What’s the Average Credit Score of a Mass Shooter?

Posted on October 8, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes:

In a country that has hundreds of millions of guns lying around, it’s hard to stop a dedicated, competent individual with a long time horizon and no fear of death or prison from acquiring guns.

But a lot of these shooters don’t sound like unstoppable killing machines from the future, they sound like losers mentally buffeted about by intermittent whims of rage and criminal insanity.

With some, perhaps if they can’t go down to the store and buy some guns right now, they’ll come up with some other vile but less lethal thing to do to pass the time instead. Sure they could buy guns on the black market, but that takes more work to make contacts and it takes some personal face time. And a lot of the mass shooters don’t seem to be career criminal types with lots of contacts with dealers in the illegal firearms trade, they seem more like middle class problem children who don’t get out that much.

What if we had a giant bureaucracy that ceaselessly tried to measure how stable, reliable, trustworthy, and future-oriented practically every individual in the country was?

Maybe that’s a good idea, or maybe that’s a bad idea. But it also sounds expensive to create one just to slow down a few mass shooters per year.

Except … we already have not just one, but three giant bureaucracies that are constantly measuring individuals’ stability: the credit score bureaus.

Here’s an idea worth researching: what were the credit scores of each of the last 50 mass shooters who bought their guns at the time they bought them?

My guess would be that a lot of the shooters either didn’t have an individual credit score or had a quite low one.

I don’t know that’s true, but it’s something that could be measured.

It wouldn’t hurt to check into the credit scores of people who shoot 7-11 clerks or their loved ones, too.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Gary Shteyngart’s near-future dystopian novel Super Sad True Love Story (2010) incorporates this notion. Credit Poles (I think they’re called) display the credit scores of everyone within a certain radius.

The book is a very good read. And it’s of course eerie to note how much of it is already coming to pass in the parallel universe we inhabit.

REPORT:

The scary concerns China’s credit scores are raising

By now, you surely know that your credit score is a key to your your financial well being, influencing factors like the interest rate you’ll be charged for a home mortgage, a cell phone plan, insurance or car loan.

But now there are new, unsettling reports about how China is using consumers’ credit scores to also determine their political trustworthiness and social status.

The new credit-rating system was launched in China this past summer and is run by the Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba (BABA) and the Chinese holding company Tencent, according to China Daily Asia. The publication also noted the new system uses a variety of data to determine credit scores, including “a person’s hobbies, interaction with friends, shopping habits and lifestyle.”

However, as Rick Falkvinge recently blogged at privateinternetaccess.com, the Chinese credit score isn’t affected by only what you purchase.

“If you’re buying things that the regime appreciates, like dishwashers and baby supplies,” he wrote, “your credit score increases. If you’re buying video games, your score takes a negative hit.”

Other factors that can drive down a credit score on the Chinese system are no-no’s such as posting political opinions online without permission or describing controversial current events — such as the recent Chinese stock market collapse — in ways that differ from the official government version.

“But the kicker is that if any of your friends do this — publish opinions without prior permission, or report accurate but embarrassing news — your score will also deteriorate,” Falkvinge continued. “And this will have a direct impact on your quality of life.”

Calls and emails to Alibaba’s U.S. offices for comment on that report were not returned.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is looking at the Chinese credit system and wondering if it might become a blueprint for future uses of the credit score system in America. After all, new research from the U.S. Federal Reserve, for example, has found that credit scores can help predict a person’s ability to commit to a stable, long-term relationship like marriage.

However, the chances of an abusive, Chinese-style credit score/surveillance system in the U.S. in the near future are nil, according to ACLU senior policy analyst Jay Stanley.

Posted in Crime, Health, IQ | Comments Off on What’s the Average Credit Score of a Mass Shooter?

The War On Noticing

Posted on October 8, 2015 by Luke Ford

I assume that people of great holiness don’t pay much attention to sports and to the news. TV and the practice of religion, for example, are antithetical. The more you do of one, the less you’ll do of the other.

For those who soil themselves with popular culture, you may have heard that Dallas Cowboy defensive end Greg Hardy likes to play in front of hot wives and presumably humiliate their husbands with his hyper-masculinity.

Sports are essentially a contest over who is more of a man. They are a polite substitute for war.

Many people think that those who commit domestic violence should not play professional football. I think they are the perfect people to play professional football.

Domestic violence is rarely a case of good vs evil but invariably it is a case of two knuckleheads mixing it up with the weaker one losing.

Hardy’s comments seem to me like the ones I’d want from my defensive end before a big game.

I love football. I love its violence. I would never play it myself. Way too dangerous. I love to watch boxing as well though in my life, I have always avoided fist fights.

I take it for granted that many people who play a violent game will be violent, at times, in their personal lives. When they commit a crime, they should be prosecuted. If it is consensual violence, they should not be prosecuted.

Women are more fragile physically and men are more fragile in many psychological ways. Men tend to be physically stronger than women and women tend to be better at deception and fighting dirty than men.

For a smart take on domestic violence and female masochism, read this essay by F. Roger Devlin.

REPORT: Cowboys defensive end Greg Hardy, back from a four-game suspension to start the 2015 NFL season because of domestic violence issues, met the media on Tuesday and was asked if he will speak out against domestic violence or get involved with a local shelter. Hardy responded by saying that he’s looking forward, not back, and is focused only on football. He also commented about the wife of Tom Brady, the quarterback for the New England Patriots, whom the Cowboys face on Sunday.

