Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Debate’

Here I go again.

Aside from correcting typos, this will be the last update of my flyer “Black People Are More Criminal Than White People.” You may notice that some figures have changed. This time, I used the NCVS demographic data, not the Census demographic data, when calculating crime rates from the NCVS crime data. This is the appropriate choice, and it reveals that I underestimated Black criminality in versions 1–3. Also, the crimes covered by the flyer are more specific; for example, simple assault is now separate from aggravated assault. (Aggravated assault shows a bigger Black-White crime gap; usually the gap increases with the violence of the crime, robbery being one notable exception.) In short, wherever version 4 disagrees with the other versions, version 4 should be considered accurate.

Version 4 is available in PDF format here and as a JPEG image here.

Read Full Post »

I have re-updated my flyer on race and crime. The newer and more improved Version 3 is available in PDF format here and as a JPEG image below (click for the full-size image).

Special thanks to commenters Leonard, Annie L., and Olave d’Estienne for their suggestions. Any mistakes and/or bad decisions are mine, of course.

Read Full Post »

I have updated my flyer on race and intelligence. The new and improved Version 2 is available in PDF format here and as a JPEG image below (click for the full-size image).

Again, I encourage you to share this flyer with anyone, anywhere. Give it to your friends. Give it to your enemies. Give it to your college professor. Go crazy. And use this information to utterly destroy your debate opponents.

Let me know if you find any mistakes, or if you would prefer a version with a less outrageous title.

Read Full Post »

I have updated my flyer on race and crime. The new and improved Version 2 is available in PDF format here and as a JPEG image below (click for the full-size image).

I encourage you to share this flyer with anyone, anywhere. Put them up around town. Leave them on benches or chairs or desks. Go nuts. And use this information to utterly destroy your debate opponents.

Let me know if you find any mistakes, or if you would prefer a version with a less outrageous title.

Read Full Post »

Contemporary feminism is exactly what you would expect to get if you took a bunch of overeducated, unattractive, power-hungry, man-hating women, gave them their own university department, and told them “all your theories are brilliant, we won’t allow men to criticize you with ‘logic’ and ‘science’ and other patriarchal constructs, and finally, we’ll pay you by the word.”

Remember the Toronto SlutWalk? The first one, before the societal cancer spread to other cities.

This is not what SlutWalkers look like. This is merely a hot Norwegian girl. Why? Because.

Do you recall what set off the sluts? Feminist blogger (and possible slut) i am charli spells out the need for the Sluts’ ill-advised Walk, in the post that introduced me to the slut-tastic phenomenon (here):

If you haven’t read it about it already, there was a cop from Toronto that recently spoke at a campus safety information session and said women can avoid being sexually assaulted by not dressing like “a slut.” … The fact that he said this proves that there is still a mindset about blaming the victim of rape or sexual assault.

Interestingly, according to the exact same feminist blogger, commenting at Unamusement Park (here and here):

Yes — unfortunately dressing sexier does up your chances of getting sexually assaulted.

I don’t think any one would disagree with you that dressing provocatively ups your chances of being raped.

Feminists are illogical and not worth debating.

Read Full Post »

BULLETIN (2011-06-05): The War on Hate escalated early Tuesday afternoon, as fighting broke out along the Unamusement Park-Sociological Images border.

Sources say the Park’s Hate Battalion Delta (HBD or “The Fighting Sofias”) crossed into Images-controlled Race-Differences-in-Attractiveness Valley, where they encountered elements of the 2nd Diverse Minority Battalion, attached to the 4th White-Opposed Race Denialists (2-DMB 4-WORDs).

By Wednesday evening, the battle had spread to the nearby town of I’m-Not-Racist-But, where the 2-DMB 4-WORDs were reinforced by the Progressive Race-Apologists, E Company (ProRApE). However, ProRApE infantry proved ineffective as they refused to engage HBD units if it meant moving through the poor part of town, with reports of widespread purse-clutching.

The Fighting Sofias defend the strategically important Field of Evolutionary Psychology from a 2-DMB 4-WORDs incursion. Give 'em hell, boys.

Over two days, the 2-DMB 4-WORDs suffered heavy losses on both fronts, which Central Hate Command attributes to three factors:

  1. being colorblind, they could not distinguish camouflaged HBD units in their environment, reportedly shouting “it can’t be HBD, there must be an environmental explanation” seconds before an ambush
  2. they had dug their foxholes in beaches — as it turns out, burying your head in the sand does not reliably protect it from an HBD grenade
  3. they were colossal idiots

HBD morale is said to be at an all-time high.

This Is the End

It’s time to wrap up Hatred, Unamusement Park’s five-part documentary on the War on Hate. What a long, strange trip it’s been. Previously,

  1. we considered my all-time favorite “hate fact”: Black people are less intelligent than White people.
  2. we discussed rape and responsibility in light of the anti-feminist “hate theory” which notes that rape is about sex, not power and control.
  3. we explored how the unofficial, unconstitutional ban on “hate speech,” which is to say the systematic suppression of uncomfortable truths about race, immigration, etc., has made it impossible to dispel myths like “Hispanic isn’t a race.”
  4. we talked about the word “nigger.”

Park forces stand ready to engage the enemy wherever he may hide, on land, at sea, and in the air! (What? You didn't know Unamusement Park had helicopters? Psh, OBVIOUSLY.)

Today’s mission is counterintelligence. Well, I guess I gave that away in the title. See, this is exactly why we need better counterintelligence. So if any of you brought exploding cigars, laser wristwatches, or shoes that shoot poison darts, now would be the perfect time to share them with the class.

