Sheffield says Latin players easier to control than blacks

Posted on January 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

ESPN: The percentage of African-Americans playing Major League Baseball is at an all-time low and Gary Sheffield says he has a theory why that’s the case.

In an interview with GQ magazine that’s currently on newsstands, the typically outspoken Tigers designated hitter said Latin players have replaced African-Americans as baseball’s most prevalent minority because they are easier to control.

“I called it years ago. What I called is that you’re going to see more black faces, but there ain’t no English going to be coming out. … [It’s about] being able to tell [Latin players] what to do — being able to control them,” he told the magazine.

“Where I’m from, you can’t control us. You might get a guy to do it that way for a while because he wants to benefit, but in the end, he is going to go back to being who he is. And that’s a person that you’re going to talk to with respect, you’re going to talk to like a man.

“These are the things my race demands. So, if you’re equally good as this Latin player, guess who’s going to get sent home? I know a lot of players that are home now can outplay a lot of these guys.”

According to a 2005 report by the University of Central Florida
Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, only 8.5 percent of
major leaguers were African-American — the lowest percentage since
the report was initiated in the mid-1980s. By contrast, whites
comprised 59.5 percent of the majors’ player pool, Latinos 28.7
percent and Asians 2.5.

Posted in Baseball, Blacks, Latino | Comments Off on Sheffield says Latin players easier to control than blacks

Are we ready to learn the hard lessons from Cologne?

Posted on January 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

That’s the first question I ask girls on Tinder these days — Hey sweetie, are we ready to learn the hard lessons from Cologne?

By Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Harold Brackman:

Nobody has adequately zeroed in on the underlying triple whammy — government blindness to the problem of Muslim integration, police failure to act and media-government collusion in “seeing no evil” — that underlie this European — not just German — tragedy.
For years, Sweden’s third-largest city, Malmo, led by popular Mayor Ilmar Reepalu, failed to ever hold to account Muslim perpetrators of hate crimes against the city’s tiny Jewish population. Muslim attacks on local Jews were even condoned by city fathers as understandable “payback” for Israeli actions against Palestinians. Reepalu is now retired, but the culture of denial and complicity he helped foster has contributed to inaction and silence in the face of a tremendous surge in rapes by predominately Muslim immigrants in Sweden, with the third-largest number of rapes worldwide.
In France, the culture of denial and inaction against hate crimes targeting Jews set the stage for today’s threat by Islamic radicals to social peace and French ideals. Back in 2000, before then-Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy tried to do something about it, French authorities stood by as Jews were attacked in religiously mixed Parisian neighborhoods. There followed firebombings of synagogues, incited by fiery street-corner imams, with tepid police response. One incident tells all: Two Arab men, one with a gun, commandeered a Jewish school bus, terrorizing the students and smashing the windshield. The police refused to label it as a hate crime, only as an act of vandalism. The most then-Prime Minister Lionel Jospin would do was “pray for harmony.” The escalating hate and violence laid the groundwork for the Muslim terrorist attack on a Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012, killing a rabbi and three little children.
Today, France’s struggles with homegrown and imported Islamic terrorism are a direct outgrowth of its years of cynical indifference to anti-Jewish Muslim violence and the no-go zones that emboldened Islamist extremists.
And as the political and social dynamics continue to roil, Jewish leadership wonders aloud whether there is any future for Jews in democratic Germany.
Looking forward, it is clear that while police and intelligence agencies can do more to protect us from the next Cologne or San Bernardino, the key lies within the Muslim world. ISIS and al-Qaida deftly market their extremist agenda on social media. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, our supposed NATO ally, said this during a speech in Cologne in front of a Muslim immigrant audience drawn from as far as Belgium, the Netherlands and France: “I understand very well that you are against assimilation. One cannot expect you to assimilate. … Assimilation is a crime against humanity.”
Belatedly, the White House has announced it will launch a new effort to counter ISIS’ inroads among young Muslims. We urge President Barack Obama to seek the counsel of Americans such as Zuhdi Jasser, the Phoenix cardiologist who helped found the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) and the Center for Islamic Pluralism.
A devout Muslim who believes that “America in fact provides the best atmosphere for Muslims to practice our faith,” Jasser spoke a few weeks ago at the launch of a Muslim Reform Movement at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. He made clear that Erdogan’s anti-assimilation gospel is a dead end, that religious pluralism is indivisible, and that anti-Semitism will lead nowhere good for growing number of Muslim newcomers who want to be benefit from America’s historic “open door.”
Embracing that Muslim-to-Muslim message should be a top priority of a president in search of a legacy. It will make America safer and pave the way for new Muslim immigrants to become a part of the fabric of our democracy.

COMMENTS POSTED ON THE ARTICLE:

* You are dreaming if you think we could take in hundreds of thousands of Muslims without it having a detrimental effect on Jews. If my grandchildren are assaulted by Muslims and if my parents’ tombstones are desecrated will you take responsibility for it, Rabbi Cooper?

I recently saw an article that defines liberals perfectly and pertains especially to Jewish liberals. The definition of a Jewish liberal is a masochist who defends sadists.

* Jews have always acted as the canaries of civilization, when you let them be attacked, the time is very close to when you yourself will be attacked without pity by the same hateful attackers.
The answers to a problem never lie with “the other” here Islam. We need to tell Islam in no uncertain terms that our women and our lives are sacrosant, and this, unfortunately involves violence and intransigency, distrust and discrimination.
Islam needs a good reason to respect the West. So far it has a good reason to disrespect it, taunt it, and a well founded belief it can get away with it.

* This is what happens when you stop listening to your citizens.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on Are we ready to learn the hard lessons from Cologne?

WATCH: ‘Angela Merkel You Have Killed Germany!’ – 16 Year Old Girl’s Migrant Fears Video That Some Claim Facebook Are ‘Censoring’

Posted on January 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Breitbart: “Please help us!… It is… very hard to live day-to-day as a woman” says 16 year old Bibi Wilhailm, a German girl who has uploaded her personal experiences of Arab and Muslim migrants in a new video that some claim is being censored by Facebook under it’s new “hate speech” guidelines.

The 20 minute video, apparently created by the 16 year old Facebook user Miss Wilhailm, starts with her saying that she is, “so scared everywhere, for example if my family and I go out together, or if I see a movie with my friends. Usually I stay out until 6pm in winter, and it is so scary. It is just very hard to live day-to-day as a woman.”

The girl – who some social media users report has now been banned from Facebook, though others say she has removed herself – then goes on to talk about an incident that happened to her at a local supermarket saying, “I ran all the way home. I was frightened for my life. There’s no other way to describe it.”

She talks about her experiences over summer, when a group of Muslims said that her and her friends were “sluts” for walking outside in t-shirts.

“Yes, we were wearing t-shirts. It’s summer!” She adds: “Another day, I was wearing this. My friend and I purchased it while shopping. If we feel like wearing it, we will wear it! And you Muslims have no right to physically assault or rape us for it! God willing, never in my life. You have no right to attack us because we are wearing t-shirts. You also have no right to rape”.

Miss Wilhailm then turns toward what she sees on social media, describing how she has seen, “a 17 year old attacked, a 15 year old attacked, two 12 year olds attacked, so many,” and questions, “why should we, children, have to grow up in such fear?”

“I cannot understand why they do this. But more importantly, I cannot understand why Germany is doing nothing! Why is Germany standing by, watching, and then doing nothing? Please explain, why. Men of Germany, these people are killing your children, they are killing your women. We need your protection,” she goes on to say adding, “The politicians live alone in their villas, drink their cocktails, and do nothing. They do nothing! I do not know what world they live in, but please, people, please help us! Please, do something!”

Continuing, Miss Wilhailm tells of her own personal experiences with Arab and Muslims migrants saying, “One day, my friend and I were walking down the street, and a group of Arabs were protesting and demonstrating. They shouted, ‘Allah! Allah! Allah is the one God! Kill those infidels! Allah Allah!’ What should I do? Should I wear a burka? Why should I have to convert to Islam?”

“It’s fine if you believe in Allah, but why do you want to make everyone else believe in Allah too? I just think it would be better if there were no religion. Stop trying to make everyone else believe in your God when they do not want to”.

According to the her experiences, the police are no help. She alleges, “they say it is a problem and they ignore it. It is unfair. They laugh at us. They say we are dumb,” and that, “they don’t care about our fears.”

This description matches many other cases where police have been afraid to be labeled as racist for taking a hard line on migrant crime and even victims of migrant crime have been accused of racism for speaking up.