“I love seeing Tom Brady, he’s cool as crap. Have you seen his wife? I hope she comes to the game.” Hardy said. “I hope her sister comes to the game, all her friends come to the game. One of my favorite games of the year, guys.”

A reporter mentioned that he was sure the wife of Jacksonville quarterback Blake Bortles was attractive as well.

“Is she?” Hardy asked. “This kind of information is important. That’s how I select my Pro Bowls.”

To say Hardy’s comments didn’t go over well would be an understatement.

Here’s a sampling of local and national reaction to Hardy’s comments:

USA Today sports columnist Christine Brennan: Greg Hardy is a young man who has been known to tackle a quarterback or two, as well as his one-time girlfriend. For the former, he has received the usual accolades. For the latter, he was kicked out of the NFL. Now he’s back, and he’s talking. Unlike Ray Rice, though, he isn’t apologizing for his acts of domestic violence. No, he’s telling jokes that he thinks are funny. He’s talking about Tom Brady’s wife. And other wives. If there’s one man in professional sports who should be contrite, it’s Hardy. Clearly, he doesn’t have it in him. This unrepentant and immature behavior by Hardy in his debut with the Dallas media reflects terribly not only on him, but also on the Cowboys, the NFLPA, the NFL and everyone else who is supposed to be monitoring and guiding Hardy. Is there no one who is counseling him? Little over a year since the Rice elevator video, what kind of leadership is this?

The Dallas Morning News’ Sharon Grigsby: Question for Jerry Jones and Jason Garrett: How do you like that Greg Hardy now? Sounds like the player you so magnanimously gave a second chance to is living down to his reputation. Some commentators are saying that the exchange proves Hardy’s just not the sharpest knife in the drawer. That’s not my take: Sounds like a guy who thinks it’s really cute that he got away with shoving his then-girlfriend against a wall, applying enough pressure to her neck to leave visible marks and throwing her on a futon covered with at least four semi-automatic rifles. Not only was he not willing to reflect on the recent sorry episode in his life involving, at the least, anger issues, he decided to talk about the relative “hotness” of the wives of quarterbacks he will be facing going forward. Sadly, nothing learned here. Just the status quo when it comes to the culture of the NFL and women.

SBNation.com: After sitting more than year because of a domestic violence scandal, Hardy celebrated his return with remarks that were flippant, sexist and, most notably, tone deaf to the seriousness of the allegations that were levied against him.

National.suntimes.com: Instead of simply admitting some sort of guilt for his alleged assault where he threw Nicole Holder on to a pile of assault rifles, choked and threatened to kill her, “The Kraken” chose to focus on football and use the worst possible metaphor ever: “I hope I come out guns blazing.”

FoxSports.com: Hardy is hardly the first person to remark on Gisele’s looks, and perhaps he’s just trying to tweak Brady, but it would have been wiser of him to steer clear of that type of commentary, especially in light of the events that got him suspended.

nydailynews.com: Greg Hardy, who allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend last year and threatened to kill her, is showing no signs of remorse for his actions and instead is choosing to crack jokes — about women.

nbcsports.com: Ah, “guns blazin.'” A charming choice of words for a guy who had to surrender nine assault-type rifles and shotguns to police following the domestic violence arrest which included charges of threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend and throwing her into a futon full of said guns. That led him to spend all but one game of last season on the commissioner’s exempt list, followed by a 10-game suspension this year which was reduced to four. The criminal charges were thrown out when the accuser didn’t show for court, following a civil settlement. And if he has any remorse for his actions, it only pertains to not being able to play as much football or make as much money as he could have.

uproxx.com: Yes, Hardy, he of the egregious domestic violence charges, is focusing upon Brady’s wife … and her sister. Oh, sure, Hardy delivered the usual over-confident, football-related trash talk, but the fact he’s already commenting — unprompted — on women after returning from a suspension stemming from how he physically abused one seems most unwise. Then again, anyone who identifies himself as “Kraken from Hogwarts” probably isn’t thinking with the best intentions anyway.

Yahoo!Sports: It doesn’t appear that Greg Hardy spent the four weeks he was suspended by the NFL in media savvy training. Hardy, who had a 10-game suspension reduced down to four for a domestic violence incident last year involving his ex-girlfriend in 2014, returns to the field for the first time in more than a year on Sunday for the Dallas Cowboys against the New England Patriots. He spoke with the media on Tuesday and made some poor word choices. Very poor.

rantsports.com: Hardy’s incredibly lucky to be employed by any team in the league, but it seems he doesn’t acknowledge it to be the case, and will continue to play the role of antagonist despite being given a second chance he didn’t deserve.

Posted in Crime, Feminism | Comments Off on The War On Noticing

No Regrets

Posted on October 8, 2015 by Luke Ford

I’ve had no regret about converting to Orthodox Judaism, even as I have grown to understand the depth of my brokenness that led to the drama I created (in myself and around me) as I undertook all sorts of contradictory actions. I converted to Judaism in part to try to heal myself but my primary motivation was following divine truth and so even though my conversion did not heal my brokenness as I had intended, I’ve remained fascinated by Jews and Judaism, no matter what I’ve learned. I can’t imagine learning anything that would then make me bored with Torah and the Jews.

Of course someone driven to publicly proclaim that they have no regrets is giving himself away.