What do I mean by “counterintelligence”? I wander around the Internet, correcting liberal lies and misinformation about various interesting topics, including race. The responses I get are generally ignorant, stupid, hateful, and prejudiced, so they don’t really help us understand the topics, but they do offer a glimpse into the world of race denialism, anti-White racism, feminism, and general liberalism.

Welcome to the World of Activism, According to the Asinine, Hypocritical Haters, also known as WAAAHH.

Trigger Warning

Over at Sociological Images: “I’m Not a Racist But… (Trigger Warning).”

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and Tyrone Forman wrote a wonderful article [“‘I Am Not a Racist But…’: Mapping White College Students’ Racial Ideology in the USA,” available online] examining the discursive strategies white college students use to distance themselves from racism, while still blaming people of color for their own disadvantage or being, straightforwardly, racist. Among other strategies, they noted that these students would often preface their comments with the phrase “I am not a racist but…”

Translation: White college students have noticed how we radical social scientists accuse anyone who disagrees with us of “racism,” which despite our best efforts still isn’t meaningless to most people; so they feel the need to preface every statement even tangentially related to race with a disclaimer. BUT WE WON’T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!

By “still blaming people of color for their [Whites’] own disadvantage,” I can only assume they mean noticing that affirmative action is discriminatory; and by “being, straightforwardly, racist,” being insufficiently anti-white.

We’ve documented this strategy before with a series of PostSecret confessions and we certainly saw it used by UCLA’s Alexandra Wallace in her famous anti-Asian rant. Now Karen alerted me to a new blog collecting instances of this type of language on Facebook, titled simply I’m Not Racist But… It’s pretty stunning what often follows. Here are some examples (trigger warning for, um, some seriously racist talk):

Okay, stop right there. “Trigger Warning”? I understand the principle: a recent or even not-so-recent victim of some horrible crime probably doesn’t want to read graphic descriptions or see images of similar crimes. I can see how that would be a concern. I slap a “disturbing content” warning on some of my links for that reason, like this one, courtesy of Stormfront.

This, however, is a trigger warning for “um, some seriously racist talk.” What is that going to trigger? Hurt feelings? If you can’t hear about “dumb-ass nig-nugs chimping out at Mickey D’s” or “dirty chinks multiplying like rats and chinking up UCLA” or “greasy spics taking all our jobs and all our tacos back to Mexico to feed their brood of brown babies” or “raghead Mohammedans jerkin’ it to 72 virgins in a cave somewhere in Ali Baba land” (that was kind of fun) without having a nervous breakdown, then you are not capable of participating in an open discussion of race. Not because race realists say those things, but because you are clearly prone to wild overreaction, and will probably shut down the conversation as soon as any unflattering facts about NAMs come out.

Which, now that I think about it, is exactly the point of treating race-related discussion as trigger-warning-worthy: to shut down the conversation. “You can’t say that! It’s not in good taste!” This avoids the difficulty of actually addressing the facts which underlie the “seriously racist talk,” examples of which are discussed below.

Harassment

Before that, it is worth reading the I’m Not Racist But… blog’s philosophy on harassment. From the FAQs:

Why do you censor the names of these racist assholes? I mean, you even found them on public facebook search!

I really wish I didn’t; these people do indeed deserve whatever harassment you’d like to throw at them!

One recent example of potential harassment, which the following people “do indeed deserve”: “taking a sledgehammer to this [young woman’s] skull” for noticing race differences in intelligence.

Remind me: who’s on what side of the War on Hate?

But I don’t want to get into any legal trouble with anyone for inciting harassment, even if they deserve it [which, if you recall, they do indeed]. However, if the post is recent enough, you could try searching for their post content to find them. (Also, something I feel should be pointed out – I only censor the names of idiots, while people calling the idiots out get both their name and photo censored.)

Translation: these people deserve whatever harassment you’d like to throw at them, but I’m scared of the possible legal consequences, so I disguise their identities as little as possible. Anyway, here’s how you can find them.

Alright, now let’s see what kind of extremist rhetoric warranted a trigger warning.

Tacos and Burrito Stands Everywhere

i aint no racist. but theyre taking our jobs. theyre takin over pretty soon american food wont even exist in america. it’ll be tacos and burrito stands everyplace. u will have to drive to canada just to eat a fuckin hamburger! does that sound righht to u, a america without hamburgers? of course not! so vote republican

Note that he never actually mentions race. If he is talking about a race, as opposed to a set of nationalities including Mexico, then it must be the Hispanic race — yet another example of how everyone knows Hispanic is a race.

It happens to be true that Hispanic immigrants, legal or illegal, are taking our jobs. It is also true that they are trying to take over; that is their stated objective. Furthermore, they really do eat tacos and burritos. (You know, Mexican food?)

Now ask yourself: does an America without hamburgers sound right to you? Hamburgers, here, stand for American culture and traditional values. Do you really want to have to drive to Canada just to eat a fuckin’ hamburger? That is, just to be around White people like you?

Vote Republican: it beats the alternative. Barely.

Race Differences in Intelligence: A Facebook Analysis

Not to be racist, but I’m starting to see that niggers don’t possess a single ounce of intellect

There are indeed race differences in intelligence that favor Whites and Asians over Blacks and Hispanics. For example, at least one in four American Blacks has an IQ below 75. (In 1959, the American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) set the IQ threshold for mental retardation at 85. Since half the African-American population fell below that threshold, they changed it to 70 after the Civil Rights Movement.) If we restrict our attention to so-called “niggers,” that fraction must jump, given the correlation between IQ and the many dysfunctions of ghetto Blacks, like crime, illegitimacy, and welfare dependency.

Here are two responses from so-called anti-racists.

…are you sure you’re not the one without a single once [sic] of intellect? Ouch! Get the aloe vera, ’cause you just got served.

I think that should be “you just got burned,” given the aloe vera reference.