Free market liberal group Freiheitliche Aufklaerung or ‘Liberal Education’ posted the video on their Facebook group page and made the following comment when it disappeared from Miss Wilhailm’s page:

“How many have already noticed the video “You make Germany broken!” is no longer there. In this video, the 16-year-old girl said that she now is afraid to go out alone and that they can not understand the insane asylum policy of the German government. Europe and Germany are thus ruined… Unfortunately, we live in a social dictatorship, in what critics of the establishment and its illiberal policies are tackled and accosted in the strongest terms.”

The group claims it doesn’t have evidence, but says it “can not rule out a censorship by Facebook 100%”.

Breitbart London understands from Facebook that while the matter has not been fully investigated yet, the usual reason for videos disappearing are down to the user taking them down themselves.

The censorship fears come after Facebook announced last year that they would help the German government monitor for “hate speech” and as recently as this month Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government has demanded Facebook remove posts and videos in the wake of the Cologne sex attacks. The company insists it does not comment on individual incidents.

The video ends with a stark message for German Chancellor Angela Merkel: “Thank you, Angela Merkel, for killing Germany! I have no more respect for you, Merkel. I do not think you know what you have done. You do not see how our lives have changed. Open your eyes! Is this normal? Should I, a 16-year old who is almost 17, be so scared to walk outside my house? No, it is not normal. You have killed Germany!”

She closes: “men please help your women. Help your children. I am so scared. My friends have the same fears. We are shocked that this has happened. I hope this video can convince you, and that these terrible events can stop.”

Social media users are posting the video to as many video sharing sites and blogs as possible in a bid to keep it online.

TRANSCRIPT:
Hello, you can read the newspapers but this video is about the real situation in Germany. I would like to tell everyone about this on Youtube and Facebook. I am almost 16. I would like everyone to know what is going on, what I am authentically feeling at this moment.

And I am so scared everywhere. For example, if my family and I go out together, or if I see a movie with my friends. Usually I stay at home, but sometimes I stay out until 6 pm in winter, and it is so scary. It is just very hard to live day-to-day life as a woman.

I just want to say that I am not a racist. But one day, a terrible thing happened at the supermarket. I ran all the way home. I was so frightened for my life. There’s no other way to describe it.

My aunt and her friend have said you have to grow up. Why should we, children, have to grow up in such fear? It’s not just me, my friends too. You can see on Facebook, a 17 year old attacked, a 15 year old attacked, two 12-year olds attacked, so many. It is really so sad that this is happening … because of YOU PEOPLE. 🙁

I cannot understand why they do this. But more importantly, I cannot understand why Germany is doing nothing! Why is Germany standing by, watching, and then doing nothing? Please explain, why. Men of Germany, these people are killing your children, they are killing your women. We need your protection. We are so scared, we don’t want to be frightened to go to the grocery store alone after sunset. The politicians live alone in their villas, drink their cocktails, and do nothing. They do nothing! I do not know what world they live in, but please, people, please help us! Please, do something! I cannot understand why this is happening. One day, my friend and I were walking down the street, and a group of Arabs were protesting and demonstrating. They shouted, “Allah! Allah! Allah is the one God! Kill those infidels! Allah Allah!” What should I do? Should I wear a burka? Why should I have to convert to Islam?

It’s fine if you believe in Allah, but why do you want to make everyone else believe in Allah too? I just think it would be better if there were no religion. Stop trying to make everyone else believe in your God when they do not want to.

Please, people of Germany. Do something!

When I try to tell the authorities about what has happened, they hold their hand up towards me and they say it is a problem and then ignore it. and they laugh. It is unfair. They laugh at us. They say we are dumb. They think this not only of me, but of the entire state of Germany. They don’t care about our fear. Please help us. This is an emergency! There are more and more of them.

One time in summer, the Muslims said we were sluts for walking outside in a t-shirt.

Yes, we were wearing t-shirts. It’s summer!

Another day, I was wearing this. My friend and I purchased it while shopping hehe. If we feel like wearing it, we will wear it! And you Muslims have no right to physically assault or rape us for it! God willing, never in my life. You have no right to attack us because we are wearing t-shirts. You also have no right to rape.

The life of Germany has changed because these people cannot integrate. We give them so much help. We support them financially and they do not have to work. But they only want more babies and more welfare and more money. Men of Germany, please, patrol the streets and protect us. Do this for your women and your children. If you do that, I believe that we will have a chance.

This sort of action would be wonderful. We would be so grateful and thankful. So many thanks, if steadily, more men would come to protect us. We are so scared.

I am so upset about what Merkel has done.

Thank you, Angela Merkel, for killing Germany! I have no more respect for you, Merkel. I do not think you know what you have done. You do not see how our lives have changed. Open your eyes! Is this normal? Should I, a 16-year old who is almost 17, be so scared to walk outside my house? No, it is not normal. You have killed Germany!

This is the truth. We are no longer allowed to walk outside. We are no longer allowed to wear our clothes. We are no longer allowed to live the German life. This is the sad truth.

I think it’s about time to end this video. I believe I have given a full account from a normal person. I hope others can see this and understand.

I only want to end with one message: Men, please, help your women. Help your children. I am so scared. My friends have the same fear. We are shocked that this has happened. I hope this video can convince you, and that this terrible events can stop.

Posted in Germany, Islam | Comments Off on WATCH: ‘Angela Merkel You Have Killed Germany!’ – 16 Year Old Girl’s Migrant Fears Video That Some Claim Facebook Are ‘Censoring’

The War On Noticing

Posted on January 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* That is so funny. The researchers didn’t think that what non-whites think would be of any importance and so didn’t even bother to interview them. They automatically bypassed them as though they were invisible.

* The left/academic label of “racist” is a slur only directed at whites. They would never call South African blacks or Gulf Arabs racist, even though they meet their definition.

* Lots of pushback in the comments. And this is The Atlantic! The cultural winds are definitely shifting. Can anyone envisage what a politically incorrect yet liberal future might look like?

* According to many liberals, it would look like Rwanda. That is the conclusion that many liberals jump to: equality or genocide – there is no middle ground. What does that tell you about them?

* Rawlsian arguments: African Americans didn’t choose to be born with lower median IQs, and they are still our fellow citizens, so they deserve our support and help. A recognition of IQ differences would support segregation by IQ in schools (it wouldn’t be strict segregation by race, since an African American with an IQ of, say, 90, would attend the same schools as a white American with an IQ of 90). Low IQ schools would be focused on basics – the three R’s – using simple rote learning methods, followed by vocational training with a pipeline to skilled trade jobs. This would be combined with a revival of the union movement to support higher wages for blue-collar Americans, as well as a reduction in immigration and targeted increases in tariffs and trade barriers to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. (much as Reagan did with the Japanese car industry in the 1980s to convince them to open American factories).

Meanwhile, we would embark upon a massive, Manhattan-Project-scale campaign to find a method of increasing genetic IQ. This could conceivably be done in a decade or two with enough resources, though you’d still have lower-IQ older people around for a while even afterward. We would also do everything possible to remove any environmental hazards that can lower IQ, such as lead-contaminated soil.

* Study out today showing 42 of the 50 most violent cities in the world are in Latin America, based on murder rate per 100,000.

There are four cities in the US (you know which ones) and four in South Africa on the list.

21 are in Brazil, the site of the 2016 Summer Olympics!! Eight in Venezuela and five in Mexico.

Mexico somehow got lucky and had five cities fall off the list from last year, even though homicides were up in Mexico for 2015 over 2014.

* SJWism is the last respectable refuge of white supremacism.

I’ve had exactly the same thought: that when looking at the spectrum of ideologies, modern liberalism belongs as a sub-set of white racial supremacism.

It’s telling that liberals are obsessed with the Nazis, as political groups often despise the very groups they are politically closest to–the ‘Judean Popular Front syndrome’ if you like, because they are competing for the same support.

In an era when whites are denied any way of understanding their own history, or any kind of racial/historical identity, consciousness, or sense of destiny, is it outlandish to suppose that for some liberals White Guilt offers them the only acceptable way for them to have a racial sense of belonging–albeit and entirely negative one? One in which the Master Race willingly dissolves itself–imagine Angela Merkel as Arnie at the end of Terminator 2, lowering herself into the molten metal–for the sake of creating an Equality of Untermensch at some future date?

* Yeah, you should hear what they say on Spanish language talk radio. One of my favorites (on a San Francisco station) was Hispanics complaining about Philipinos snarfing up Affirmative Action jobs meant for Hispanics (in particular how they’ve established a lock on Postal Service jobs).

* Just flipped the channel to Supergirl … Strong, smart, sexy, competent black man (who apparently is a Martian in disguise) talking about how the WHITE martians brutally slaughtered his people, the green martians back on Mars ….

The good news is, the ratings are starting to drop for this sh*t show.