My happiness (in Judaism and almost everything else) correlates almost 100% with the quality of my connections. I struggle with feeling disconnected from others and this always puts me on the precipice of depression. Luckily I have Facebook and short wave radio.

For those who are Orthodox Jews from birth (FFB) (as well as for full fledged converts and BTs), I have a question: If you were born a goy, do you think you would want to convert to Judaism (having the Jewish knowledge that you possess now)?

Chaim Amalek: “Luke, if back when you first considered becoming a Jew you had known everything about the Jews that you know today, would you still have converted? I can imagine a future for you in which you convert to something else as a result of your newfound identity as a White Man. I do not see you as a Jew for Jesus ever, but I can see you teaching Roman Catholic theology as a Roman Catholic.”

Miriam Lilian D Or: I have seen a lot of people proudly proclaim “I’m here to convert” and the celebration red carpet is rolled at their feet by their close friends. The reality is that the red carpet is more like a ripped up old carpet in an alley behind the shul and pathetically mean comments from FFB people. And the things some rabbis wrote about converts are just as nice. I think the majority of people considering conversions these days should be made aware, rather than go in with the enamoured idea that they are more beloved and special. Rather than dealing with the harsh reality after and go off the derech from the rejection as many have.

Chaim Amalek: “I think most people who convert to a new religion have something wrong with them, or are trying to get beyond an unhappy childhood.”

Luke: “Rabbis know this. That’s why they turn away most prospective converts. They seem mentally ill.”

Miriam Lilian D Or: “Or criminals trying to find forgiveness from their crimes through a deity. I do have respect for anyone who can convert to Zoroastrian, that’s impossible to get into.”

Cole Tepper: “Convert reporting…I’d have done it much differently had I listened to the wisdom of peers also going through giyur. They ended up more established because they hung around established crowds, while I hung with the party folks in Chabad and fell into the allure of it all. It took time to see that the allure covers much darker things, and that really a lot of theological beliefs unique to Chabad have no relevance in my life. Really, I’d have been better off nutting up and flying here(Israel) sooner. I could’ve done army giyur…or..machon meir. Both would’ve turned out, I think, possibly better.”

Casey: “The great religions are the ships, Poets the life boats. Every sane person I know has jumped overboard.” -Hafiz

It’s kinda the opposite question: if you were born a Jew, would you want to convert to Christianity? The answer is apparently universally, “uh, no.”

A friend says: A friend says: Dear Luke,

The question worth asking yourself, is not knowing what you know now would you convert to Judaism, but in your case had you been anywhere but the United States (and let’s face it, that means for someone born in Australia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Great Britain with the possibility of South Africa pre ANC governance) would you have converted to Judaism.

I believe you needed a sufficiently multicultural environment to feel comfortable converting to Orthodox Judaism. If this is true, it is ironic since only by living in the type of society you deplore would you have considered conversion.

Posted in Conversion, Orthodoxy, Personal | Comments Off on No Regrets

Diversity As A Threat To Confidence

Posted on October 8, 2015 by Luke Ford

Growing up as a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian in Australia and Northern California, it never occurred to me in my first 18 years that there might be a religion more true than mine. I had no doubt that Anglo Protestants produced the finest civilization in the world.

I did not know any Catholics, Jews, or Muslims, and therefore I never considered that their ways might be superior to my own.

In my first year of junior college, I met my friend’s mom who said that UCLA was hard for her because there was so many smart Jews. I didn’t quite know what to do with that idea, but it must have troubled my self-confidence because I’ve never forgotten her remark. At the time, I did not know I knew any Jews.

After age 18, I began welcoming some points of view that challenged my own. I was looking to move on from the way I was raised. When I went to UCLA at age 22, I was thrilled by the diversity. I became fascinated by my first experiences with Jews and that led to my conversion to Orthodox Judaism, but if I had never met Jews, it would never have occurred to me to convert to Judaism, or to consider that there was any religion more true than mine.

I suspect that if you grow up in Orthodox Judaism and you have no friends who aren’t Orthodox Jews, it would never occur to you that another way of life might be superior to your own. That seems to be the way the world works from what I have seen. My friends who grew up in this way found college a mind-blowing experience when they met non-Jews who were every bit as smart and in many ways more moral than their own kind. This has led some of my FFB (Frum aka Orthodox Jews from birth) to bouts of self-admitted anti-Semitism. They see that they were propagandized to believe that Jews were superior and it turned out not to be true in many ways, but they feel stuck in their traditional Jewish marriages and communities and can’t leave.

Most Jews I know don’t understand why anyone would convert to Judaism. They feel stuck being Jewish. Most Orthodox Jews I know don’t seem particularly happy about being Orthodox Jews.

Extrapolating from my life experience, I think I understand one motivation for why countries have expelled Jews and other minorities. Who wants that challenge? Who wants that diversity? It is much more comfortable when everyone around you shares your race and religion.

In the Australia that I know, the white Australia of Christian origin, there’s an instinct that everyone who’s not an Aussie is a loser. This strong in-group identity promotes camaraderie among white Australians and hostility to outsiders.

What if one were black and was only friends with blacks and you were near the top of your class in your black school, and then you have to compete with non-blacks at college? That would be dispiriting.

Or imagine you are an Arab living in a Palestine that is 80% Arab (as Palestine was circa 1920) and suddenly your land is taken over by high-IQ Jews. How would you feel when you are expelled from your land? How would you feel when you see that your fellow Arabs have an average IQ of about 85 while Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ above 105? That must produce rage and a willingness to die rather than to live with such humiliation.

