October 31, 2014 Does Eugenics Lead To Genocide? Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Does Eugenics Lead To Genocide?

Posted on October 31, 2014 by Luke Ford

Richard Lynn writes in his book Eugenics:

First, eugenics does not require the extermination of undesirables. It is sufficient for eugenics that the mentally retarded and recidivist criminals should be sterilized. Second, eugenic considerations did not play any significant role in the Nazi program for the extermination of the Jews. Hitler did not regard the Jews as genetically inferior. No one could have reached such a conclusion in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s because it was a matter of common knowledge and observation that the Jews were exceptionally talented. Jews were prominent in business, the professions, and intellectual life. Although they constituted only approximately 1 percent of the population, Jews won 10 out of 32 Nobel Prizes awarded to German citizens between 1905 and 1931 and were thus overrepresented among this highly elite group by a factor of approximately 30 (Gordon, 1984). Anyone who asserted that the Jews were genetically inferior and hence eugenically undesirable would have forfeited all credibility, and Hitler certainly did not do so. Hitler (1943) was indisputably anti-Semitic, and this anti-Semitism was based on his views, set out in Mein Kampf, that the Jews had exceptionally high abilities and were consequently a threat to the German, or as he called them “Aryan” peoples, who included the British and the Scandinavians. Hitler believed that the Jews and the Aryans were the two most talented races and that they were in competition to secure world supremacy. Thus, , he wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews are “the mightiest counterpart to the Aryan” (p. 64). He feared that the outcome of the struggle between these two peoples might easily be “the final victory of this little nation” (p. 300). This was the reason that Hitler was determined to destroy the Jews. He believed that if he could achieve this, the Aryans would remain as the unchallenged master race. The correct understanding of Hitler’s views on the Jews has been summarized by MacDonald (1998): “Hitler believed that races, including the Jews, are in a struggle for world domination, and he had a very great respect for the ability of Jews to carry on their struggle” (p. 146). The frequent assertion that Hitler exterminated the Jews on eugenic grounds is a misunderstanding of his position.

Third, among the numerous opinions expressed about the Jews in Germany in the 1930s, there were some contending that the Jews were parasitical because they worked predominantly in white-collar service occupations,
such as banking, law, the theater, the media, universities, and the like. Views of this kind fueled anti-Semitism but are economically and socially illiterate and cannot justify hostility to any ethnic or racial group.

Fourth, if eugenic views had contributed to the Nazis’ extermination of the Jews, gypsies, and others, this would certainly have been an ethically unacceptable misapplication of eugenics. Nevertheless, the fact that a social philosophy has been unethically applied does not imply that such a misapplication is inevitable or that the social philosophy must be rejected on this account. Numerous social philosophies that are in general commendable have, on occasion, been misapplied. For instance, Christianity consists of a generally acceptable social philosophy, and the application of Christian principles has led to many desirable outcomes, such as the abolition of slavery, the establishment of welfare provision for the destitute, and so forth. Nevertheless, Christianity has sometimes been misapplied. The Christian church has burned at the stake numerous people who disagreed with some of its tenets; and it has waged wars against unbelievers in which abhorrent brutalities have been committed, such as the Crusades in which the Christian crusaders slaughtered large numbers of women and children. These killings must be condemned. However, these deplorable episodes do not justify the total rejection of Christianity or the conclusion that an acceptance of Christianity is the beginning of a slippery slope that inevitably leads to the extermination of those who do not accept its doctrines.

Similarly, the social philosophy of socialism evolved in the Soviet Union into a tyranny with many ethically undesirable features, including the execution of large numbers of dissidents and the extermination of many millions in the gulags. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that socialism inevitably leads to such an outcome and that socialist ideals of equality, fraternity, and the like must be condemned because these principles were applied in ethically unacceptable ways in the Soviet Union. All social philosophies are capable of ethical misuse, but this does not mean that we cannot accept them because this would be to set foot on the slippery slope that could lead eventually to ethically abhorrent outcomes.