* Barrons: SAT Integrity Falls Victim to China Cheating Scandal
College Board under fire amid security breaches and calls for the test to be optional in U.S. college admissions.

* “I think it was Vonnegut who pointed out that, for human beings, ideas are more badges of group identity than attempts to understand reality. It is indeed the same thing for both religious believers and leftists.”

I’m with Vonnegut. That’s far more of a human flaw than a quirk of the religious or the left. The right and secularists (and libertarians, wishy-washy middle-roaders, etc…) are certainly not immune.

In fact, that kind of twisting is arguably more dangerous among those who insist that their faction is intrinsically less susceptible to it, but that, too, is a flaw that extends to most all of humanity.

* The Martians come to Earth, and, feeling superior to Earthlings, grant, say, Minnesotans a permanent sense of grievance and a permanent sense of virtue, despite evidence that both grievance and virtue are unearned and undue. Swap Martians for whites, often the offspring of wealthy industrialists, and Minnesotans for blacks.

The left-liberal/SJW mindset has, I think, more complicated antecedents, but respectable white supremacism seems to me at first glance to lie among them. The idea needs more work than I can offer.

* The moderators here should help out by pressing a heavier boot on the anti-Semitism. The simple fact of racial IQ distributions means that no intellectual operation can get moving in the modern world that systematically excludes Jews.

Incidentally, I reported some comments at a popular news website that uses Facebook comments for egregious anti-Semitism. Facebook says such comments are just fine with them. Offend Palestinians and your account is liable to be locked out permanently but that was fine. It’s no wonder we need ADL. And with mass migration from the most anti-Semitic populations of the world into the West, it’s going to get worse.

* The ACT publishes a national report each year showing how people do on that test. Up until 2013 they published separate reports for every minority group. I took these numbers and put them into a spread sheet and backed out the races to leave a white distribution.

Anyway, I think a reasonable standard of someone being “really smart” is to have made a 30 or higher on the ACT. We could use different cutoffs, but this will suffice.

Three-tenths of one percent of blacks score a 30 or higher on the ACT. (Roughly 1,100 in the entire country).
1.46 percent of Hispanics score a 30 or higher.
Eight percent of whites score a 30 or higher (this includes Jews and American Indians; the former I couldn’t back out, the latter I was too lazy to).
Eighteen percent of Asians score a 30 or higher.

So there are roughly 24 times more smart whites than there are smart blacks, and 60 times more smart Asians than there are smart blacks. It’s certainly amazing how those college kids will notice things!

2014 stats.

* The ACT benefits from not being paid as much attention as the SAT. The ACT folks probably want to keep it that way.

* One must also remember that in 2016 Trump is now mainstream.

Or rather, Trump represents opinions that are now mainstream. Alt-right opinion has been building for a long time now. Every year it has been gaining strength, building exponentially. Few people notice that when you lop off the end of the hocky stick curve and zoom in, it’s another hockey stick. The growth rate of the curve is the same, but when it builds from 10% to 50% of the population, it’s a lot more noticeable than the 2 to 10% jump.

Put it this way: If Trump had tried to run for president 4 years ago with the same campaign, would he have had the same success? Maybe, probably not. 8 years ago? Doubtful. 12 years ago? Would have been dismissed as a loon.

* Middle Eastern Muslim cities like Cairo have tended to be relatively safe to walk around, except during political turmoil.

Things change.

Mexico, for example, was fairly low crime in the 1960s-1980s. The mirror on my dad’s rental car got busted while we were playing golf outside Veracruz in 1974. That’s about the only crime I can remember in about 30 days of wandering around Mexico over the decades with my father. My dad was convinced it wasn’t just a minor hit and run accident, that it was done intentionally by the golf club members who didn’t like outsiders at their country club. I didn’t believe him then. Now I don’t know what to think.

* Just as a rampaging idiot like George W Bush made it possible for a culturally Marxist, anti-American black man like Obama to be elected, Obama has made it possible for a nationalistic, non-pc candidate like Trump to have a chance.

* Steve, it looks like Denmark may be picking up on your idea to have immigrants require insurance, or at least a deposit:

Denmark is expected to adopt a law on Tuesday requiring police to seize cash and other valuables from some asylum seekers as they enter the country. The seizures, which would go toward defraying the cost of refugee care, are being widely criticized as a violation of human rights.
Mehran Ziai, a Kurd, …. says if he’d known about the proposed law when he came from northern Iraq five months ago, he might have gone elsewhere. “I had no choice but to come to Europe,” he says, “but maybe I wouldn’t have come to Denmark, because I see now they don’t like refugees here. Maybe I would have gone to Sweden or Norway or another country.”

Bingo.

* This was my problem with the new Star Wars – that every casting choice was so clearly laden with 2015-era political significance. The whole point of sci-fi and fantasy is escapism from our current cultural milieu, but in spite of some good scenes, the movie kept telling me the galaxy far far away was engaged in a titanic battle of Hillary’s Democratic Party versus the Space Nazis.

* Marty Peretz: “Well, I am extremely pessimistic about Mexican-American relations, not because the U.S. had done anything specifically wrong to our southern neighbor but because a (now not quite so) wealthy country has as its abutter a Latin society with all of its characteristic deficiencies: congenital corruption, authoritarian government, anarchic politics, near-tropical work habits, stifling social mores, Catholic dogma with the usual unacknowledged compromises, an anarchic counter-culture and increasingly violent modes of conflict. Then, there is the Mexican diaspora in America, hard-working and patriotic but mired in its untold numbers of illegals, about whom no one can talk with candor.”

The first thing that came to mind was my pet term that shows absolutely no sign of catching on: liberal white supremacy. Not Peretz, obviously, but his detractors at JournoList. I haven’t read the Two-Minute Hate yet, just Lying Eyes’ set-up, and the quote. But I don’t have to. I know what’s coming next; Liberal White Supremacy, which is the only way I can explain the absolute refusal on the part of liberals to take sentiments like Peretz’ seriously. The Great Big White Man can never be harmed by anything the little brown man does, so liberals are secure to play their insipid status games, where they prove they aren’t the kind of white trash threatened by LBMs. Of course, like everything else in liberalism, Liberal White Supremacy is a perversion of an underlying truth.

* By definition, since I only considered Caucasian girls when dating and courting, I must be racist. Good enough for me.

When someone calls me a name that I openly embrace, they’ve lost their little magic power (of incantations), haven’t they?

* Mexico’s recent murder wave is an initiative of the Presidente Felipe Calderón (2006-2012) administration. After years of cooperation with the drug cartels, Calderón — a recovering alcoholic — decided that the Gringo drug war had to be fought in earnest.

Since Gringos spend more on drugs than the entire Mexican military and police budgets by several times, the government forces were heavily outgunned. About half the Gringo drug money eventually makes its way south of the border to pay for smuggling the drugs north and the Gringos are willing to pay whatever it takes to keep the drugs flowing so cartel funds are effectively unlimited. Of course, much of the price of the impossible dream to stopping cartels is paid in blood.

Before Calderón, the anti-drug forces simply took cash from the cartels and distributed it among themselves under the table. Then the cartels set up friendly busts from time to time where the police would put on a big show for the occupying Gringo advisors pretending to collaborate with them by seizure of guns and powders and cash. It was peaceful and safe. Stupid Gringo bureaucrats didn’t know any better.

But Mexico is still safe to walk around in, except for a few northern cities. It would be astonishing if a 30-day visit resulted in any kind of contact with crime at all. Just stay out of places like Ciudad Juárez.

So I don’t know how dangerous many Arab cities are, but I expect a lot of them are dangerous. We simply don’t know much about places like Yemen or Gaza or ISIS. The Sub-Saharan and Afghan Moslem cities seem very violent from stories, but that isn’t data. I expect Sudan, Afghanistan, and the like might dominate a list of really murderous places with enough documentation.

Central America has always been both extremely violent — since Maya times — and good at orderly record keeping. That’s why the numbers there are so extreme. Unlike Mexico, the Mayans were never conquered by a European power and pacified. The Maya’s Guerra De Las Castas was bloody and horrible into the twentieth century and was resolved only by accepting democratic Maya majority rule. Then the Communists brought mass bloodshed again driven by Maya identity disguised as class conflict.

* if Leftists embraced HBD they would try and impose rules to encourage inter-racial mating. IQ is just one aspect of HBD and genetic engineering will first be available to the wealthy and too costly for use among the masses.

