing their group interest?

A Jewish friend says:

Semitic people are low-trust by nature as opposed to Nordics. You are essentially asking, “Why does Israeli society have so much in common with other semitic cultures?”

Another Jewish friend says to me:

I wonder if under the British Mandate and at the beginning of the country, the kibbutzniks had a greater trust. I would suspect they did, having idealistically voluntarily chosen to participate in a true communist experiment. I would also think that the large wave of German refugees between 1933 and 1938 also retained their Germanic trust in each other.
But it is certainly true, that in many of the societies from which Israelis emigrated, Jews were, even if many of them were rich, were nations in which Jews felt they were in some way marginalized and in many of those nations, the government, especially on the local level was corrupt, where tax evasion and bribes to do business or be free from harassment were common.
Jews in many of those societies probably had a certain degree of trust among themselves against the outsiders, but once they became the dominant group, their subgroups began to not trust one another. I don’t think it is anything innate to Jews. They just didn’t evolve or live in high trust societies, which are fairly rare.
I think that one other reason for a lack of trust is that Jews were not really working in occupations where a high amount of trust was needed. If you read Sholom Aleicham’s stories (including the Tevye stories which formed the basis for Fiddler on the Roof) about the Jewish Shtetl life in the Pale of the Settlement, or even I.B. Singer’s stories which range from village life to deeply Hasidic life, to life in Warsaw, to life in New York, it doesn’t appear to be a high trust community.

From the Forward, March 8, 2015:

“Israelis grow up with the expression of ‘never be a freier,’ i.e., a push-over or loser, someone who can be taken for a ride,” Ari Ben Zeev wrote in his 2001 book “The Xenophobe’s Guide to the Israelis.” “This omnipresent need ‘not to be a freier’ can be traced to 2,000 years of being a struggling minority and also to the Middle Eastern neighborhood rule that everything is negotiable.”
Some Israelis think of American tourists and American immigrants in particular as freiers. In a 1998 study of American Jewish immigrants to Israel, by Linda-Renee Bloch, one interviewee said he felt that Israelis saw him as having made the ultimate freier move by moving to Israel in the first place. In their eyes he fell for Israel’s “sales pitch” and traded the relative ease of American life for Israeli instability.
An American might respond with the saying “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” and observe that this outlook, with deep roots in the American psyche, rebuts the Israeli stereotype of Americans as ever-trusting.
But for many Israelis, the question is, why trust anyone even once?

Mark Minter: “Another super quality post from ThoseWhoCanSee about high trust vs low trust societies and how rare high trust is, namely No. Euro and Anglo. The high form of this is the ‘queue’, so common among us, and so baffling to others. This guy is one of the best long form writers on the alt-right that is always well researched with wonderful illustrations, charts, images, etc.”

Link:

A freier, in Israeli eyes, is a shopper who waits in line to pay retail. It is a driver who searches for legal parking rather than pulling onto the sidewalk with the other cars. … The fear of being a sucker turns driving into a bumper-car competition and makes grocery shopping as trying as arm wrestling.
… ‘In London, the culture is to give way, be a gentleman, don’t compete,’ said Peri, the former editor. ‘But an Israeli is the opposite. If you are stronger, why should you give way to someone weaker? In a debate, the British will say, ‘You have a point.’ In a debate here, no Israeli will admit he has been persuaded to change his mind. That shows weakness.
Americans often find the Israeli attitude intolerably rude. Israelis, meanwhile, find Americans to be the biggest freiers of all. They are naive idealists. … Americans are perceived as innocents who follow the rules and who believe a person will actually do what he promises to do. ‘An American is willing to trust until someone proves to be untrustworthy,’ Shahar said. ‘Israel is much more like the rest of the world, where the basic assumption is that people . . . should not be trusted until proven trustworthy.

Where I come from, Australia, white people tend to trust each other, particularly in rural Australia. The most important thing is to have a reputation for honesty and if you cheat, you certainly don’t boast about it.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off