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off

Racial Diversity Causes Conflict

Posted on October 31, 2014 by Luke Ford

Richard Lynn writes in his book Eugenics:

Third, costs arose because many immigrants into the Western democracies are from third world countries whose populations differ racially and culturally from the indigenous populations. This inevitably causes racial and ethnic conflict and the development of legislation and a bureaucracy that attempted to contain these conflicts. This causes resentment, which the indigenous populations endeavor to defuse by affirmative action and equal opportunity policies in admission to universities and employment. These in turn generated resentment among the indigenous population, some of whom are refused admission to universities, excluded from employment, and deprived of career advancement on the grounds that they are white. These problems have been examined by Gerald Scully (1995) in a study published by the American National Center for Policy Analysis. He concluded that ‘‘countries with a common culture are more likely than culturally diverse nations to be economically prosperous and to offer their citizens more personal freedom … ; we find that where there are multiple cultures there is almost always conflict” (Lutton, 1999, p. 271). The same verdict is reached by LaPorto, Lopez-de-Silanes, Sohleifer, and Vishny (1999) in a paper published by the American National Bureau of Economic Research. They conclude that multicultural societies are less well governed and have poorer economic performance than ethnically and racially homogenous societies because the competing ethnic and racial groups expend too much of their energy and resources in trying to advance the interests of their own groups.

Fourth, the genetic cost of much of the immigration into the Western democracies in the second half of the twentieth century has arisen from the acceptances of large numbers of immigrants with low intelligence and a high propensity to crime. In the United States these problems have been present among Hispanics and blacks, as shown by Herrnstein and Murray (1994) and in many other studies. In Britain also, immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa have manifested the same characteristics as blacks in the United States—low intelligence, poor educational attainment, high unemployment, high welfare dependency, and a crime rate approximately six times greater than that of the indigenous population (Mackintosh & Mascie-Taylor, 1984; Tonry, 1997). These characteristics have some genetic basis, and the acceptance of these immigrants has imposed a genetic cost on the population, both for present and future generations.

Posted in Race | Comments Off

Using Immigration To Boost Eugenics

Posted on October 31, 2014 by Luke Ford

Richard Lynn writes in his book Eugenics:

The final strategy for the promotion of positive eugenics would consist of the acceptance of good-quality immigrants. Historically, the leading instance where immigration has had a positive impact has been the admission into the United States and Britain of Jewish refugees from Russia and Eastern Europe, principally over the years 1890–1914, and from Nazi Germany during the 1930s. Several studies have shown that these Ashkenazi Jews have mean IQs of around 115 (Herrnstein and Murray, 1944; MacDonald, 1994). They have high educational and occupational achievements consistent with their high levels of intelligence. For instance, it has been shown by Weyl (1989) that Jews in the United States are approximately five times overrepresented among the professional and intellectual elite of U.S. scientists, physicians, lawyers, writers, musicians, and businesspeople, than would be expected from their numbers in the population. At a very high level of achievement, it has been shown by H. Zuckerman (1977) that Jews, who comprise approximately 3 percent of the U.S. population, contribute 27 percent of the Nobel prizewinners. There is no doubt that Jews have made an immense contribution to the scientific, cultural, and military strength of the United States.
The contribution of Jewish immigrants to the United States is strikingly exemplified by the development of the atom bomb over the period 1939–45. The principal physicists responsible for building the atom bomb in the Manhattan Project were Albert Einstein (whose letter to President Franklin Roosevelt in 1939 was responsible for the president instigating the project), Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard, and Klaus Fuchs, all of whom were Jewish immigrants from Central Europe; and Julius Oppenheimer, whose family were Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. Paradoxically, if Hitler had pursued a eugenic policy of building good relations with the Jews, the first four of these and many other gifted Jews would have remained in Europe, and Hitler could have recruited them to work on the development of a German atom bomb. When this had been built, it would have enabled him to coerce the rest of the world into submission and achieve his ambition for Germany to secure world domination. The development of the atom bomb is an instructive example of the eugenic principle that nations that possess highly intelligent manpower and apply this to the development of advanced weapons are able to defeat nations with fewer resources.
Another group of immigrants who have had a positive eugenic impact in the United States are the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Koreans. Their average intelligence level is around 105 (Lynn, 1997); and their high educational and occupational achievements, particularly in science and technology, were documented by Flynn (1991), who also argued that they have personality qualities conducive to high achievement. Among the U.S. professional and scientific elite, they are about five times overrepresented (Weyl, 1989), and they too have made significant contribitions to U.S. economic, cultural, and military strength.