Rather than taking a sledgehammer to this miscreants skull, perhaps I’d be better off challenging them to some hardcore Scrabble.

Apparently the standard punishment for questioning the intelligence of ghetto Blacks is a sledgehammer blow to the skull. I forgot again: who’s on what side of the War on Hate?

Shot or Lashed or Something

This one is actually an excellent summation of my position on Muslim immigration:

I’m no racist but if Muslims want to live by their laws shouldn’t they feck off back home?!!! If u didn’t want to live by our laws y bother coming the first place?! It’s not like we could go to [the Islamic world] and demand that our laws are enforced there could we? Wed be shot or lashed or summat!

  1. If Muslims want to live by Muslim laws, shouldn’t they stay in their home countries, instead of imposing their culture on us?
  2. If we tried to same thing, we would indeed be shot or lashed or something. Only Whites are expected to “diversify,” because our cultures and our nations are objectively superior — which of course is an excellent reason not to diversify by introducing immigrants from objectively inferior ones.

Here is one response.

THIS IS SO STUPID IT MADE MY HEAD HURT. [That might be a tumor.] Go fucking die you ignorant bitch!!, you shouldn’t be out in the world amongst intelligent [sic] people spreading your racist bigoted views.

I keep getting mixed up over who’s on what side here. I distinctly remember someone saying something like “these people do indeed deserve whatever harassment you’d like to throw at them!”

A Strange Place

Movies about Africa need to have European or American stars like Leonardo diCaprio and Jennifer Connely. We need familar faces because Africa is a strange place. You can call this racist, but I would not.

It’s an established pattern in films about Africa. You have Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner in the Snows Of Kilimanjaro, Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn in the African Queen [great movie], and Robert Redford and Meryl Streep in Out of Africa. Three classic and beautiful love stories.

I would mock, but I honestly don’t see what part of this could be considered racist. Here are two responses.

I officially hate people.

Well, as long as it’s not any particular kind of people, it’s okay.

Complete, blatant ignorance is regrettably prevalent in this world. We are aware of it, and we have the opportunity to overcome it, and for that I am thankful.

I guarantee you this commenter would classify “Black people are more criminal than White people” and “there are innate racial differences in intelligence” as examples of complete, blatant ignorance, without actually knowing anything about those subjects.

Racism: They Defined It, so It’s OK When They Do It

Commentary on the subject of American food and culture:

RACHEL: Tangent: There’s such a thing as “American food”? Unless you’re referring to the general American “impulse” to load everything in fat and sugar…

SIMONE LOVELACE: I believe you mean high fructose corn syrup…

Rebuttals by other commenters follow.

I found the following exchange amusing.

MANTIS TOBOGGAN, MD: If I say “I don’t like black tv comedy shows”, it does not make me racist — perhaps I just dont find much appeal in the type of humor they use…

Not so fast, Mantis!

KEELEY: THe problem with “I don’t like black comedy” is the same as the problem with “blac kpeople can’t drive” it’s making a blanket statement abotu a diverse group of people and their humor/driving ability.

Racist on both counts.

The debate rages on.

LETA: What if I said, “I don’t like British tv comedy shows”?

Because really, I can’t stand british humor at all. Mind, I like other British entertainment just fine… Does that make me a racist?

Analogy failure imminent. Activate analogy containment shields and evacuate the area.

ERIN: @Leta — British and Black are not comparable. British describes a nationality & a culture. Black does not. When Black is used to ASSUME those types of traits is exactly what makes “Black comedy” and other such phrases problematic characterizations.

In light of this and an earlier article at Sociological Images asking “Have ‘Blacks Made Progress’ or Have ‘White People Gotten Less Crazy’?,” it’s pretty clear that the word “racist,” if it means anything at all, means anyone who can be connected in any way to remarks that can be interpreted by a liberal as not flattering a designated racial victim group (and White people don’t count).

Glad we cleared that up.

Appendix: Discussion

I participated in the discussion (of the “I’m Not a Racist But…” article) only briefly, and with a minimum of patience for race-denialist ignorance and general silliness. I include the relevant comments here in case they get “moderated” into oblivion for insufficient pandering to minorities.

JILL: I think those comments are AMAAZZZZZZZIng and TRUE
why is truth racism
more black men committ crimes than white men
More asians are in car accidents than american caucasians
etc
etc
why is fact racist??
they are not
so sick of this BS

SISOU, a very confused Black woman: Blacks do not commit more crimes than Whites. evidence of arrest or prison population does not PROVE we are more criminal. In fact it proves the opposite of what you are saying… these comments are racist because they LEAD to racist actions. ie: thinking Blacks commit more crimes so targeting and racially profiling Blacks. Hence why White ARE 80% of Drug users but Blacks and Brown are arrested for drug crimes more than whites.

So stop BEING Racist and assuming things are facts ( because white people said so X group is in fact…) instead of evidence of racial bias ( most white people think so therefore act in ways to make said thing a reality)…

UNAMUSED: Hello there [Sisou]. You’re completely wrong.

1. Of course Blacks don’t commit more TOTAL crime than Whites. They make up 13% of the population! There’s simply no point giving the total crime figures unless you’re trying to hide Black dysfunction. ONLY RATES MATTER.

Example: would you rather live in a country with a million people and 1% are criminals (that’s 10,000), or a country with 10,000 people and half are criminals (that’s 5,000)? Total number or rates? Your choice.

2. Blacks commit crime at a much higher rate than Whites. I have explained exactly why in my flyer, here: https://unamusementpark.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/crime-flyer/

Now, before you say anything: I already know all the counterarguments, and I have already disproved them. So you might as well keep reading, because I don’t want to have to repeat myself.