Leftists who embrace HBD would actively promote inter-racial mating. Just as the Left today fights against income inequality via taxes and quotas , they would use the same tools to wage battle against genetic inequality…..the government would subsidies a sperm donor program, so black females could get free sperm from East Asian donors….white and Asian females who have mulatto offspring would be given tax incentives , stipends , grants etc…to encourage miscegenation.
Most schools are already segregated, to encourage racial mixing leftists would work even harder to desegregate our schools, to encourage inter-racial mating. Schools which are less than 10% black would lose all government funding and no public school would exceed 20% black.

Posted in America, Blacks, Race | Comments Off on The War On Noticing

Betting & Sports

Posted on January 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The only purpose of a point spread is to ensure that a roughly equal amount of money is best on both teams.

Well, usually that’s what a book wants, and sometimes not, and how often a particular book wants that varies from book to book.

The advantage the bettor has over the book is that the bettor doesn’t have to play every game, while the book attracts a large clientele by offering odds on a lot of games in a lot of sports. When Jacksonville State plays Tennessee Tech in college hoops, most or all of the books are simply going to want to split the action. It’s a D-1 game, and they have to put up a number, so they do. They might have 100 college games plus 7 or 8 NBA games and 8 or 9 NHL games on the same Saturday (plus maybe pro tennis and European soccer and who knows what else). They’re unlikely to take a side, as they’re well aware that some people in Jacksonville, Alabama, may have a much better handle on what the line ought to be. However, in other cases, books will take a side.

First, the guys running the show generally like to gamble. I watched the Panthers-Pats Super Bowl with a party that included a former sportsbook director. He had 55 dimes on the side and 33 on the total. At one of the forums I frequent, we have posters who are inhouse at books in Costa Rica and other points south. They have opinions, and they shade lines to get uneven action. Not that long ago, when the Stardust used to put out the first numbers each Sunday during the football season, Roxy was always presumed to be inviting action on the favorite when he would make a team a 2,5-, 6.5-, or 9.5-point favorite or on the dog at +3.5, +7.5, etc.

Second, taking a side maximizes profits where the book is better at determining the true line than the public is. The Kelly Criterion remains applicable when you’re a sportsbook betting at +110 instead of -110, and you’re leaving money on the table if you don’t set the number somewhere between the true line and the split-the-action line. If your competitors do this (successfully) and you don’t, you may “conservative” yourself out of business.

* Kobe Bryant by himself never showed any ability to make his team better during his career. He won three titles with Phil Jackson and Shaq and Shaq was the MVP of all three championships. After having the streak stopped by San Antonio, the Lakers signed Peyton and Malone to push for a fourth one which despite being huge favorites they lost to the Pistons 4-1, largely because Bryant wanted to be “the man” more then in winning the title.

He pouted afterwards and got Shaq traded on unfavorable terms to Miami and de facto got Phil Jackson fired despite his then nine titles. The next three full seasons without a big man ( and with Jackson without a big the last two after being rehired after season one ) Bryant’s team missed the playoffs the first year and then had back to back first round exits. After this he pouted and demanded a trade from the Lakers because they couldn’t win with the team he demanded from Buss.

They were likewise going nowhere the following season when they got former Laker star and GM Jerry West who was know the Grizzlies GM to trade them their best players for gum and comic books and, lo and behold the Lakers became contenders again, winning the Western Conference, but losing to Boston 4-2 largely due again to Bryant’s inability to share the limelight with his teammates including the one that got him a new lease on life.

Now with a legitimate big man with passing skill the Lakers won two more titles the next two seasons after Bryant got Gasol for a full season for the first time. Eventually he got tired the little attention that Gasol got and eventually blew up that team as well, Jackson included, and have done absolutely nothing since. These last two seasons where the Lakers are one of the worst teams in the NBA are fitting end to career marked selfishness and an inability to play well with others.

* It’ll be interesting to see, btw, when the steroids revelations finally come out about the NBA. Clearly many of the players have been on them (check out the physiques in the 1990s!), and I think Lebron was one of them—his physique has been far too muscular compared to forwards of days gone by.

I usually judge physiques of baseball and basketball players by pre-1990s standards, since the late 1980s seems to be when athletes started to, en mass, drop the old superstitions about “weight lifting making you too tight to move”, which was probably due to the introduction of steroids, which offered bulk/strength without the loss of flexibility/agility ascribed to weight lifting. (Jose Conseco admitted being a sort of Typhoid Mary of Steroids in the late 1980s in baseball).

Anyway, Lebron took off his shirt once during an NBA game at the behest of his agent to show off for the crowd, and he was far too bulky and sculpted compared to pre-1990s power forwards/small forwards. Then you remember he was carrying that extra bulk down a hardwood floor 80-100 times a year, and it was clear the only way he could do so and remain that fast and agile was some sort of juice. Compare his body to, say, Tim Duncan, and he looked like Arnold.

Anyway, when the NBA thing hits, it’ll be great. Another circus.

* Both Newton and Russell Wilson were outstanding over the second half of the season, while this year the leading white pocket quarterbacks seemed to get dinged up and their effectiveness diminished as the season dragged on and weather got worse.

Here’s an interesting hypothesis that could easily be tested: white pocket passing quarterbacks tend to be better in the first half of the season before it gets cold and wet, while black running quarterbacks are better over the second half of the season.

I haven’t noticed this before 2015, so it’s probably not true in general, but it seemed to be true in 2015.

Or maybe it’s becoming more true as more rules get enforced to prevent quarterbacks from getting injured?

* They should do more to provide placekickers with opportunities to be heroes as well as goats.

Here’s a vague idea: put a 10 foot tall net between the crossbars between 20 and 30 feet off the ground. Kick it into the net you get two points, below the net one point, over the net zero points. That would encourage low kicks, which would make blocking kicks more feasible.

Blocked kicks are great.

My son’s JV team won their league on last play of the season blocked field goal run back 95 yards for a touchdown: it was the single most exciting play I’ve seen in 50 years of watching football.

Posted in Basketball, Football, Gambling, Steroids | Comments Off on Betting & Sports

How Did Nate Silver Miss The Rise Of Donald Trump?

Posted on January 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* It’s really very simple! Best forecasting is able to remove most personal biases. Nate knows it very well. Alas, it is very hard to do in practice. There is no defending him on this: he totally blew it. Whether Trump will ultimately be nominated or not, last fall forecast of Trump’s nomination probability at about 2% was very wrong. The true probability, even back in the fall, was always in double digits. For anyone not personally invested in massive media Trumpophobia, that was obvious then, and very certain now.

The particularly damning thing for Nate is that he had such a hard time facing reality and admitting his mistake. Shit happens, everyone makes mistakes but being in active denial for so long is a bad sign for someone who makes a living as a forecaster.

* The prediction models are probably fine, the problem is Nate Silver personally, and the rest of his sycophants at 538.

He desperately loathes Trump and has been talking himself into ever more elaborate rationalizations of why Trump can’t win. He’ll do this for the general election, as well.

Seriously, Trump has been leading since he announced his candidacy, for 7 months now. Any reasonable prediction model would assume his victory a mere formality.

And if it were a pro-immigration candidate, Silver would have already coronated him.

* Every supposed expert was wrong about Trump. Right now the betting odds are not what i would suspect. At 5 Dimes as of January 25th the odds are Trump -125 Rubio +205 and Cruz a distant third at +500. It changes radically week to week. Why the betting books think Rubio is far more likely to win than Cruz is beyond me, but they do. The bookmakers in Vegas are no dummies, I trust their odds far more than I do any “expert.” I think Trump surprised himself.

* It would be tremendously interesting to force Nate Silver to publicly commit to Tetlockian bets on all of his pronouncements, and not just some of them.

I recall that Nate Silver publicly bet hard money on Obama winning in 2012, against Joe Scarborough. But Nate just happened to not repeat that honest, accountable practice with Trump. He happened to make predictions about Trump which didn’t happen to come true. But this time, he didn’t put money on the table. He even sought to crowd source a bet from his readers, so that he wouldn’t have to bet anything himself!

Maybe this isn’t pure coincidence. I’ll just insinuate that there’s a reason why he didn’t bet his own money against Trump this time: like any other pundit, he was using his soapbox dishonestly, to craft a narrative, and cause events to happen. Not to give his Spocky, honest evaluation of the truth.

Next time: be honest, and put money on the table, Nate.

* This Presidential election is the USA’s last chance to resist massive illegal immigration. If Trump turns out to be the only candidate who might resist it, then we should ignore all his faults.

I was supporting Walker, but when Trump posted his position paper about immigration — saying they he opposed even birth-right citizenship! — then I switched from Walker to Trump immediately.

I was appalled by Trump’s rambling rhetoric, his incoherent political philosophy and his gratuitous insults, but I had become a one-issue voter.

Since then, however, Cruz has adopted enough of a hard line on immigration that I have switched from Trump to Cruz.