I think I understand now why Muslim lands had so many restrictions on Jews. If Jews are granted freedom and equal rights, they will rise to the top and dominate due to their superior intelligence, diligence, drive and group cohesion. How humiliating that must be for non-Jews.

For decades, 90% of Australian immigration has been non-white. As a result, Asians are increasingly the managerial class in Australia. This hurts the confidence and cohesion of white Australians.

Up until the 1960s, America was dominated by Protestants, but increasingly over the past century, Jews have become America’s elite. Jews dominate the media, academia and cultural institutions. How dispiriting and divisive this must be for non-Jews.

Posted in Diversity | Comments Off on Diversity As A Threat To Confidence

Steroids & Republicans

Posted on October 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I recall [Tom] Wolfe saying once that either in college or grad school, he roomed with one or two pre-med guys and they always had Gray’s Anatomy lying around. He said that he basically memorized the major muscle groups then and never forgot any of it. So that when he started to notice that weight lifting was getting popular in the ’80s, he could name every muscle.

My recollection of the The Right Stuff is that there is no discussion of weightlifting per se. But there is a divide among the astronauts between the old school pilots, who believed that exercise was for pussies, and the more clean living ones like Glenn who took it very seriously. NASA had physical standards for all of them but they were not enforced on the likes of Shepard, who found the whole idea an affront to his manhood. Glenn and Carpenter took the exercise standards very seriously. Most of the rets did not, with Shepard being the most hostile and really resenting what he saw as Glenn’s insistence on making the rest look bad.

I think the first time that Wolfe starts to write about muscles overtly (at least that I can recall) is in Bonfire, where it’s a recurrent them. Larry Kramer lifts and has weights in his little UWS apartment. His office mates make fun of him for feeling his muscles all the time. Then there is Rev. Bacon’s man Buck, who is jacked, but in both the prologue and the last chapter gets clocked by someone much smaller (it’s actually Sherman at the end). The last chapter is of course called “Into the Solar Plexus.” Then also there’s the scene when Sherman first goes to jail and he notices how built everyone else is in the holding cell.

From that point on muscles play a role in all of Wolfe’s books.

* I’m surprised you didn’t mention Andrew Sullivan’s steroid use and warmongering. It’s possible that Sullivan’s retirement from public life may be related to going off of testosterone.

They let you exercise harder than you could without them, but they don’t relieve the pain of lifting improbable weights.

Steroids seem to suppress or help you ignore pain. I have a nagging injury that has been painful for years. During a short course of TRT the pain disappeared, then came back when I went off. Other users and abusers report the same.

Steroids are a peculiar drug from a moral point of view because while goofs like Canseco sometimes used them, they functioned best for outstanding examples of the Protestant work ethic such as Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds.

That’s modern life in a nutshell. Mortgages, credit, sex, smoking, unhealthy foods etc. can be used carefully by certain people, but not others.

* Some observations about conservative vs liberal drugs:

-The effects of most drugs are socially constructed. For example many of the personality shifts associated with alcohol (higher sociability, higher aggression, lower inhibitions), manifest when experiment subjects think they’re drinking alcohol but aren’t. And vice versa, they fail to appear when experimental subjects are intoxicated but unaware. The effects and dispositions of drugs changes with cultural attitudes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/health/04mind.html?_r=0

-That being said, psychedelic use does seem to impart semi-permanent personality changes. A single experience with psilocybin increases subjects’ “openness to experience” factor score in the HEXACO personality model for a year or longer. Openness is highly correlated to socially liberal attitudes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience#Drug_use

-Related to steroids, a research study confirmed that upper body strength is positively correlated with self-interested political views. Strong men prefer less economic redistribution if rich and more if poor. Weak men tend to vote for what they think is best for society rather than just themselves. This result’s been replicated across a several different countries and cultures.

http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/2013Petersen_PsychologicalScience.pdf

-Physically stronger men (and physically attractive women) are more prone to anger and tend to prefer the use of force to resolve conflicts. This applies both interpersonally as well as internationally. Strong men heavily favor the use of military intervention.

* “It’s possible that the ascension of transgenderism to the cause célèbre of the 2010s…may be in part an aftereffect of the abuse of artificial hormones over recent decades… Perhaps some of them used chemical assistance to be more masculine when they were young, and are now experiencing a kind of hormonal blowback?“

I’ll second this with anecdotal evidence: my uncle’s former co-worker was a fanatical body-builder and juice-head. After years of constantly packing on more and more muscle, he finally declared himself a “woman” and started going around in a wig and dress. He looked about as feminine as a tutu-clad Dwayne Johnson. If the steroid use didn’t cause the transgenderism directly, then they were at least both a reflection of some weird underlying body dysmorphia.

I’m waiting for an irreverent comedy writer on a a high-profile film or TV project to take advantage of the inherent humor of ultra-masculine men declaring themselves “women” and demanding all the rights and privileges reserved for the fairer sex. Just throw Patrick Warburton or Terry Crews in a wig and pumps, then have him scream at people indignantly, and the jokes practically write themselves.

* By the way, if you do a Google search for fagification, Google asks if you mean gayification instead.

I mean what I type and I type what I mean.