Even though Jewish and Asian immigrants as a whole have made a positive eugenic impact on the U.S. population, the best approach to immigration policy would be to select immigrants as individuals rather than by ethnic group. There is a large range of desirable and undesirable qualities within each group. The easiest way of implementing such a policy would be to admit immigrants with strong educational qualifications and professional skills, which serve as reasonably good proxies for intelligence and the absence of psychopathic personality. To some extent, selective immigration policies of this kind are operated in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These countries have quotas for the numbers of immigrants they accept, and some of these are reserved for those with useful skills. For instance, Australia operates a “skill stream,” under which applicants for immigration are only accepted if they have vocational qualifications; and in the 1990s approximately half of immigrants were admitted under this rule (Miller, 1999).
In the United States a quota for the admission of immigrants with skills was contained in the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act. This quota was reduced in the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act in favor of the admission of larger numbers of relatives of immigrants who had already been accepted. The effect of the change in the immigration criteria introduced in the 1965 Immigration Act appears to have been to lower the quality of immigrants. With respect to intelligence, it has been shown by Herrnstein and Murray (1994) that the children of immigrants have lower average IQs than the native-born American population. In an analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth data set, Herrnstein and Murray found that the average IQ of the children of Hispanic immigrants was 81, of black immigrants 88, and of European immigrants 97.
This conclusion has been corroborated by studies of the earnings of immigrants. In the mid-1980s it was shown by Borjas (1990, 1993) that the earnings and skills of immigrants as a whole declined following the 1965 act. He showed that this deterioration in the quality of immigrants was attributable to a change in their ethnic and racial origin. Before 1965 most immigrants came from Europe and were of good quality, as defined by their educational qualifications and earnings. From the 1980s onward, most immigrants were Hispanic, black, or southeast Asian and were of poorer quality. The conclusion that recent immigrants have been of poorer quality than earlier immigrants has been endorsed by a number of subsequent investigators. The consensus emerging from these studies has been summarized by Hayfron (1998): “The results seem to indicate that, after accounting for the usual factors that determine immigrant earnings, recent cohorts have lower earnings than their native counterparts” (p. 294). Hayfron has reached the same conclusion in an analysis of the earnings of cohorts of immigrants into Norway, finding that “the quality, as measured by education and earnings, of successive waves has declined over time” (p. 301).

A reduction in the numbers of immigrants admitted on the basis of their skills also occurred in the closing decades of the twentieth century in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In Europe, immigrants are not generally accepted on the grounds of skills, although there is large-scale immigration of relatives, asylum seekers, and illegals. As in the United States, the impact of recent immigration into Europe appears to have been dysgenic. Immigrants in a number of European countries, including Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Italy, on average have lower earnings, higher unemployment, and substantially higher crime rates than the indigenous populations (Tonry, 1997; Solivetti & D’Onofrio, 1996).