However, I have come to understand that — whereas Trump intends to build a barrier along the entire USA-Mexico border — Cruz intends to complete merely the 700 miles that Congress has funded. Since 620 miles of the 700 funded miles have been constructed, only 80 funded miles remain. Some interviewer should challenge Cruz publicly about this point. Cruz has created a false impression that he will extend the barrier along the entire border.

Although Trump is much better than Cruz about building a border barrier, Cruz is good enough on immigration for me — considering Trump’s many faults.

Trump is much better than Cruz also about promising to bargain more effectively about international-trade agreements. Trump’s promises might cause all the Rust Belt states to switch from Democrat to Republican in the Presidential election. However, I believe that free trade is more advantageous to the US economy in the long run. If such promises help Trump to win the Presidential election, though, then I will be happy to reconsider my position on that issue as I watch a President Trump bargain.

I think that a huge portion of the electorate has — like me — become single-issue voters on immigration, and that is the reason why this election is so unusual and difficult to predict.

* Silver is at best a second rater promoted as some guru. I was less than impressed by his Excel spreadsheet models — using Excel for things it is not good at — handling lots of complex data — is the mark of a second rater. Had the man used a MySQL database and R, well I would have at least respected his technical ability.

When people use Excel for things beyond simple business analysis, for database replacements or complex statistical modeling for large data sets — its a mark they are not smart and adaptable enough to teach themselves MySQL and R. Its not that hard to learn them, either. O’Reilly has a plethora of how-to books.

Basically Silver with no statistical evidence felt party bosses could squash Trump. Often Party bosses do squash insurgents, but often they don’t: Reagan, Ike, Nixon, and Goldwater all are evidence of failures to do so on the Republican side, and Carter, Obama, and Clinton arguably started as insurgents not blessed by Party bosses there.

Silver wanted Trump to be a non-factor, to keep his comfortable universe of donor class domination and the Managerial Elite in charge of everything. Not grasping that globally in First World Countries, mass Third World immigration meant bringing the Third World in massive quantities including violence, poverty, and awful cultural mores straight into conflict with ordinary First World peoples; like rubbing their noses in dog poop every day. Guaranteed to raise a revolt.

Silver particularly objects to Trumps idea of banning Muslim immigration until we can figure out how to avoid more Tafshin Maliks, Syed Farooks, and Tsarnaev family bombers. He seems to believe as an article of faith that everyone in the world has a right to come to the US and receive preferential treatment to those descended from the people who fought for it over generations.

And that was essentially his analysis.

Silver is evidence sufficient in itself to prove the elites are a bunch of incompetent people who rely on connections and cronyism not ability, courage, and shared sacrifice to lead the West. No wonder they are witnessing a revolt by their people.

* The website Hillary Is 44 has a very good suggestion for Trump.

Trump should use Megyn Kelly is an excuse to refuse to participate in the next Republican debate.

Instead, Trump should debate Sanders on another television channel at the same time as the Republican debate.

Such a competing debate between Trump and Sanders would attract an enormous number of viewers — dwarfing the Republican debate.

* The big story of the week is the National Review Pharisees condemnation of Donald Trump as a heretic. American nationalism lacks the institutions to challenge the rot in the Republican and Democratic parties.

* Anybody who is familiar with the stock market knows full well that the record books are full of guys who are one-hit wonders. They have a marvelous year, and everyone, including themselves, think they are the next coming of Warren Buffett. There aren’t a whole of people like Stanley Druckenmiller who had a winning record with marvelous returns for a 30-year period. Silver got lucky in 2012 and started believing his own press clippings. He is no Stanley Druckenmiller. (I have mentioned several times on this site the remarkable record of Gerald Strine, a sports writer for the Washington Post who covered horse racing. Strine had a weekly column in the Washington Post back in the 70′s in which he picked a handful of winning bets in NFL games against the spread and wound up with a winning record for 10 straight years, thereby winning an undisclosed bet of $1 million from some unidentified person who said he couldn’t do it. Now, if he had done that for just one season, it would have been a nice accomplishment, but to do it for 10 straight years is a memorable achievement.) I was always a bit skeptical about Silver’s pronouncements in 2012 since he was largely aggregating poll results. He wasn’t doing independent polling of his own.

Secondly, there is the indisputable matter than the MSM have clearly attempted to demonize Trump on every occasion and that has to be affecting the poll results, by understating Trump’s actual numbers. Byron York alluded to this unintentionally in his piece yesterday in the Washington Examiner (carried by RCP) describing his visit to New Hampshire and not finding any Republicans who are Trump supporters or “know of any Republicans who are Trump supporters.” Trump has been made so toxic by the MSM people are embarrassed to admit they are voting for Trump:

“An exception: I talked to two party officials, one county and one regional, who said they knew a lot of Trump supporters. “They’re not Republicans,” one told me, explaining at length that the Trump fans she knows are inexplicably devoted to him — unfazed by Trump’s lack of policy specifics or any of his controversial statements. The two officials described having conversations and asking which candidate a voter supports, whereupon the voter quickly glanced left and right, to see if it was OK to talk, and then said, “Trump.” That happens a lot, they told me.”

The dishonest MSM attempted to do the same thing with Romney in 2012 and succeeded. Obviously, Romney does not have the outrageous personality of Donald Trump, and he allowed himself to get steamrolled by the Obama forces and the MSM. (Witness the totally outrageous performance by Candy Crowley at the second Obama-Romney debate where she blatantly injected herself into the debate and pulled Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire on the Benghazi matter.)

Finally, as a number of commenters have touched on, Silver allowed his own biases to affect his pronouncements this campaign season (which have been consistently dreadful). He clearly doesn’t like Trump’s message on immigration and possibly foreign policy. This favorite of the MSM, who was lionized by the MSM in 2012, apparently swallowed the BS of the MSM that was lauding him as a genius because it accorded with his views. By consistently downplaying Trump’s chances, Silver obviously was hoping to affect the outcome, just like the MSM.

* Scott Adams called it way back in August: “Trump brought a flame thrower to a stick fight. Since the beginning of time, every winner of every stick fight was a guy with a stick. So you’d expect that trend to continue. Until someone shows up to the fight with a flame thrower. I’m betting on the guy with the flame thrower.”

* Walker has a reputation as a warrior for the conservative cause, but to me it always seemed pretty clear that the only conservative causes he was willing to go to war on were those – like fighting public sector unions – that the oligarchs were willing to back him on. So far as I’ve seen, he never has gone to battle over illegal immigration, affirmative action, or any other “cultural” issues, and he never planned to.

* The caucus format encourages the most intense and persistent supporters. This ends up being an Achilles heel for insurgent candidates. In 2012, Ron Paul had intense supporters and finished 3rd in Iowa, but his campaigns hope’s for victory were dependent upon getting Democrats to cross over and vote in the R caucus for him.

Since a portion of Trump’s support is from crossover Ds, they are unlikely to vote in a caucus format. They will be more likely to show up in NH, a primary state.

I doubt that Cruz will win Iowa, because of the presence of three socon candidates, Huckabee, Santorum and Carson. But also note that Iowa is a late breaking state, Santorum rose rapidly in the last week.

The narrative will be interesting. A Trump victory ends the hopes of Ted Cruz. A narrow Cruz victory may boost Cruz in NH and torpedo Rubio. Trump would win NH but by a smaller margin. Trump wins SC in any case, unless there is a massive Cruz victory in Iowa. But it would be dismissed as “racists”.

IMO, Trump sweeps the first four contests, and everyone drops out. The D contests become a crazy train of crossover voters, and Sanders is robbed by the superdelegates.

* I know that most Americans here will support Trump on domestic issues of immigration. But for me as a non America there is an even bigger issue that makes Trump appealing compared to everyone else – his foreign policy views. The rest (both Republican and Democrat) are outright warmongers, they openly propose having no fly zones against Russians in Syria, arms races in the South China sea, escalating things in Ukraine, having army bases in every corner of the world, spying on everyone person on the planet etc. Trump is not perfect, but at least he would be more practical regarding dealing with the world, he seems to be more of a “don’t invite the world, don’t invade the world” type.

* As an election pollster, I predict that the polling industry is headed for a crack-up, and that this is the year. The whole industry has been crossing its fingers for 10 years that plummeting response rates, the switch to cell phones, and the further switch to Internet, which destroyed the validity of all its theoretical models, would not introduce systematic biases. The way that polls are all over the map this year is very telling.

Nate Silver did a great job in previous years, but his screwup over Trump is a monumental case of hubris. Even if Trump doesn’t win, he can’t justify his probability estimates. The only possible defense is that until people start actually voting, predictive models can’t be recalibrated to deal with changing factors and trends, but that only excuses erroneous predictions, it does not excuse overconfidence in one’s predictions.