Posted in Health | Comments Off on Steroids & Republicans

Wimpy White UCLA Anthropologist: “I’ve Never Been So Disgusted with My Own Data”

Posted on October 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

From the New York Post:

Americans make racist assumptions based on names, study finds

By David K. Li October 7, 2015 | 9:42am

Americans draw racist conclusions about people they’ve never met just by learning their names, according to researchers who were “disgusted” by their own findings.

The study, published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, asked subjects to describe their feelings about imaginary characters with stereotypical white names, such as Connor and Wyatt, and stereotypical black names, such as Jamal and DeShawn.

“I’ve never been so disgusted with my own data,” said lead author Colin Holbrook, an anthropologist at UCLA.

Test subjects were read a short story about a man — with either a stereotypical white name or black name — being bumped at a bar, and then verbally berated.

Test subjects were then asked to describe what they imagined that man to look like and what he did in response to that contact and verbal assault.

“A character with a black-sounding name was assumed to be physically larger, more prone to aggression, and lower in status than a character with a white-sounding name,” said Holbrook.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* And then he fainted.

* This might be a good place for me to tell my Jamal story. Jamal organized an over-30 basketball team, and invited me to play on the otherwise all-black squad. He said it was $30 per man for the entrance fee and uniform, and I wrote him a check on the spot. After the “season” was over, he said to me, “You know something? You’re the only guy who paid me.”

* The pathetic snowflake should resign and work at an inner city day care.

* I Wanna Be Black by Lou Reed (1978)

I want to be black
Have natural rhythm
Shoot twenty feet of jism, too
And fuck up Jews
I want to be black
I want to be a Panther
Have a girlfriend named Samantha
And have a stable of foxy whores
Oh I want to be black

* I bet Colin Holbrook lives in a mostly white neighborhood, far from scary low status blacks who he assumes are prone to aggression.

I looked up a picture of Colin Holbrook. Every white soft and weak looking guy like him that I know are scared shirtless of blacks and avoid them like the plague.

cholbrook

* Aren’t all of these assumptions justified? Isn’t one of the main liberal complaints that blacks are kept low status because of racism? Different races are obviously different in size. As for aggression, unless you’re taking advantage of the cheap real estate in black neighborhoods, then you are tacitly agreeing with this assumption as well.

* Wyatt Earp hung out in saloons, which led him to get into a famous gunfight, in which he shot three thugs to death. That historically true story resonates with the case study’s racism-proving story.

I remember watching the television show The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp, which was broadcast during the years 1955-1961 and starred the handsome actor Hugh O’Brian as the heroic lawman. Therefore the name Wyatt strikes a masculine bell in my mind.

The name DeShawn Earp for a dramatic character would strike me initially as a faggy, drag-queen Black who would screech comically if he/she were bumped and berated in a bar.

* A friend of mine who works in corrections says he wants to title his memoirs How Many Ways Can You Spell Antoine?

* Not only are these researchers uncool, they’re so princessy they can’t even manage to gin up some rightous outrage at the ‘racism’ they’ve uncovered. Lefty researchers even just a few years ago would have relished such findings because they provide ammunition for attacking the people they hate. But now a give-me-a-trigger-warning, help-me-avoid-the-taboo reaction seems to set in first . . . .

* Colin Holbrook is obviously a racist, because otherwise why would it even have occurred to him to have conducted a study like this? What put this noxious idea into his head? It’s inherently problematic. UCLA, I demand you expunge this obvious racist from your faculty. He is a disgrace to the study of anthropology.

* What possible point could there be of giving the characters names associated with one race but to draw out racial stereotypes. This was an opportunity for people to recognize an obvious situation to self censor with political correctness. But of course unless 100% did then q e d proof of disgusting racism.

Jamal Jones is playing basketball one on one with Ephraim Goldblatt. What do you predict the final score will be? Correct answer: tie game. Always and forever.

* I’m pretty sure all UCLA offices are (by law) equipped with fainting couches, so luckily no professors were harmed during this episode.

* No one forces black parents to choose freakish names. They choose them voluntarily, and it never seems to occur to anthropologists like Holbrook that black parents DELIBERATELY choose them to be different from typical white names.

Black parents are trying to segregate their kids from white kids by every method they can manage. They harass their kids if they try to talk white. They harass their kids if they study and like to read, etc., etc. They call blacks ‘oreos’ if they act white in any way, shape, or form. Blacks simply don’t want to integrate at all. Boneheads like Holbrook are oblivious to this fact.

* I knew a Wyatt in high school who was about five foot three, emo looking, and as gay as they come.

Never really been able to respect that name properly anymore.

* And if Colin Holbrook had instead used stereotypical Chinese names set against white names would he have gotten the exact same results — only this time:

“A character with a white-sounding name was assumed to be physically larger, more prone to aggression, and lower in status than a character with a Chinese-sounding name,”

‘The horror! The horror!

* I heard this sort of thing before. If there is some data that might be found racially uncomfortable, the researcher likes to preface with something like this guy, ” I have never been so disgusted with my data” and then they go ahead publish it to get the buzz it causes. It like using quotes around a thing to “distance the author from it”.

* Someone gave Jamal his name deliberately. His mother knew that the name Jamal was 1000x more likely to be a prison inmate’s first name than a CEO or Ivy League professor. Jamal’s mother was more interested in “keepin’ it real” and raised him accordingly.