There are three broad strategies for the promotion of positive eugenics. These consist of the provision of financial incentives for the elite to have children, the promotion of the belief among the elite that they have an ethical obligation to have children, and the admission of good-quality immigrants, using the criterion of the possession of educational qualifications and professional skills.
In practical terms, it has to be accepted that all of these strategies would be difficult to implement in the Western democracies on a sufficient scale to have much significant eugenic impact, given the current climate of opinion. The provision of financial incentives for the elite to have children would provoke envy. Attempts to promote the ethical obligation of the elite, and especially elite women, to have children would be attacked by feminists and much of the media. The attempt to reduce the immigration of those with poor educational qualifications and skills would be attacked by the ethnic and racial groups who would be disadvantaged and by a variety of proimmigration lobbies, who are unaware or unconcerned about the negative impact on the genetic quality of the populations of much current immigration into the Western democracies. As with programs of negative eugenics, the major problem for classical positive eugenics in the Western democracies at the dawn of the twenty-first century lies, contrary to the frequent assertions of the critics, not in the identification of the traits that would be desirable to improve, nor in the genetics of what could be achieved in principle, but in the political difficulties of the introduction of measures that would have significant eugenic impacts.

Paul: “Luke, of all people, you cannot seriously be happy clapping for this vile science? The National Socialists believed in eugenics. In fact their program started on Long Island. For shame.”

Luke: “National Socialists also believed in gravity. Should we reject gravity? The US, England and Scandinavia practiced eugenics much more than the Nazis, should we hate and reject everything done by the US, England and Scandinavia?”

Posted in Eugenics, Immigration, Jews | Comments Off

Parental Licenses

Posted on October 31, 2014 by Luke Ford

Richard Lynn writes in his book Eugenics: The most recent proposal for parental licensing comes from David Lykken (1995), a psychology professor at the University of Minnesota. He began his discussion by making a distinction between psychopaths and sociopaths. He used the term psychopath to denote those who have a genetic deficiency in the capacity to become socialized and sociopath for those who have no genetic impairment but who have been reared by parents who have failed to socialize them. The two types are empirically indistinguishable, and probably most psychopaths result from both genetic predisposition and poor environments. Nevertheless, the distinction is useful for thinking about how society should attempt to deal with the problem of psychopathic personality.

Lykken’s solution to the problem of sociopathic personality, in his sense of the word, is to remove the babies of psychopathic/sociopathic parents and have them reared in more effective socializing environments. To put this proposal into effect, Lykken proposes a system of parental licensure. As with previous proposals, couples wishing to have a baby would be required to apply for a license. To obtain this, the couple would have to be married, economically independent, and have no criminal record or debilitating illness. They would have to pass a course in parenting lasting about 10 weeks, the purpose of which would be partly to teach the psychological skills of child rearing and partly to eliminate those who were not strongly committed to becoming parents. Lykken did not list intelligence as a criterion for obtaining a parental license, but his proposal would select against those with low IQs because many of them would not be economically independent or able to pass the examination on child rearing. He did not give an estimate of what proportion of the population would be likely to be refused a license for parenthood…

The second way to prevent unlicensed couples from having babies would be to sterilize all children at around the age of 12. This is probably the only method for making the plan effective. When the children grow up and wish to have children, they would be required to obtain the license and could then have the sterilization reversed. There are several ways in which the sterilization and its later reversal could be carried out. At the age of 12, girls could be required to have some form of long-lasting contraception, such as an IUD (intrauterine device) or Norplant. At appropriate intervals they would be required to have their IUD checked or their Norplant capsules replaced. Women wishing to have children would have these contraceptive devices removed after obtaining their parental license. Boys would have to be sterilized by vasectomy. When they became adults and found partners with whom they wanted to have children, they would have to apply for parental licenses If these were granted, the vasectomies would be reversed. If this failed, sperm could be taken from their testes and used to fertilize their partners.