Silver’s insistence on providing probability estimates and not just predicted vote margins was a brilliant advance (I had wanted to do that 10 years ago after completing my own historical meta-analysis of American election polls, but there was no market for it; he went ahead anyway and did it so well that he forced everyone else to accept the validity of his methods). However, he fell into traps he should have seen coming a long way off: he lost his objectivity.

It’s a shame, but the work of modern thinkers like Kahneman, Taleb, Tetlock, Yudkowsky, Chabris, and others on improving human rationality by overcoming cognitive biases and extending Bayesian techniques is a scientific revolution that will survive tragedies like Silver’s.

* Trump has won over a lot over people because of his sane, if not very constructive, foreign policy. But his foreign policy didn’t come from lots of study and thinking. Trump has an unbelievable ability to size up a situation hyper-quickly, make a decision, and hold an almost metaphysical confidence in his correctness. When Trump is up against politicians, you get a glimpse into how much more of a high-level game business is compared to politics. While they say politics ain’t beanbag, you are left thinking that business at Trump’s level is like MMA without taps outs and timed rounds.

* Okay, but what if Trump is that self-confident when he’s wrong?

The one real estate project of Trump’s that I know much about is his oceanside golf course in SoCal. I had lunch with the guy who went broke building it and sold it to Trump, and I wrote a long article about the intersection of environmental regulations and the golf course. I don’t know anything about how it has worked out financially for Trump, but I suspect that it hasn’t been the gold mine he expected for a variety of reasons. The golf downturn went on and on, but also the course didn’t turn out to be very good for tournaments. Trump hosted an LPGA event there once, but it turned out to be a bust because the course is bad for spectators because the EPA made them keep sagebrush between each fairway for the endangered California gnatcatcher. Also, there’s not much room for all the corporate tents that accompany a US Open. And now LA Country Club is inviting back the Open, so it’s unlikely that Trump Los Angeles will ever get the Open. My guess is that if Trump took off his Always Be Closing hat for once, he’d admit that if he knew then what he knows now, he wouldn’t have bought this golf course.

This is not to say that Trump is bad at owning golf courses — he seems to be getting steadily better at it over the last ten years, but that he has a learning curve.

* “The surest way to get rich is to enable white people to feel more intelligent than other white people without making any real effort.”

Once your know this you see it everywhere. Richard Dawkins (before he fell out of grace for being consistent), Daily Show, Neil Degrasse Tyson, TED. TED especially.

Silver fills this niche a little too perfectly. He gives moderately intelligent young white people with a chip on their shoulder about Christianity, Fox News, etc a way to feel superior to unfashionable white people because Science (not to mention History) Is On Their Side. He writes simple enough for anybody to get the gist, and anyway it’s enough to read the headline.

Anybody wiling to think about it for a second could have come up with questions like how “people will just tire of Trump in to months” could ever be based on statistics of any kind, but it’s best not to question Science.

* It’s a little mystifying. Why is Silver — a fairly typical SWPL Democrat — so hostile to Trump in particular? Trump is very close to Hillary in all but a very few issues and probably the most Democrat-friendly Republican candidate with serious chances at nomination since Nixon. On foreign policy Trump is the most Democratic candidate in the field, even recognizing the folly of Iraq and the lunacy of destabilizing Libya and Syria far before Clinton.

And yet Silver is clearly unhinged writing constantly about how Trump is a ‘disaster’ for the Republican Party, for downballot candidates, and for the country.

I understand hating Dubya Bush. I’m a little confused about Obama-hate but I can see why some Republicans don’t like him. But candidates like Trump and competent centrist presidents like Bush pere and Clinton should appeal to every part of the spectrum reasonably well. Reagan went on an anti-Clinton speaking tour in 1993 and accused Clinton of ‘grand larceny’ stealing his ideas; that’s a good thing when the other side apes your ideas. Nevertheless some large group is fanatically angry about something Trump represents.

* Nate can evaluate polling data to predict election outcomes as well as anyone can predict election outcomes using polling data, but he doesn’t seem to have any insight into the underlying social processes that generate the data. Since the political atmosphere of the US in 2016 is fairly unique, without easy historical analogies, his poll-based predictions offer negative knowledge. His models don’t apply. You can’t really blame him.

* In his writings Silver clear that he would use endorsements as an indicator of future success as endorsements were from knowledgeable people and the establishment controls the rules by which delegates are awarded which could make a big difference if there was a dispute. He got that idea from a book he mentions in his article about how elections are won.

Winning is 50% but Trump is stuck at 40%. In France Le Pen had 40% while the 2 establishment candidates had 30% each. The establishment figured out a way to combine the 2 30%s, which is the advantage that the establishment has. I have noticed that after the close call France seems to be doing something about the giant migrant camp in Calais.

Silver also claims that while the establishment wants Hillary, Sanders is minimally acceptable.

Posted in America, Donald Trump, Immigration | Comments Off on How Did Nate Silver Miss The Rise Of Donald Trump?

Sweden in shock as Somali muslim ‘refugee’ rapes girl to death, then continues after she died

Posted on January 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

(via JewsNews) — A 34 year old immigrant from Somalia was arrested for savagely attacking a woman next to the parking garage of a Sheraton hotel in Sweden.

The woman died while being raped. Police say the perpetrator continued to rape the woman’s corpse well after she had died. The Somalian was apprehended by police while still in the act of raping the murdered woman.

Sweden and Norway are in the middle of a massive epidemic of violent rapes. Crime statistics show that rapes in both countries are overwhelmingly perpetrated by Muslim immigrants.

2013 figures were given in a recent report by Swedish Public Radio. In the first seven months of 2013, over 1,000 Swedish women reported being raped by Muslim immigrants. Over 300 of those were under the age of 15. The number of rapes is up 16% compared to 2012 numbers.

Paul Ciotti: That monologue by that 16 year old German girl is a real eye-opener. She says she is afraid to wear summer dresses, T-shirts or go shopping after dark. She is astonished by the notion (pushed by one government official) that all she had to do to protect herself was hold up her hand and tell Muslim men bent on rape to stay a meter away. Most of (and this is really sad) she wants to know why German men haven’t done anything at all to protect their wives, their daughters and girls like her from Muslim “refugees.”

Posted in Immigration, Islam | Comments Off on Sweden in shock as Somali muslim ‘refugee’ rapes girl to death, then continues after she died

Feiglin: Europe inviting Muslim savages to rape it

Posted on January 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Gil Ronen writes from Israel:

Ex-MK Moshe Feiglin, who heads the Zehut party, thinks the large scale New Years’ Eve sexual attacks by Muslims in Europe are part of a much larger cultural upheaval. The simultaneous attacks, he said, were met with indifference by local police forces, media and politicians.

“Western Europe is kneeling and inviting the noble Muslim savage to rape it,” wrote the maverick politician on his Facebook page. “What is the meaning of this phenomenon? Were there only German women at that train station in Cologne? Where were the men?”

The Muslims who leave their home countries seek Germany, Sweden and Finland not just for financial reasons, he speculated. “There is something much deeper at play here. Western Europe is actually the most secular place in the world. Most of humanity believes in God – the US, too, is mostly populated by believers. Western Europe is an island of atheism; the situation there is reversed.

“This is a culture that has removed God from its consciousness. It took God out of the game and locked Him up in museums,” Feiglin theorized. “The pressure of the Allahu Akbar culture bursts naturally into the irreligious vacuum – it is a matter of physics, really. Of intercontinental maleness and femaleness.”

“Generations of denial of God have engendered a craving for authority and meaning,” the philosopher-politician explained. “The police does not attempt to prevent the rape just as it did not attempt to prevent Kristallnacht, because in truth, it is desired. The battered woman syndrome, the subconscious, the political correctness of Merkel and those who invite in the immigrants, actually desire it.

“Mein Kampf, too, is making a huge comeback, and has turned into an overnight smash hit – and for the same reason. A hunger for absolute, violent authority. ISIS is hypnotizing the West. Europeans are converting to Islam in droves. London is wearing a veil (It’s a lot like the complacence with which we accept the knife attacks).

“The circle closes with crazy speed,” Feiglin observed. “Women’s liberation disappears. The State will not protect you – get used to it. Your Godless religion has evaporated. Find yourself a man – a Muslim one, of course – to protect you. There is no other masculinity.”

Posted in Europe, Immigration, Islam, Israel, Rape | Comments Off on Feiglin: Europe inviting Muslim savages to rape it

Men Invade, Women Invite

Posted on January 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

From the Chateau:

If you look hard, there are outposts where Shitlords and Realtalkers feel free to speak unassailable truths. One reader passed along this quote from an Israeli politician who was offering an explanation for Europe’s open borders madness and supine welcoming of their rapefugee replacements.