Names have connotations, even within just one race. Like white. Here are some connotations I would personally attach for some white names:

Brayden: Beta, metrosexual, SWPL parents, spoiled

Chance: White trash, lots of siblings, stupid, plays sports, aims low

Melvin: Ugly (cute moms don’t name their sons Melvin, the name is so he doesn’t ever think he’s too good for the family- in case he happens to beat the hideous gene)

Noah: Upper middle class, bookish

Jackson: friendly, athletic

Lance: creepy, pseudointellectual, larping parents took him to the Renaissance Fairs too young and made him weird

There are plenty of normal names without obvious connotations like Chris, John, James, etc.

* I look forward to the followup study involving male and female names. When subjects assume the males are physically larger, that will prove rampant sexism.

* I don’t get what’s racist about the position apparently taken by respondents.

1. It’s obviously true

Ok sure, but we all know that for mentally ill liberals the mere truth is not a defense against racism. but even by that standard this isn’t racist because:

2. DeShawn is *happy* that he’s respected for not taking shit from people at a bar

And I’m not going to say he’s wrong for feeling this way. DeShawns of the world at least have enough dignity to command a certain type of respect and yes this affects how they’re treated; I’m going to need a good reason to step to DeShawn and berate him in public because I will expect him to throw down when challenged.

But even if you don’t like DeShawn’s culture or attitude of masculinity you at least have to say that *by his own lights* DeShawn is not being treated poorly by this respect of his principles.

* Link: “These are the girls’ names that made the teachers blanch – some with comments attached: Adrienne (kiss of death – spiteful, sneaky or both), Alanna, Ashleigh, Britney, Candice, Chantelle (spawn of the devil), Chelsie, Chelseigh, Chloe (nasty, spiteful). Cindy (always a pain in the a**e) Courtney, Cortnee, Cortnie (trouble), Danielle (a nightmare), Jade, Jodie, Jordan (pretty bad for a girl), Kayleigh (a pain), Keeley, Keira (live in fear), Kimberley, Kylie, Leanne, Leigh, Lou-Lou, Mia, Paige, Poppy (hyperactive and not very bright), Stacey, Tyler (lesson disrupter).”

* He got a result he’s not supposed to like, so he says he doesn’t like it and then publishes it, because he’s an academic, and publish or perish.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on Wimpy White UCLA Anthropologist: “I’ve Never Been So Disgusted with My Own Data”

If Islam Is So Wonderful?

Posted on October 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

Screen-Shot-2015-09-28-at-4.48.44-PM

I do not know of a country that has become more Muslim and more free.

A friend says: “The lands are not ruled by Islam. Some countries (Saudi Arabia and Iran) claim to follow Islamic law (Sharia) but the countries are ruled by persons. Some of those persons are enlightened, some are enlightened despots, and some are despots. Some of them have a difficult time controlling a fractious nation comprised of warring factions. But there are many nations that are primarily Islamic which are not hellholes from which everyone tries to escape. In Europe you have Turkey, Cyprus and Albania. In North Africa you have Morroco, Tunisia, and to some extent Algeria. Lebanon was for many years peaceful until it became unstable due to the PLO which was comprised of Palestinian refugees from Israel, and then it really fell apart following repeated Israeli invasions, Jordan is a fairly stable country, and the natives of Qatar, Dubai, the Emirates and Kuwait don’t seem to mind being very rich from oil wealth. Going further east, neither Malaysia not Indonesia are filled with people eager to escape Islamic rule. So it’s a cute bumper sticker, but not borne out by reality.

There are many other places around the world (mostly sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of central and south America and the Caribbean (Haiti) which are much less desirable places to live.)”

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on If Islam Is So Wonderful?

Dreaming Of Hard Work

Posted on October 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

I had a boss who said: “I don’t think you dream of hard work. There’s not tear in your eye when you think about missing work. I’m just curious about that reverie you had. You take four days off for some Jewish holiday and I don’t think you miss work. I don’t see any joy when you enter the office. Is that just my impression?”

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on Dreaming Of Hard Work

The West

Posted on October 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

What does it say about Western weakness that they allow emigres to take over their culture?

Jews would never allow gentiles to control culture and media in the Jewish state.

I found the documentary Hollywoodism painful to watch.

For Orthodox Jews, Hollywood is not a good thing. Orthodox Jews have many of the same complaints as the makers of this documentary, i.e. that Hollywood tears down and mocks things that should be considered sacred. Traditional Orthodox Jews consume very little that Hollywood produces. Traditional Orthodox Jews consider themselves at war with Hollywoodism.

Fear of anti-Semitism is a major Hollywood theme but the more religious you go in Orthodox life, the less concern there is with fighting anti-Semitism. Orthodox Jews are so busy observing their religion they have no time nor inclination to fixate on anti-Semitism. There is no mitzvah to fight prejudice and bigotry and racism and anti-Semitism. These are preoccupations of some secular Jews such as the ADL crowd.

Hollywoodism starts with three minutes of clips from the movie, “Jews, Hollywood and the American Dream,” which is based on the Neal Gabler book, “An Empire of Their Own: How Jews Invented Hollywood”.

Narrator from the Neal Gabler documentary: “Among these immigrants were the future founders of the studios, but they brought with them a new vision of America. Hollywood was a dream dreamt by Jews.”

Expert: “I’m not sure there was an American dream because the Jews came to Hollywood and invented it. Today we have a popular culture that creates dreams.”

Narrator: “The moguls created the images, the icons, and the visual forms that we identify with the American way of life.