This is probably the only practical solution to the enforcement of a parental licensing program. Although it will no doubt seem draconian, it should be noted that most couples use contraception until they wish to have children, so the measures would only make compulsory what most couples already do voluntarily. It would also dramatically reduce the number of abortions, and many would regard this as a desirable feature of the proposal. The mandatory sterilization of boys is more contentious than the requirement of long-lasting contraception for girls, but it could well come to be recognized as the best solution to the otherwise intractable problem of irresponsible men who do not care if they get girls pregnant or who take pride in fathering numerous children whom they frequently abandon. In time, the mandatory sterilization of boys might come to seem no more objectionable than inoculations against infectious diseases, which are taken for granted as desirable. Alternatively, technological developments may provide a means for sterilizing boys for a temporary period, which would be more acceptable to public opinion than vasectomy. A possible development of this kind would be the production of a virus causing temporary sterilization. Contraceptive viruses were developed in Australia in 1997 for the sterilization of rabbits, kangaroos, and other pests. Different viruses can produce sterilization for varying lengths of time. The ideal for humans would be a contraceptive virus acting for about 10 years that could be given to 12-year-old boys. When they were aged 22, they could apply for licenses for parenthood. If they failed to obtain these, they could be vasectomized. This would not preclude them from reapplying for the parental license and, if this were granted, having children by a reversal of the vasectomy or by the extraction of sperm from testes and the artificial insemination of a licensed partner.

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off

LAT: ‘Skills gap’ threatening to impede economic growth in California

Posted on October 31, 2014 by Luke Ford

LAT: “Other major skills deficits include English language competency, reading comprehension and math, as well as more nebulous qualities such as critical thinking aptitude, professionalism and leadership.”

In other words, employers need people with higher IQs. Since California has become majority Latino, its average IQ has declined and with it the requisite job skills. The average white American has an IQ of 100, Oriental-American has 105, Ashkenazi Jewish Americans average 112, Latino Americans average 90 and African-Americans average 85.

Most Latino and Black students in Los Angeles fail to graduate high school. They are therefore unlikely to develop job skills. Why are they failing? Because, on average, the lack the cognitive ability to do the things that Whites and Orientals take for granted, such as read and write.

According to the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 44% of Hispanics in America had below basic literacy aka were illiterate, compared to 24% of blacks and 7% of whites.

Steve Sailer wrote about this in 2008.

Posted in California, Race, Whites | Comments Off

NYT: Chinese and South Korean Students Face Fallout From Suspicions of SAT Cheating

Posted on October 31, 2014 by Luke Ford

Report: “The announcement by administrators of the SAT college entrance test that scores are being withheld for students from China and South Korea who took the exam earlier this month has infuriated many and raised anxiety about what for a number of them is a high-stakes college application process.”

I am sure they only cheat on SAT tests and nowhere else in life. Let’s bring more of them to America.

Chaim Amalek writes: “This is part of the reason why fewer and fewer American kids are to be found studying engineering in American schools. Also, the security of the test of english as a foreign language that these students often also must take is a complete joke. Near illiterates manage to gain admission to American schools, thereby displacing our own people, in part because they score well on these hopelessly compromised tests. But don’t look to any of our politicians, either Republican or Democrat, or to our corporate elites to call for anything except more immigration of them and displacement of us. America, these people have been betraying us for thirty years.”

Alex: “I remember the Chinese in college. Couldn’t form a sentence in English yet graduated from medical school. I wonder if I would be able to add MD to my name without knowing English.”

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

The More Stock You Put On Your Beauty, The More You Will Miss It

Posted on October 30, 2014 by Luke Ford

Danielle Berrin writes:

The day does come when a woman who once felt beautiful now feels invisible.
I am prematurely sad for that period of life. For all the women and men who feel deep inside that looks count for more than character, that appearance is more interesting than experience. I am sad for the amount of scrutiny women’s bodies are routinely subjected to — at home, at school, on the red carpet, even in an Orthodox shul’s mikveh! And I’m sad about being a creature conscripted to be looked at, desired, demeaned and derailed.

Danielle is stunning. I wonder how much importance she gives her looks? A few years ago, I had a girlfriend who said 100% of her self-esteem came from her looks. Her loss of looks will surely hurt her more than the woman whose self-esteem rests on her family, her religious and social duties, and her personal growth.