Israeli politician agrees with your observations on the women of Europe + Migrants.

“Western Europe is kneeling and inviting the noble Muslim savage to rape it,” wrote the maverick politician on his Facebook page. “What is the meaning of this phenomenon? Were there only German women at that train station in Cologne? Where were the men?”

The Muslims who leave their home countries seek Germany, Sweden and Finland not just for financial reasons, he speculated. “There is something much deeper at play here. Western Europe is actually the most secular place in the world. Most of humanity believes in God – the US, too, is mostly populated by believers. Western Europe is an island of atheism; the situation there is reversed.

“This is a culture that has removed God from its consciousness. It took God out of the game and locked Him up in museums,” Feiglin theorized. “The pressure of the Allahu Akbar culture bursts naturally into the irreligious vacuum – it is a matter of physics, really. Of intercontinental maleness and femaleness.”

“Generations of denial of God have engendered a craving for authority and meaning,” the philosopher-politician explained. “The police does not attempt to prevent the rape just as it did not attempt to prevent Kristallnacht, because in truth, it is desired. The battered woman syndrome, the subconscious, the political correctness of Merkel and those who invite in the immigrants, actually desire it. […]

“The circle closes with crazy speed,” Feiglin observed. “Women’s liberation disappears. The State will not protect you – get used to it. Your Godless religion has evaporated. Find yourself a man – a Muslim one, of course – to protect you. There is no other masculinity.“

“The battered woman syndrome” is just another way of politely saying “generic female sexual nature”, because all women, to lesser or greater degree, desire their submission to a powerful and dominant alpha male. And the dominant alpha male needn’t be manifest through the individual man; the strict orthodoxies of patriarchal religions like Islam also fill the role of authority that people, but particularly women, deeply and profoundly crave, beyond even conscious apprehension.

This is an important topic, because it befuddles not just equalist leftoids (who were never going to be un-befuddled) but also race-aware white knights who despite their willingness to grapple with many ugly truths that frighten mass media and the culture gatekeepers, nonetheless exhibit a strong allergy to thinking clearly when the subject is (White) women and their peculiar habits of mind. (These alt-white knights also co-opt a rhetorical crutch preferred by the shitlibs they hate: glib and snarky ad hominem against those who do speak truthfully about female nature.)

Men invade, women invite. The essential sex distinction is the male disposition to conquer and acquire power and the female disposition to accede and acquire the charity of the powerful. All real world evidence points to these diverging male and female essences. It would be funny if it weren’t dead serious that every single global crisis contradicts the feminist (and lickspittle manlet) worldview.

Today, a Swedish woman was stabbed to death by a Muslim refugee. Add her body to the running count of White female victims of rapefugee runaway entitlement. It has been three weeks since the Cologne mass sexual assaults on German women at the hands (and groins) of Middle Eastern men. It has been two months since the Paris attacks when Muslims killed hundreds of White Frenchmen and -women.

Dwell on recent history. Now consider this: two days ago, a German poll revealed glaring sex differences in male and female support for various German political parties. “Frauen” are women. The “AfD” is the anti-immigration party.

frauen

I don’t think you’ll see anything more shocking than this snapshot of the German female id. It calls to mind that Plath pith, “Every woman adores a fascist”. What’ll it take to convince White women that it’s in their best interest to shut the borders to hordes of nonWhite orcs?

“Best interest”? Maybe that’s the problem. Women’s best interest isn’t necessarily aligned with their men’s best interest. That Israeli politician quoted above is onto something dark and ominous when he accuses the West of assuming the role of intercontinental femaleness — the psychological condition responsible for civilizational ennui and exhaustion and prostrate submission to invading foreigners. Western men have become their women — gelded freaks who dress in mini-skirts to “support” victims of the Cologne sex attacks — and into that masculinity void unapologetically patriarchal Muslim migrants rush to provide that “other masculinity” which animates the hindbrains, and the ginewaves, of so many young fertile WHITE women.

Because who is going to protect these White women? White men in mini-skirts? It is to laugh. And though many women will claim otherwise to reporters holding microphones and even to themselves when uncomfortably alone with their thoughts, their actions expose a different motivation.

I call this sex-disparate phenomenon “The Feminine Mistake”. It was a mistake to hand to women inordinate power – at 51% of the population, women hold the levers in democratic societies – over public policy and the nation’s constitution. Women are who they are; they can’t help themselves when they vote for equalist leftoid nation-destroyers.

If the White West is to save itself from its worst instincts and sentiments, it’s going to take something that most cucks, manginas, and male feminists are loath, or scared, to do: tell women to step aside, because they are royally fucking up the place.

Posted in Feminism, Immigration, Rape | Comments Off on Men Invade, Women Invite

Is Ethnic Conflict Inevitable?

Posted on January 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Yes. Different groups have different interests and they will inevitably compete with each for scarce resources such as land and water and power.

Professor Jerry Z. Muller responds to his critics in Foreign Affairs magazine in the July/August 2008 edition:

My essay is not agenda-driven or prescriptive. It is meant to suggest that the power of ethnic nationalism in the twentieth century has been greater than is generally recognized and that
the probability of its ongoing global impact is greater than is generally appreciated. I argue that Americans often have a distorted sense of substantial areas of the world because they
tend to generalize on the basis of their own national experience or, rather, a truncated and idealized version of that experience. Of course, ethnicity (and its conceptual cousin, race) has long played a role in American life and continues to do so, as reflected in everything from residential patterns to voting behavior.

But by and large, ethnic identification in the United States tends to erode across generations, and the notion that different ethnic groups ought to have their own political entities is marginal. (Voting districts drawn along racial lines echo conceptions of ethnic nationalism. And the Chicano vision of the reconstitution of Aztlán — a lost nation of indigenous Americans said to include Mexico and much oF the American Southwest — would qualify as ethnonationalist but seems to have limited appeal.) Thus, Americans have a hard time imagining the intensity of the desire that many ethnic groups abroad have for a polity of their own or the determination of others to maintain the ethnic structure of existing
polities. If Poles and Ukrainians get along tolerably well in Chicago, why not Sunni Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen in Kirkuk?

I further argue that this misperception also occurs among educated western Europeans, who project the cooperative and pacific model of the EU onto the rest of the world while losing sight of the history of ethnic disaggregation that seems to have served as a precondition for the comity of contemporary Europe. The propensity to impose on the rest of the world one’s own categories and idealized conceptions of one’s historical and current experiences leads to a kind of misleading universality, apt to result in misunderstanding and miscalculation.

There are categories of self-definition that are unfamiliar or uncomfortable to some people’s sensibilities — including ethnonational identity, caste (common in India), or tribe (common in
much of Africa and the Muslim world). But the fact that some people may find these categories unreal (since they know that beneath the skin humans are ultimately the same: put them in a room together with a game to play, and see how little they differ) does not
make them any less real to those who do believe in them.

The problem of taking seriously the diverse ways in which people in different parts of the world define themselves is exacerbated by the universalizing and scientistic pretensions of some streams of academic political science. “Scientism” refers to the endeavor to apply the methods and criteria of the natural sciences to all realms of human experience — although for some they are inappropriate. This includes the effort to explain all phenomena with simplified theories of human motivation and the attempt to replicate the hard sciences by using laboratory conditions to study political science. History provides a useful source of data with which to study the range and complexity of human behavior. It is a highly imperfect
laboratory, where both the data and their interpretation are influenced by the methodological and ideological predispositions of the investigator. But it is often superior to the alternative: apparently scientific forms of explanation.

My claim is not that the violence of the European experience will repeat itself but a more modest one: that ethnic tensions are likely to be exacerbated, rather than eliminated, by the occurrence of similar processes of modernization in other parts of the world. Contrary to what James Habyarimana, Macartan Humphreys, Daniel Posner, and Jeremy Weinstein claim, nowhere do I argue that “ethnic divisions inevitably generate violence.” And while I quoted Churchill, I did not endorse his views as a general policy prescription.

What I actually wrote, toward the end of my article, was this: “Sometimes, demands for ethnic autonomy or self-determination can be met within an existing state…. But such arrangements remain precarious and are subject to recurrent renegotiation. In the
developing world, accordingly, where states are more recent creations and where the borders often cut across ethnic boundaries, there is likely to be further ethnic disaggregation and communal conflict. And as scholars such as Chaim Kaufmann have noted, once ethnic antagonism has crossed a certain threshold of violence, maintaining the rival groups within a single polity becomes far more difficult.