The National Crime Victimization Survey annually asks up to 134,000 American victims (of all races, ages 12+) what crimes they were victims of, and who attacked them. Also, the police track crime reports from victims. Finally, the FBI tracks arrest records. At EVERY LEVEL, Blacks are committing almost every crime (and every violent crime) at MUCH HIGHER RATES than Whites. This shows that it is not police prejudice; the police are in fact going after the people who commit the crimes.

In fact, D’Alessio and Stolzenberg (2003) showed that White criminals are MORE likely to be arrested than Black criminals.

Why is it that Asians are arrested for every crime except gambling at LOWER rates than Whites? Gee, I guess there’s systemic racism against White people! Oh wait, it sounds incredibly stupid when I put it that way.

If Blacks were really victims of discrimination, we would expect the biggest crime gaps in crimes where the police have the most discretion in making arrests. In fact, the opposite holds: Blacks are LESS likely to be arrested for liquor law violations; equally likely for drunkenness; and only slightly more likely for vandalism. Is it really easier to railroad them for murder than graffiti? Pure silliness.

3. Since Blacks actually are much more likely to be criminals than Whites, it is perfectly rational to believe so, and racial profiling becomes not merely acceptable, but a moral necessity. It’s like being more concerned about a 20-year-old man robbing you, than an 80-year-old grandmother, or for that matter an 8-year-old child.

Blacks are more criminal than Whites: words to live by. Literally.

4. Whites make up a majority of drug users for three reason:
(a) They are a majority of the population.
(b) Blacks under-report drug use, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
(c) White drug use is primarily marijuana. They just aren’t that into crack cocaine.

So stop BEING ignorant and assuming race realists haven’t done their research.

Sisou apparently didn’t read my comment before replying, or at least she didn’t understand it. Nevertheless, I may have sparked some critical thinking in other commenters.

SISOU: d: then the majority of arrests for drugs charges should BE WHITES!!!!! but it is not.. proving again racism in criminal system.

I think it’s fair to say she missed the point entirely there.

… Let’s be clear you can post as many stats as you want. It does not change the fact that YOU CANT PROVE that Blacks are more criminal than WHITES.

Well, there you have it: data doesn’t matter when your theory hurts Black people’s feelings.

because you are selectively ignoring

a: people do falsely accuse Blacks and Latinos of crimes [Citation needed.]
b. Cops are more likely to use force on Blacks, [Citation needed.]
Blacks are more likely to receive harsher sentences. Including more likely to receive the death penalty showing once again the criminal system is flawed. [Citations needed.] Therefore, completely ignoring racism when talking about criminal stats is disingenuous.
Oh yay FBI stats cause the FBI and Blacks have gotten along so well. You can not assume that arrests = more criminal behavior. PERIOD!

I think that proves she didn’t read my comment.

c. you are selectively deciding what crimes are important. Are Blacks more likely to commit white collar crimes… Are Blacks more likely to go to other countries and commit genocide/holocausts, rape, spread disease, enslave, rape the land, destroy the environment, use women as breeders, etc than WHITES?

I don’t think so

See below.

Racial profiling DOESN’T WORK! How is a Cop stopping every Black person they see useful? How about getting accurate reports and finding actual people who committed the crime you are investigating.

That’s quite an impressive straw man you’ve constructed there. Where did you get all the straw?

And one more thing Mr. Race Realist

Yes, Ms. Black Apologist?

If Crime is inherent for Blacks, nothing to do with the history of racism than explain the likelihood of

A Biracial person committing a crime. Does half of body commit crimes while the other half shakes it’s head?

That might be the stupidest thing I’ve read at Sociological Images, and that’s saying a lot.

And since the majority of Black Americans are up to 30% percent White. is only part of us doomed to be criminal.

exactly how are you deciding who is White and who is Black and tell me how my Sun protecting skin = criminal behavior.

And that is the runner-up.

I commented once more. Yes, it’s mean. No, I don’t care.

UNAMUSED: 1. As I have tried to point out to you, Blacks under-report drug use. This is well known to the Department of Health and Human Services. In other words: you can’t get an accurate picture of drug use by asking junkies.

However, if you judge drug use by emergency room admissions for drug-related conditions, you see that Blacks are much more likely to use drugs (obviously — I mean, how can you even doubt this for a second?), which accounts for their over-representation in drug arrests.

Also (once again) White drug use is primarily marijuana. Whites are MUCH less likely to be involved in drug-related violent crime, such as robbery, assault, and murder.

In short, Black people do, in fact, use and deal drugs more than White people. OBVIOUSLY.

2. Let’s be clear that my stats have already proved my thesis: Blacks are more criminal than Whites. QED.

Now, you can certainly whine and cry about it, but you’ve already admitted you’ve lost.

Look, just because you’re Black doesn’t mean you have some special insight! Quite the opposite, in this case. Your bias here is obvious.

3. Now look at you trying to argue your case without any supporting evidence! You’re just speculating away. Show us the statistics on false accusations, and explain why victims would report the wrong race of a perpetrator to the US Census Bureau. Or did you think you just blame all Black dysfunction on White people and get away with it? Bigot.

Oooooh cops are more likely to use force on Blacks! How… irrelevant to the discussion. Also: citation needed.

Blacks are only “more likely to receive the death penalty” because… wait for it… Blacks are MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT CAPITAL MURDER! [See here and here.] If you want the State to stop killing Black people (God knows why), you should ask the Blacks to stop murdering so many people.

Look, I’ll explain it to you AGAIN: the arrest records match the police reports MATCH THE VICTIM REPORTS.

5. “Are Blacks more likely to go to other countries and commit genocide/holocausts, rape, spread disease, enslave, rape the land, destroy the environment, use women as breeders, etc than WHITES?”