When I was 12, I ran five marathons. Much of my self-esteem then came from that accomplishment. Then at age 13, I developed knee trouble that prevented me from jogging for six years. I was lost and had to look for a new basis for my self-esteem. I found it in journalism and scholarship. Then I got sick at age 21 and could not read or study much for six years. That threw me for a loop. After I made a partial recovery at age 27, I had to struggle through life at about two-thirds of my previous strength and abilities.

In my difficulties, I kept looking for quick fixes for my lousy feelings. I sought out sex, porn, attention, heroism, Judaism, hero-worship, anything to make the bad feelings go away. Most of my fixes made my problems worse, and often hurt those around me.

“Life has screwed me over, but now I’m going to get mine” was a barely conscious style of thinking I developed. I was a menace to myself and others. In 1998, I began weekly therapy. That may have calmed me down a tad. IN 2008, I began taking Alexander Technique lessons, and that calmed me down significantly. In 2011, I entered my first 12-step program. That helped put my life on the right track.

The healthier I get, I suspect, the less I will blog.

When you put your self-esteem in any form of accomplishment or gift, that can be taken from you. If you grew up loved by your parents, or you have done the hard work of self-differentiation, you probably have a sense you are valuable.

Posted in Beauty, Danielle Berrin | Comments Off

Criticizing The Black Man For Appreciating A Fine Looking White Woman

Posted on October 30, 2014 by Luke Ford

This hate on men of color has got to stop.

From Radix Journal:

The “street harassment” problem has arisen recent years largely due to the rise of young, college-educated Whites gentrifying urban hellholes. While more Whites and Asians are moving in, not all of the non-Whites are moving out. Thus, we have more women who spent four years learning gender theory coming face-to-face with virile minorities who give zero fucks about urban elf etiquette. Now we have a street harassment problem…
The reason to place the blame on White males is easy: they’re the only ones who will listen to this drivel, and their subjugation is the intent of feminism. That’s why rape culture and Gamergate dominate the feminist discourse more than street harassment. It’s much easier to conjure up villains when you’re dealing with gamer nerds and frat boys. It’s a lot harder when the perps are the lovable victims of White oppression. The intentional campaign to paint this as an issue that extends to all races and classes (when it doesn’t at all) then makes perfect sense. Otherwise, you’re left with an issue that would make great propaganda for those creepy racists.
This is when feminism and racial truths collide. If feminism has continually promoted the notion White men are the ones to fear, one video demonstrating that’s not the case can cause some consternation, to say the least…
Additionally, there’s the question of how to stop this supposed menace. The group behind the campaign, Hollaback!, wants the state to ride to their rescue and arrest these men. This is rich because the same liberals who want to end stop-and-frisk now demand police to arrest Black men for shouting unwarranted compliments. That idea would quickly backfire and create another outrage movement—this time from Blacks rather than privileged women. It’s also unlikely to ever be enacted. But it does show, once again, that independent women always resort to the “men with guns” option when it comes to dire threats.
Needless to say, street harassment presents a major dilemma for feminism. While most of their subjects of choice are abstract (like rape culture) and affect few women, if any, street harassment has an impact on a large swath of women and is an immediate threat. I have little doubt that it’s terrifying to have swarms of Black men accost you on a daily basis and threaten you with rape. I understand that because it’s not a feminist issue. It’s a race issue. While society tells you to move to the big city straight out of college, all of America’s problems stem from Whites, and you have nothing to fear in regards to non-Whites, street harassment tells you otherwise. This is the effects of living in a multiracial society where you’re not allowed to express racial truth. So you go along with the feminist explanation—but you know deep down that it isn’t true.

Ray Sawhill: The presumption these young-women SJWs seem to make is that every place on earth ought to be like the cute, ultra-safe, well-policed little lib-arts campus where they majored in Womens Studies. Well, welcome to the larger world, honey. It’s a jungle out here. Deal with it.