“… When communal violence escalates to ethnic cleansing, moreover, the return of large numbers of refugees to their place of origin after a cease-fire has been reached is often impractical and even undesirable.
“… Partition may thus be the most humane lasting solution to such intense communal conflicts.”

Habyarimana, Humphreys, Posner, and Weinstein continue their misrepresentations by claiming that I attribute ethnic tension merely to “enduring propensities of the human spirit”; in fact, I attribute ethnic tension to “some enduring propensities of the human spirit that are heightened by the process of modern state creation.” My explanation, drawn largely from the sociologist Ernest Gellner, is actually echoed by the four co-authors, albeit in a different
vocabulary, when they write that members of the same ethnic group tend to come together because “they speak the same language, have access to the same types of information, and share social networks.” As so often happens in the social sciences, here is an attempt at
product differentiation through rebranding — recasting known insights in a new vocabulary.

More novel is the authors’ belief that their quasi-scientific experiments in Uganda provide useful new avenues for public policy. They say that their game-playing experiments provide insights as to how the diverse ethnic actors would behave when freed of the social and political contexts in which their actions are known to others. Perhaps, but it is precisely the nature of the real world that this would never be the case.

Moreover, their conclusion that the problem lies in a weak institutional environment characterized by an “absence of functional and impartial state institutions” is both true and misleading, for it fails to consider that the very multiplicity of ethnicities is among the major sources of this institutional environment. A reading of Chinua Achebe’s 1960 novel, No Longer at Ease — about the plight of an idealistic young civil servant who tries to embody the
ethos of impartiality in a setting in which such norms are at odds with the understanding of his co-ethnics, who regard his bureaucratic position as a form of group property — would
cast more light on the situation than hundreds of experimental games.

This is not the place for a full critique of the much-cited calculations of Fearon and Laitin on the incidence of interethnic violence in Africa from 1960 to 1979. If one lives in a
neighborhood where three in a thousand interactions result in violence and one has three interactions per day, one is violently attacked only three times a year. But is that a safe neighborhood or a dangerous one? The assertion that “with few exceptions, African state boundaries today look just as they did in 1960” is also both true and misleading. It attests as much to the ability of the dominant ethnic coalitions to suppress attempts at rebellion as to the absence of ethnic conflict.

The Biafran War (1967-70) counts as only one incident of interethnic violence in Fearon and Laitin’s data and resulted in no change of borders. The million or so lives lost do not register in their calculations. Had Fearon and Laitin repeated their computations for the years since 1979, the murder of some 800,000 Rwandans (mostly Tutsis) would also have appeared as a matter of small statistical consequence.

The claim by Richard Rosecrance and Arthur Stein that the ethnonationalist ideal of a separate state for each cultural unit has been a source of instability is true or, at least, a half-truth. That is what a good part of my article is about. But the fact that ethnonationalism is destabilizing has not diminished its appeal or impact. The other half-truth is that the fulfillment of the ethnonationalist ideal has had a stabilizing effect, at least for large groups.

However, as my article notes and as Rosecrance and Stein emphasize, not every ethnonational aspiration can be realized, and ethnonational aspirations for autonomy and self-determination can be realized within larger political units through federalism — the
devolution of power and income to subnational units. As such, federalism represents a form of “semi-partition,” as the political scientist Donald Horowitz has noted. It has the very real advantage of permitting participation in larger political and economic units. But, as Horowitz has also noted, “federalism is not cheap. It involves duplication of facilities, functions, personnel and infrastructure” and often entails jurisdictional disputes. Moreover, “states that could benefit from federalism typically come to that realization too late, usually after conflict has intensified.”

Rosecrance and Stein may be right that a greater pool of income can alleviate ethnonational aspirations. But it is worth recalling that the governments in a position to distribute sums equivalent to 50 percent of their GDPs are in Europe, whereas the ethnic groups in potential conflict are in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where there is less wealth and so less GDP available for redistribution. Moreover, massive government redistribution through taxation
may itself inhibit economic growth or make capturing the state apparatus too enticing a prize compared with other pursuits.

Various claims by Rosecrance and Stein are questionable, if not clearly mistaken. The authors assert that mass emigration can serve as an “alternative to secession when the home government does not sufficiently mitigate economic disparities.” First, this assumes
that all discontents are ultimately expressions of individually conceived economic interest, a radical simplification of human motivation that ignores the desire of some people to share a
common culture and their perception that protecting that culture requires political autonomy.

For example, throughout much of the first half of the twentieth century, French Canadians emigrated from Canada to the United States, where over time they assimilated into the larger population. Québecois nationalism represents a rejection of that path.

Second, the authors’ emigration-as-safety-valve strategy ignores the fact that in contrast to the earlier era of globalization (from the late nineteenth century through World War I), the current era of globalization is characterized by governments better able and more inclined to police their borders and, hence, by the comparatively limited mobility of people across national borders. Moreover, discontent in the relatively wealthy states of the West with some
recent streams of immigration has already led to pressures for governments to exercise greater control over the movement of people from particular regions. It is far from clear that emigration from the Maghreb to France, for example, will be allowed to continue indefinitely.

Rosecrance and Stein’s assertion that a new era of bigness in international economic affairs is here is truer than the implications they draw from it. The economic advantages of the
division of labor do expand with the extent of the market, as Adam Smith explained over two centuries ago. But it is simply not true that “to keep up, states have to get bigger.” States can negotiate treaties and other forms of association that allow for freer international trade. As the authors note in passing, smaller nations have opted for inclusion in transnational markets and have often prospered as a result.

In short, Rosecrance and Stein assume that a rational economic calculus governs international activity. This simplification of human motivation has the advantage of methodological elegance. But their predictions conflate three very different circumstances:
what global actors would do if they rationally calculated their utilities based on a set of preferences much like those of American professors of political science; what global actors would do if they rationally calculated their utilities based on their actual preferences, which may diverge substantially from those of American political scientists; and what may actually happen given the unlikelihood that either American political scientists or global actors would rationally calculate their utilities. That is to say, Rosecrance and Stein have purchased methodological elegance at the expense of explanatory power by radically reducing the range of relevant motivations and interactions.

For a historian, the authors’ assertion that “international economics increasingly dwarfs politics” — like so much of their response to my essay — is eerily resonant of a British
bestseller of a century ago. In 1910, Norman Angell published The Great Illusion, which explained on economic grounds why an extended war between great powers was impossible under the contemporary economic conditions. His argument was logically compelling but wrong. In 1933, Angell published a new edition of his book, in which he suggested that nations could not enrich themselves by conquering their neighbors and that war was therefore futile. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but his message seems not to have reached all the relevant parties. I fear that the predictions of Rosecrance and
Stein about the future of ethnic nationalism will meet the same fate.

Still, Rosecrance and Stein do raise an important issue that I did not explore in my article: the question of external recognition and support for potential new states. What ought to be the response by external countries, such as the United States, to ethnonationalist claims for independence? If one takes seriously the forces leading to the enduring power of ethnonationalism — rather than dismissing them as archaic, illusory, or subject to elimination by good governance conjured out of the blue — the implications for policy are by no means self-evident.

I leave aside the purely legal and philosophical issues, since the “right” to self-determination, like so many others, often conflicts with other purported rights. Representatives of existing states are strongly disposed against the redrawing of borders and the formation of new states. They see self-interest in maintaining the international status quo, which may or may not be justified by prudence. To recognize that national self-determination does provide satisfactions of its own and may well result in viable states is not to say that the endless creation of new states is either viable or desirable. Yet there are dangers both in supporting ethnonationalist claims and in denying them prematurely.

One danger of the international recognition of insurgent ethnonationalist claims to sovereignty is that it may lead to unilateral secession (as in the recent case of Kosovo) as
opposed to mutually agreed separation. Secession without ethnic partition usually means that the new political entity will include a substantial minority of people whose co-ethnics dominate the state from which the new state has seceded. This provides a ready source for new ethnic tensions within the new state and international tensions between the new state and the old. Mutually agreed partition that separates the rival ethnic groups may be preferable in order to minimize the likelihood of future conflict. Another danger of a greater international willingness to recognize ethnonationalist movements is that it may create an incentive for the governments of existing countries to violently crush incipient ethnic political movements before they can organize.

There are perils, however, in a blanket refusal of the international community to recognize the claims of legitimate ethnonationalist movements. For having deemed secession an impossibility, governments may feel no incentive to respond to the desire of ethnic groups for
greater power and self-determination within the confines of the current states. To recognize the enduring power of ethnic nationalism is not to support it or provide a ready recipe for
action but to offer a more realistic appreciation of the dilemmas that will continue to arise in the twenty-first century.

Posted in Jerry Z. Muller, Nationalism | Comments Off on Is Ethnic Conflict Inevitable?