Umm… yes. Obviously. Look at Africa. Genocide! Rape! Disease! Slavery (still)! The destruction of nature! Mistreating women! Good grief, did you even think that through before you wrote it?

OBVIOUSLY it’s Blacks. OBVIOUSLY.

[Note: I am aware that she said “go to other countries.” With that technicality, in this day and age, it’s still Blacks.]

6. “Racial profiling DOESN’T WORK! How is a Cop stopping every Black person they see useful? How about getting accurate reports and finding actual people who committed the crime you are investigating.”

You’re just prattling away with your little straw man arguments. You simply don’t know what racial profiling means.

Hint: no one is saying stop all Blacks, all men, or all young adults. It all fits into a profile. TRY to understand. PLEASE.

7. “If Crime is inherent for Blacks, nothing to do with the history of racism than explain the likelihood of A Biracial person committing a crime. Does half of body commit crimes while the other half shakes it’s head?”

Good grief. This is just… stupid. Can you say “straw man argument”?

We’re talking about rates. Likelihoods. Probabilities. You have a child’s understanding of the subject.

8. “exactly how are you deciding who is White and who is Black and tell me how my Sun protecting skin = criminal behavior.”

Well, here’s part of your problem: you don’t even know what race is!

You can determine someone’s self-identified race with 99.86 percent accuracy from genetic clusters. Thus, race is genetic. Simple as that.

Race isn’t just skin color. It’s skin, hair, blood, bones, disease resistance, intelligence, criminality… and most of all GENES, which play a huge role in ALL OF THE ABOVE.

ME AGAIN: By the way, Blacks are more likely to commit white-collar crimes too. (lulz nice example)

So add that to murder, rape, arson, assault (simple and aggravated), robbery, and for that matter vandalism. Gee Blacks are really on a roll…

And there you have it: WAAAHH.

Read Full Post »

I am reminded of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s line from the classic film Commando (1985). As I recall, he was eating breakfast with a very young Alyssa Milano:

Why don’t they just call him Girl George? It would cut down on the confusion.

Wait, that’s not right.

The man is serious about cutting down on confusion.

No, he had just shot Sharon Stone in the head on Mars while trying to reach a telepathic mutant rebel leader to recover memories of a terraforming alien artifact while unwittingly acting out the plans of his evil pre-memory-wipe self:

Consider that a divorce.

Wait, that was the markedly superior Total Recall (1990).

Fans of the film will recognize this as one of former Governor Schwarzenegger's least ridiculous facial expressions.

Now I’ve got it: he was dangling a man over a cliff with the aid of a clearly visible wire.

Remember when I promised to kill you last?

I lied.

Remember when I promised to stop arguing with Stupid, Liberal, Anti-White Bigots?

I lied.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to drop you off a cliff. Yet.

I’m happy — no, that’s not right either. I’m angry to inform you that I am now restarting the destructive side of ‘Park operations. The constructive side, which includes our awesome flyers, will continue as planned; in fact, will probably accelerate, since our operations are powered by burning racial hatred, and arguing with race denialists is an excellent (and renewable) source of fuel.

Why am I doing this? Same reasons I’ve always done it. It’s fun. It’s relaxing. And I want more people to know we’re out there, we who don’t buy into the race-denialist BS. I want our enemies to know it, and I especially want our allies to know it.

Let us begin.

Attraction

Sofia — whose personal motto is not, but probably ought to be, “a lightning bolt of knowledge blowing out the fuse of ignorance in the shitty old house of our liberal dystopia” — has directed me to another great bastion of social-scientific liberal lunacy: Sociological Images. Recently I’ve been having a blast in the comments over there, and I wanted to let you know.

Sofiastry is your source for... I dunno, fingers? Slightly sticky fingers.

A recent article, “Race and the Problems with Measuring Beauty ‘Objectively'” (note the relativist scare quotes) is a predictable attack on evolutionary psychology Satoshi Kanazawa’s research on the inferior attractiveness of Black women. There are two components to this supposed counter-argument. The first is that Black women are only less attractive because of evil White men; specifically,

the global history of slavery, colonialism, and race-based systems of domination that make it impossible to separate out our perceptions of what is beautiful and sexually appealing from historical ideologies that insisted that non-White peoples were unattractive.

… Given that history, it’s not shocking that White women would be rated most attractive and Black women least… the outcome of constant, long-standing cultural messages about attractiveness that resulted from efforts to legitimize and justify social and political inequalities.

In other words — and I’m not going to set up a straw man; this is actually what they’re saying — in other words, you may think you find Black women less attractive than White and Asian women, but you don’t. You actually find them just as attractive. You love their skin tone and their hair texture — can’t get enough of it! However, we’re all the unwitting victims of an historical ideology (that’s a set of ideas about history) that insists that non-White women are unattractive — er, except Asians and Native Americans, who score much higher than Blacks and quite close to Whites. Hispanics too, probably. Somehow we avoided that part of the historical ideology.

It might not be an "historical legacy," but something is definitely turning me on right now.

The author, Gwen Sharp (a feminist pseudo-scientist at Nevada State College), leaves several things unexplained.

  1. Like many conspiracy theorists, she doesn’t explain who, exactly, is transmitting these “constant, long-standing cultural messages” — though it’s not hard to guess — or how they accomplish it.
  2. She doesn’t explain constant, long-standing pro-Black cultural messages, such as the “Black Is Beautiful” movement, which even has its own TV show now.
  3. She doesn’t explain why, when a qualified scientist actually attempts to transmit a cultural message about attractiveness that disfavors Black women (which happens to match the data), he sets off a “firestorm” (Huffington Post), an “international race row,” and “international outrage” (Daily Mail); the article is promptly removed (along with the author’s biography) and an apology issued by the publisher; his institution begins an internal investigation; and fellow academics call for his dismissal in the name of their “multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution” (Daily Mail again).
  4. She doesn’t explain the statistics on interracial marriage.