Neal Gabler: “They created their own America, an America which is not the real America, but it is their own version of the real America, but ultimately this shadow America becomes so popular that its images and values come to devour the real America. Americans come to define themselves by the shadow America created by Eastern European Jews.”

“Anyone anywhere could identify with so many of the themes of American movies, one of which was the identity of the outsiders. Jews being outsiders making movies about outsiders.”

Narrator: “Identification with the little guy, the prize fighters, the loner, and the gangsters.”

Expert: “Hollywoodism is the ruling ideology of our culture. Hollywood culture is the dominant culture. It is the fantasy structure that we are all living inside.”

This Hollywoodism documentary concludes: “Hollywoodism is the alien ideology that has infected western culture.”

“Remember, if you see something, say something! Help to deconstruct the mythology of the new religion. Let others know! Expose the agenda, analyze and point out the propaganda and subliminal messages in Hollywood entertainment.”

The documentary concludes with a rant by Douglas Rushkoff, author of Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism: “The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea, is that we smash things that aren’t true. We don’t believe in the boundaries of nation states, we don’t believe in these ideas of individual gods that protect individual people, these are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that. In a sense, our detractors have us right in that we are a corrosive force, we’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real and that’s very upsetting to people.”

I interviewed Jewish intellectual Paul Gottfried in 2014:

Luke: “I saw how effectively and without any shame how Jews organize in our self-interest. We do not sell our homes to non-Jews in this community.”

Paul: “You’re talking about a group that does not recognize white Protestants as anything other than the other, as some outside group.”

Luke: “If we Jews can and should organize in our self-interest, and every other group does except for whites, that makes me think, hey, why aren’t [non-Jewish] whites organizing in their group interest?”

Paul: “That’s like saying you’re going to become black or Chinese because these are groups that organize in their self-interest. The one indispensable element for Western civilization are the white Christians. Once they go, everything goes. Jews aren’t going to save anything except Jewish self-interest, which is often viewed as incompatible with the preservation of a Western Christian civilization. Jews typically tend to weaken that.”

“To say that Orthodox Jews are less of a threat to civilization does not mean that they are an appealing alternative. They’re not as dangerous as the more assimilated Jews. It doesn’t make them the good guys. It doesn’t make them a model you want to imitate if you are interested in preserving Western civilization.”

“What we’re looking at is created by white Christians. They’ve created multiculturalism and all those problems, but once they go down, I don’t think much will survive as a recognizable Western society.”

“I don’t think whites have a nationalist sense. I don’t think they’ve had a nationalist sense. My concern is not with the lack of nationalism but with the masochism they are expressing, the self-destructiveness. Nationalism is always organizing against other groups. What whites need to do is to stop beating themselves and treating other groups according to their just deserts.”

“Most whites at most times do not buy into this white nationalism. There are other things that have united white people — ethnicity, religion, being a part of a particular nation. It is rare that whites have seen themselves in terms of racial nationalism.”

“I have had this discussion with Jared Taylor on a number of occasions and I have tried to explain to Jared that whites in the past have expressed racial preferences does not mean that white nationalism was the focus of their existence. Groups dislike other groups and try to preserve their own identity. White nationalism says that nothing else really counts in terms of what we are except race. I have a problem with that. I don’t want to take sides with homosexuals against black people. I’m much more concerned about the feminists and homosexuals than I am about people of different races because I am a social conservative.”

Luke: “Why couldn’t white nationalism mean organizing in your group interest just like all other groups do?”

Paul: “Nationalism historically has meant reaction, the friend-enemy distinction. Nationalism in the 19th Century develops against some group that has conquered somebody else. It contributes to the tensions of both sides leading to World War I. Until recently, it was a destructive force. I don’t think it is true anymore. I support nationalist movements in Europe because they are against multiculturalism. They don’t usually hate their neighbors, at least in Western Europe. I don’t think the nationalist paradigm even works here. I don’t think the problem is that whites are beleaguered but that whites behave in a lunatic fashion. They just have to stop being lunatics. They don’t have to hate blacks or exclude them, just don’t be crazy. I worked at a college. I think most of the people I worked with were certifiable. The feminists, the anti-whites, they were just loony tunes. The answer is not to organize them as white nationalists, it is getting them to [stop] behaving in a crazy way.”

Posted in England, Europe, Hollywood, Jews | Comments Off on The West

WP: Why you shouldn’t be surprised that prisoners crushed Harvard’s debate team

Posted on October 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

From the Washington Post:

Last month, a debate team of three inmates with violent criminal records defeated a team of three Harvard University undergraduates.

It sounds like an underdog story plucked from the pages of a yet unwritten Walt Disney screenplay — and in some ways, it is.

But it’s also worth pointing out the fallacy of our underlying assumptions about such a match-up — the first (and most pernicious) being that if a definitive link between criminality and below-average intelligence exists, nobody has found it.

Despite living behind bars, prisoners have recorded albums, produced fine literature, run lucrative criminal enterprises and mastered the ancient meditation technique known as Vipassana.

As the highly sophisticated prison break from Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, N.Y., made clear earlier this year, inmates are not only intelligent, but often more capable and deliberate than those of us on the outside. Richard Matt may have been smart enough to tunnel his way out of prison using rudimentary engineering skills picked up on the fly, but like many career criminals, his greatest gifts were probably rhetorical in nature, prison staffers said.