For all her self-righteousness, she really is being racist. Many black and Hispanic people have a different way of being out in public and on the sidewalk than many college-educated whites and Asians do. They don’t just use the sidewalk as a way of zipping from one place to another. Instead it’s its own place to explore, enjoy and be in. And part of that is interacting with strangers and passersby — flirting, razzing, calling out, teasing, being friendly, meeting, chatting up … If you put down people who view sidewalk life that way, then you really are kind of putting them down for who they are, which in this case is black and Hispanic.

Not that some guys can’t be crude, assholish or dickish on the sidewalk, of course. But objecting to guys who call out things like “Nice day” or “Looking good” … How thin-skinned and self-righteous can you be?

A lot of this SJW baloney is middle-class white young women being angry at the world for not conforming to the values and expectations of middle-class white young women. Hey, honey: we don’t care. Some of us even think that it’d better for you to learn how to adapt to the real world than for the real world to conform to your narrow fantasy of how things ought to be.

Sheltered girls (and the PC fanatics who have brainwashed them) are taking over the media, and they and the larger team they represent are having an impact on our customs and laws, Lily. A new era of Puritanism, thought policing and topdown control may be descending on us. It’s quite a horrifying spectacle. Why would you be surprised that some people are bugged by it? What amazes me is that more people either don’t recognize what’s going on or aren’t bugged by it. Freedom of thought, speech and behavior are nice and valuable things, you know? Once they’re gone, they’re hard to recover.

The Puritans don’t always win, Lily. It goes in cycles. And we certainly aren’t more Puritanical now than we were in 1780. Thaddeus Russell’s “A Renegade History of the United States” is great on how we won many of our freedoms.

You have trouble with the idea that people can and should be able to freely approach each other while in public, Joe? Granted that some of the guys in the vid were obnoxious, many of them weren’t. (“Nice day!” is harassment only by the standards of an over-touchy hysteric.) And do we really want to take away people’s ability to hand out flyers, ask for change, try to interest you in their favorite political cause, and strike up friendly conversations while out and about?

Life in many neighborhoods in NYC has always been like this, Jessica, just as life in Rome and/or Paris and/or Istanbul is what it is. In point of fact life in Manhattan these days is markedly more polite and safe — not to say bland and suburban-esque — than it’s been in many, many decades. If it’s a drag for you, or you find it a pain in the ass, that’s perfectly fine and I sympathize. I don’t love everything about life in NYC either. But these SJW campaigns aren’t just about expressing reactions, they’re about demanding political changes of a sort that radically impinge on basic freedoms and rights. And *of course* blacks and Hispanics are many times more likely than whites and Asians to make smoochy sounds and call out things to you as you pass by. For one thing, living on and interacting on the sidewalk (instead of viewing the sidewalk as nothing but a path from one place to another) is part of their culture, just as flirtation-and-romance is a part of Parisian culture, and trying-to-get-you-to-buy-something is a part of culture in Istanbul. For another thing, working-class and poor men haven’t been as pussified as middle-class and college-educated men have been so they’re more out-there so far as coming on to women goes.

Joe — If we let public policy be guided by what naive, spoiled young women say makes them comfortable and uncomfortable, we’re in for a big narrowing of what’s permissable in our lives. Besides, isn’t coming-to-the-big-city about expanding your opportunities, brain and horizons? But what we’re running into regularly these days is naive, inexperienced (but bossy) young women insisting that the city conform to their fantasies of niceness and politeness. Why should we stand for any of that?

I’m not making it political, Jessica/Joe. The SJWs are making it political. They aren’t just saying “Hey, it gets to be a lot,” or “Lordy, how crude some guys can be” or “Good Christ, life in the big city can be a drag.” I have precisely zero problem with people’s personal reactions to the world around them, I generally find them very interesting, and I generally wish a lot of people would be nicer and more courteous (not to mention more peaceful and less greedy) than they are. But in fact this *is* all part of an ongoing political tendency, and it’s one that’s threatening to impinge on some very valuable freedoms. The same class of PC-brainwashed people who are making and marketing vids like this one are moving up the ladder in the media, in academia and in government. That’s why it’s important to respond to them.