That last one isn’t really Sharp’s fault. We can hardly expect her to examine the world she inhabits (i.e., the “objective” “facts”) before blaming all our problems on (I can only assume) rich White heterosexual men. She’s not some nerd scientist, for crying out loud — she’s a radical social scientist! And she’s very busy with her extremely important work on — um…

She will soon begin a research project interviewing water diviners, and focus on the way diviners and government hydrologists use scientific/rational language to validate their belief systems while disparaging each other. [Source: Nevada State College.]

Sharp’s theories don’t deserve a rigorous rebuttal. They deserve to be briefly mocked and promptly forgotten. So if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to erase my memories of the last two days and replace them with a tropical vacation on Mars.

Race

Before that, I should discuss the second component.

[Kanazawa] treats race like a real, biological, meaningful entity. But race is socially constructed; there is no clear biological dividing line that would allow us to put every person on the planet into racial categories [claim #1], since societies differ in the racial categories they recognize [claim #2] and “race” doesn’t map along unique sets of genes [claim #3] — there is more genetic variation among members of a so-called race as there are between members of different races [claim #4].

This is radical pseudoscience, plain and simple, and any college professor who claims to buy into it is willfully ignorant, promoting a radical political agenda, or both. That’s why claim #2, that “societies differ in the racial categories they recognize,” is inane: societies are not made up of experts on race, and even the people society considers “experts on race,” like Gwen Sharp, aren’t experts on race.

It’s also why so many of my comments have disappeared in “moderation,” including my very first: a detailed, documented explanation of why race is biological, which thoroughly debunks claim #3. See sections 2 and 4 of “Black and White,” supplemented with two rebuttals of race denialism: “‘Scientific racism’ is actually valid science (part 2)” and “Debunking race denialism 2: Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza.”

If you’d rather just read it here, I don’t mind repeating myself. (I know, I know: you’re tired of the same old links. I’ll dig up some new ones just as soon as someone actually argues against the ones I have.)

Let’s start with the basics. Human beings are scientifically divided up into races (and subraces) according to exactly one criterion: ancestral geography. Blacks (comprising more than one race) came from sub-Saharan Africa, Whites came from Europe (basically), Asians (also comprising more than one race) came from… I forget where, and so on.

Anyway, the races evolved in virtual reproductive isolation for tens of thousands of years, except possibly the last few hundred years. Put together four evolutionary forces — founder effects, genetic drift, random mutations, and adaptation — and what do you get? Genetic differences. That’s why you can tell someone’s self-reported race from their genes with 99.86 percent accuracy just from looking at a few hundred genetic markers (American Journal of Human Genetics).

I brought pictures. From Tishkoff et al.’s 2009 paper “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans” (Science 324(5930) 1035–1044):

Genetic variation all around the world. See the races there?

From Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza’s “The History and Geography of Human Genes” (1994):

Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of the world. Clearly, races do not exist.

Claim #4 is simply wrong, as Chuck pointed out in the comments on “Black and White.” From Neven Sesardic’s 2010 “Race: a social destruction of a biological concept” (Biology and Philosophy 25:143–162), citing Witherspoon et al.’s 2007 “Genetic similarities within and between human populations” (Genetics 176: 351–359):

A good measure of the robustness of racial genetic differentiation is the answer to the following question: “How often does it happen that a pair of individuals from one population is genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” In fact, if many thousands of loci are used as a basis for judging genetic similarity and when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations, the correct answer, which many will probably find surprising, is: “Never.”

Any two White (i.e., European) people are always more similar genetically than any White person is to any Black (i.e., sub-Saharan African). Of course, thanks to miscegenation, there now exist people who are 50 percent Black (or White, or Asian…), 90 percent Black, 1 percent Black, and so on. Claim #1 demands a “clear biological dividing line,” but that’s fallacious reasoning that can also be used to “prove” that height doesn’t exist.

Go ahead, draw a clear dividing line (one nanometer thick, say) between short and tall. Try it with slow and fast, big and small, or food and poison. You can’t do it — at least, you can’t do it in a meaningful way. Do you nevertheless learn something useful from statements like the following?

  1. “The robbery suspect is tall.”
  2. “You’re driving too fast.”
  3. “The chances of decapitation are not small.”
  4. “I’ve replaced all the food with poison.”
  5. “Your new high school is full of Black kids.”

It gets worse. Sharp links another article for support, this one by Sociological Images co-author Lisa Wade (a feminist pseudo-scientist at Occidental College), entitled “A Simple Lesson on the Social Construction of Race.” A very simple lesson indeed: the entire article can be summed up as follows.

There are people of all different skin colors. Therefore race doesn’t exist.

That’s it. That’s all. These women have deluded themselves into thinking race is nothing more than the color of your skin. They should look up “Black albinos” sometime. (No, it’s not an oxymoron.) They should consult a forensic anthropologist like George Gill, who can determine the race of a skeleton (PBS Nova). They should ask a geneticist, a medical doctor, and a statistician why an “epidemiologic perspective” (that’s with regard to the spread of disease) “strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity” (Genome Biology). Since they’re so concerned with telling Blacks they’re beautiful, they should also check up on how acknowledging those fictitious “real, biological, meaningful” racial differences can help doctors treat patients. I think fatal cardiac arrest has been conclusively linked to low self-esteem.

Discussion

I mentioned I’ve been having fun in the comments at Sociological Images. In the beginning, I was quite polite and reasonable, but I began to lose patience around the time I posted the following, for reasons which will soon become obvious.