The debate took place last month at the Eastern Correctional Facility in New York, a maximum-security prison about an hour southwest of Bard College. The hosts beat a Harvard team that had won three of four American Parliamentary Debate Association National Championships.

“There are few teams we are prouder of having lost a debate to than the phenomenally intelligent and articulate team we faced this weekend,” the Harvard College Debating Union wrote on Facebook after the defeat. “And we are incredibly thankful to Bard and the eastern New York correctional facility for the work they do and for organizing this event.”

To get the real story, you have to go to the comments on the story:

* In general prisoners have lower intelligence than the average population. 70% of them do not have a high school diploma. That doesn’t mean very intelligent people aren’t convicted; they are usually poor and couldn’t afford a good lawyer, or they were actually guilty.

* With one Google search I found 3 scholarly articles that did, in fact, link lower intelligence with criminal behavior. Why could the writer of this article not find it?

* Criminals are dullards. Everyone know this. We need no study to know this, it is self-evident. The author wrongly suggests that if a tiny handful of criminals in jail are cherry-picked to debate, have tutored instruction by a debate expert, and have the jail-time afforded leisure to prepare ALL DAY-EVERY DAY, they somehow represent the average criminal in prison. Middle school mathematics says otherwise. The three evil criminals being coached to do something as simple as debate have nothing to do with the 1.3 million evil criminals in prison.

A Google search reveals that prisoners on average have low IQs.

Where’s the video of this debate? Judges can decide on a winner for reasons that have nothing to do with excellence.

Why do blacks keep winning these debates? Steve Sailer writes July 20, 2015:

Warning: Language, while up to Presidential podcast norms, does not meet iSteve standards.

As you may have heard, college debate has collapsed into complete farce in recent years due to white and Asian people letting black contestants turn it into a contest over who is most black. (The black contestants don’t use the word “black” to describe themselves, however.) While the white-Asian teams discuss Constitutional law and social science findings regarding the debate’s official topic, the black teams ignore the subject they are supposed to be debating. Instead, they rap and twerk and denounce white women for shoving them while they were riding on the escalator when they were four.

And they win, because few white judges dare vote publicly against blacks acting stupid. (The secret ballot is an underrated thing.) That would be like admitting you read The Bell Curve.

A point I make over and over is that nobody really takes the conventional wisdom seriously because you don’t often see major institutions allowing themselves to be completely destroyed in the name of the logic of political correctness. Corrupted, of course; made less effective, sure. But obliterated, no. Society over the last half century has figured out lots of ways to buy off the loudest black people. For example, in The Bonfire of the Vanities, the mayor of New York spends part of most days handing out Plaques for Blacks.

But college debate is an exception to my rule, perhaps because there is so little money involved. In college debate, there’s nothing except plaques, so blacks now have to win all of them.

If you are a Democratic political strategist, this video ought to make you a bit worried about the Democrats’ future. You’ve looked at all the demographic forecasts about how you are importing millions of ringers to vote Democratic, but will blacks be willing to share?

On the other hand, there is one organized group that has the testicular fortitude, the sheer narcissistic rage to stand up to the black debaters, to go jaw to jaw screaming with them over who is most oppressed: the transies.

And here’s a preview of what the Democratic primary campaign of 2020 will look like if Hillary loses next year.

From Business Insider:

* Genetics make up an estimated 40 to 80% of a person’s IQ
Despite the environmental effects on IQ, heritability still plays a bigger role in determining overall IQ.
Environmental factors can mean the loss or gain of a few points here or there, but it pales in comparison to what you’re born with.

Source: University of Delaware

* Contrary to popular belief, the higher your IQ, the more likely you’re socially smart

Of course, correlation does not prove causation. But IQ is strongly correlated to educational, professional, economic and social success or failure. It’s difficult to say what exactly IQ tests measure beyond “general” intelligence, but those with a high score see positive outcomes in education and social competence, so it can’t be too bad.

Source: University of Delaware

* People with a lower-than-average IQ (between 75 and 90) are more likely to drop out, go to jail and live in poverty
Significantly more, in fact: people in the 75 to 90 range are 88 times likelier to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to go to prison, and five times more likely to live in poverty than those with an IQ over 110.

Source: Mega Foundation

* For each one-point increase in a country’s average IQ, the per capita GDP was $229 higher, and can go up to $468 higher for each additional point
Atlas of Economic Complexity
A recent article in Psychological Science revealed that in a study of 90 countries, the “intelligence of the people, particularly the smartest 5 percent, made a big contribution to the strength of their economies.”

While it should be stressed that “smart” and “high IQ” are not synonymous, it is worth noting that there were hard numbers behind that assertion.

Source: Psychological Science

* Lower IQ scores are linked to more suicidal feelings

Though there are multiple factors at work, Swedish researchers have drawn a link between lower IQ scores and suicidal feelings.

Low IQs can mean bad problem-solving abilities, which makes people less capable of dealing with stress in crisis situations.

Source: Scientific American

* If you have an IQ of at least 115, you can do any job

People with low and high IQ scores can work almost any job at almost any level. But it becomes increasingly difficult to perform well in very complex or fluid jobs (such as management in an ambiguous, changing, unpredictable fields) with a lower IQ. An IQ over 115 places no restrictions on what you can do.

On the other hand, unskilled work doesn’t require a high IQ, as only simple decisions need to be made.

Source: University of Delaware

Posted in Crime | Comments Off on WP: Why you shouldn’t be surprised that prisoners crushed Harvard’s debate team