I’ve been walking the sidewalks of NYC for 35 years (and I do a *lot* of walking, very deliberately so). The fact that no one catcalls me doesn’t interfere with me being very observant, let alone sympathetic to other people, incuding (amazingly enough) women.

But naive, bossy young white women who want to scold poor and working-class dark-skinned New Yorkers into behaving like pussywhipped college-educated whiteguys? No, I’m not very sympathetic to that. New York City’s street life is part of what makes the place colorful, and not-suburbia, and I value NYC’s vitality a lot more than I do the feelings of overprotected, PC-brainwashed SJWs.

Posted in Blacks, Feminism | Comments Off

Why Not A Homeland For Gays?

Posted on October 30, 2014 by Luke Ford

We have gay friendly hotels. I propose hotels that are white friendly, haredi friendly, hooker friendly, black friendly, etc.

Chaim Amalek: And speaking of gay friendly hotels, why is there no homeland for homosexuals as is there is for Jews? Sure, Jews live all over — as do gays — but they also know that there is one place on earth, Israel, where they are top dog, no matter what the goyim think or want or say. Why don’t gays have a similar homeland they can flee to when the need arises? Because Zionism isn’t just for Jews!

Who will be the founding leader of the Gays? And what shall we call them? Gayonists? Gayonism. Yes, I like it. Today, here, right now, is born the World Gayonist Movement.

Lesbians will not be allowed in as they tend not to play well with others and are so irritating.

Posted in Homosexuality | Comments Off

The Rise Of The Korean Nursemaid

Posted on October 30, 2014 by Luke Ford

Many soft-spoken service workers become fierce when they can. Blacks, for instance, used to do much of America’s menial labor and they were known as docile servants. That all changed after the Civil Rights revolution of the 1960s. Now their jobs are largely taken by Mexican and Filipino immigrants who similarly have a reputation for docility. Well, just wait until they have power and then see how docile they are.

It’s easy for men to bonk down in social class (many of my buddies attached themselves to Filipina and Mexican women when they couldn’t find a quality white girl). Many white men marry oriental women because they think they are meek and mild and submissive and later get a shock when the tiger mother comes out. If you have your life together, why would you want to attach yourself to someone with a credit score below 700 who constantly creates chaos? Been there, my friend. It didn’t work out so well.

Report:

SAN FRANCISCO — For decades, the petite and soft-spoken Susan McClain Koret has barely had a voice.
The 76-year-old Korean immigrant is officially “chairwoman for life” of the prestigious $500 million Koret Foundation, which her late husband Joseph set up to fund humanitarian causes both here and in Israel. But in quarterly board meetings at the foundation’s renovated brick San Francisco headquarters, she is frequently treated by powerful and well-known fellow directors as little more than the nursemaid she once was for Joseph Koret’s dying first wife.
The long-simmering conflict exploded last week in dueling lawsuits and news conferences, casting an unflattering light on the inner workings of one of the Bay Area’s largest and most revered philanthropies. The Koret Foundation — best known for its donations to Jewish community and religious organizations, as well as a host of schools and museums like the Exploratorium — has distributed half a billion dollars since the late 1970s.
Koret claims that the clubby board — led by real estate magnate Tad Taube, the best man at her wedding to Joe Koret — is funding its own pet projects and conservative causes instead of following her husband’s vision that money be used to help the most needy.
“Joseph Koret,” her lawsuit states, “is turning over in his grave.”
The story of how a simple military bride rose to a lofty position in one of San Francisco’s most prominent philanthropies says a lot about how Susan McClain Koret found her voice among her late husband’s well-heeled associates.

Posted in Asians, Blacks, Jews | Comments Off