UNAMUSED: For anyone not keeping up with this (rather pathetic and off-topic) debate about race differences in intelligence, or just race differences period: my opponents are unable to cite even one source to back up their opinions about race differences in intelligence. There are also unwilling to read and understand my sources (see above).

Instead, they use insults (“troll,” “white supremacist”), accusations of “racism” (a word which is now meaningless, thanks to people like them), outright lies (like the claim that I haven’t cited my sources), unsubstantiated assertions (everywhere), appeals to emotion, appeals to popularity, and of course their perfect ignorance of intelligence research.

Don’t be fooled.

Please ask yourself: why would two reproductively isolated populations of an animal species, evolving independently for tens of thousands of years, subject to all the usual natural forces (founder effects, genetic drift, random mutations, and adaptation), somehow come out with
(a) different skin and hair,
(b) different bone structure,
(c) different blood antibodies,
(d) different disease susceptibilities,
(e) different athletic strengths and weaknesses (watch the Olympics), and yet
(f) IDENTICAL BRAINS?

Evolution does not stop at the neck. And science is not concerned with your hurt feelings nor with your “progressive” politics.

A representative response (note the total lack of substance):

JUAN: Tough to decide which is worst and unamusing from you: Your faulty rhetoric or your faulty science. Now, provide some real evidence and cited that isn’t debunked eugenics or pseudo-science.

UNAMUSED: It’s like… it’s like you see the words I’ve written, which are all true, and then your brain just rejects them. Graft versus host, only the graft is REAL SCIENCE.

From that point on, my new comments mostly disappeared into “moderation,” meaning my distinguished opponents’ nasty, ignorant, insubstantial, promptly approved remarks went unchallenged. This displeased me, with predictable results. (I am, after all, the most hateful man on the Internet.) In the end, the thought-crime spree got so out of control, the entire discussion had to be put on hold pending a purge of hate facts, including my first (and least confrontational) comment, which explained why race is biological, not social.

UPDATE 2: The comments section has largely devolved into a flame war with lots of insults flying around, so I’m closing comments since I won’t be around to moderate them [i.e., delete only the ones I don’t agree with] for the next week. I will go in and clean out the comments threads [ditto] when I get a chance.

Therefore I will reproduce some of my exchanges here, before they get deleted.

Statistics

SYD: Plus, what about those of us who ARE significantly and predominantly mixed race? I am half black and half white. I have some distinctly “black” features, and some distinctly “European” ones. Am I “objectively” only half attractive? Or am I just deluded because my black brain-failings have tricked me into thinking I’m any attractive at all?

UNAMUSED: Yes. That’s exactly right. You haven’t misinterpreted at all.

If the average Black woman is less attractive than the average White woman, that means all Black women everywhere are ugly. Thus you are objectively half beautiful, half ugly.

If the average Black person is less intelligent than the average White person (they are), that means all Black people are stupid. Thus you are stupid.

You must have aced Stats 101.

We continued in this vein for some time.

White Supremacy

LETA: I see you like to flaunt your white-supremacy flag. I don’t see you giving intelligence tests to populations that do better than the average white (like Asians).

UNAMUSED: Yes, yes, white supremacy, “sieg heil” and such and such.

Anyway [table-drawing fail]:

group approx. mean IQ
European Jews 110
East Asians 105
Whites 100
Hispanics 90 ya they’re a race
Blacks 85 in America
70 in Africa

The Legend of Colonialism: Ocarina of Hatred

SIMONE LOVELACE: … Even if you could make a real case that certain features common in people of African descent were “objectively” unattractive (spoiler alert: you can’t!), culture bias is clearly a huge factor. …

UNAMUSED: Dark skin is a feature common in people of African descent which is “objectively” unattractive, in that all races prefer lighter skin, in general.

KJ: And might the legendary of colonialism have something to do with that?

UNAMUSED: Explain exactly what the “legacy” (I assume you meant that) of colonialism is, and precisely how it is causing e.g. Black Haitian girls to prefer White Barbie dolls to Black ones.

Or did you think you could just go “colonialism slavery imperialism white people did it lololz,” and everyone would just solemnly nod and go about their business?

MOLLY: Wait, you’re using *Haiti* as an example? … Because it’s not possible colonialism could’ve had ANY impact on Haiti (a nation founded when slaves rebelled against French colonial rule)? …

UNAMUSED: Listen to yourself: you’re claiming that centuries-old colonialism is making modern-day Haitian girls like White Barbie dolls better than Black Barbie dolls.

It’s just… retarded.

Concise

SCOTT: [a whole bunch of crap about the relationship between attraction, sex, reproduction, and evolution]

UNAMUSED: One big straw man argument. No point even addressing this nonsense.

Insecurity

ALIX: People who are insecure about their own intelligence/beauty/other factor always seem to want to demonstrate that some other group is inferior.

I’ve never really been sure why some people are so intent on proving that their group is *superior* to other groups (especially when those groups are more of a continuum than an actual delineated group). Life isn’t a football game. We all benefit if we are all appreciated for our contributions, and our strengths are utilized appropriately. By writing off an entire group, we are ALL weakened.

UNAMUSED: Gee, thank you for that amateur psychoanalysis.

Look, Alix: the reason why I think Blacks are innately less intelligent is because they score lower on intelligence tests, which are not culturally biased; and further research supports a 50–80% genetic explanation. I am not insecure about my own intelligence, and Kanazawa is not insecure about his attractiveness.

I might as well say “you’re only disagreeing with me because you’re agoraphobic.”

The tests are not culturally biased. [You] have no reason to believe they are — I mean, it’s not like you can find any ACTUAL examples of ACTUAL cultural bias on the WAIS. You’re just speculating because you don’t like the findings.

You don’t understand anything about statistics. No one is claiming IQ tests (or better yet g tests) predict your success in life with 100% accuracy (duh). They do, however, predict group outcomes. In particular, they predict Black failure.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but the reason I am so intent on proving that Whites are cognitively superior to Blacks is that (1) they are, and (2) shrieking harpies like the ones in the thread above can’t seem to grasp that simple fact, and their ignorance and bias are interesting to me.

We should be “writing off” Blacks as a group, because they are innately incapable of achieving the same success as other groups. That means stopping absurd discriminatory policies like AA and racial quotas.

This “writing off” is not discrimination. It has nothing to do with race. (Watch the race denialists fail to grasp this point.) It is a logical consequence of treating everyone as individuals without regard for race. Since Blacks are generally less intelligent, if you treat them like everyone else — as individuals — it’s going to look like discrimination.

PS Asians are cognitively superior to Whites.

Projection

An anonymous commenter succumbs to projection, but replacing “Unamused” by “a race denialist” yields perfection. I swear that wasn’t supposed to rhyme.

ANON: [A race denialist] will always double-down on the crazy, because he truly and solemnly believes in what he’s saying. A failure on his part to continue to believe in the truth of his and his sources claims will mean that he will have to do a full re-analysis of himself, his morals, his world-view, etc. in addition (most likely) to those of his friends and colleagues (and possibly his family and community members). It’s a truly scary thing to admit that something fundamental to how you perceive the world is absolutely wrong.

This is why you can’t reason with conspiracy theorists who believe what they do, and [a race denialist] is just like the conspiracy theorist whose life is consumed with uncovering the government plot that George W. Bush caused 9/11 or the other conspiracy theorist who believes that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon.

Arguing with facts won’t help, either, since it’s likely that — like many conspiracy theorists — he’s incapable of understanding where his logic is faulty: conspiracy justification has become an unconscious reaction to dissonant stimuli that affects him at a level more basic than rational thought. Indeed, it hijacks rational thought and leads to rationalizing thought (of the type that either explains away the potential dissonance or builds a wall of denial against it), instead.

In short, he’s a person that doesn’t understand why the majority of people don’t understand the truth that is so clearly in front of them, and no amount of argumentation is going to change his mind about the truth he sees (let alone the intelligence of the people who can’t see it).

Other Highlights

  1. Commenter Bah wonders if I might be Kanazawa himself.
  2. Commenter Alix thinks Sofia and I are the same person. (We’re not… as far as I know.)
  3. No one — no one at all — bothers to address the information I presented. Oh well.

Anyway, I had a blast! Expect more. Now where did I put that memory modifier…

"Stop struggling. You're just making it worse." "Worse than getting my mind erased?" "Well... you're not helping!"

Read Full Post »

By now, you are probably aware of evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa’s latest thought-crime, “Why Black Women Are Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women” (May 15, since retitled and deleted).

The reaction to Kanazawa’s research has been generally idiotic. Consider the Daily Mail’s pathetic coverage in “‘Black women are less attractive than others’: Controversial LSE psychologist sparks backlash with his ‘scientific’ findings” (May 19). (Note the obligatory scare quotes around “scientific.”) The caption to the second photograph is representative.

According to Satoshi Kanazawal [sic], ‘science’ would suggest Naomi Campbell [who is Black] is less attractive than fellow supermodel Elle Macpherson [who is White].

If the error isn’t obvious, here it is in another context: “According to ‘science’ that claims the average man is taller than the average woman, that man” — pointing to a short man — “is taller than that woman” — pointing to a tall woman.

It is not the first time that Dr Kanazawa, 48, a lecturer within the department of management at the LSE, has been accused of peddling racist theories.

In 2006 he published a paper suggesting the poor health of some sub-Saharan Africans is the result of low IQ, not poverty.

Professor Paul Gilroy, a sociology lecturer at the LSE, said: ‘Kanazawa’s persistent provocations raise the issue of whether he can do his job effectively in a multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution.

‘If he announces that he thinks sub-Saharan Africans are less intelligent than other people, what happens when they arrive in his classroom?’

Answer: they fail, because they’re just affirmative-action admissions.

The innately inferior intelligence of sub-Saharan Africans (as a group), and Blacks in general, is a scientific fact and should not be controversial; see my flyer on the subject of race differences in intelligence in America. Yet the sociologist Paul Gilroy wants Kanazawa fired, and his research suppressed, in the name of diversity and multiculturalism. It’s James Watson all over again.

OkCupid

The inferior attractiveness of Black women should not be a controversial finding either. I suspect many readers have personally noticed the VERY OBVIOUS phenomena of racial preferences in dating. For example, White men are preferable to Black men, who are preferable to Asian men (on average), and White and Asian women are much preferable to Black women. Still, we should be able to do better than anecdotal evidence.

We, after all, are not the sort of people who cry “racism” every time a Black man gets pulled over by the cops.

The dating website OkCupid has published a study, “How Your Race Affects The Messages You Get” (October 5, 2009) on the racial dating preferences of over a million users. This is particularly good data for two reasons.

First, these aren’t college student volunteers sitting in a lab, ranking photographs for some professor. They’re real people trying to start real relationships (or at least get real laid). After all, attractiveness is more than just a pretty face (e.g., mine).

Second, online dating minimizes several factors not directly related to attraction, which would otherwise favor same-race relationships. On the Internet, it doesn’t matter if you’re Asian and live uptown with your all-Asian friends who frown on mixed-race relationships, while the person you find most attractive is Indian and lives downtown, and the two of you would never ordinarily meet. That can’t stop you from messaging her, can it?

Nevertheless, it turns out that Black men are 13 percentage points more likely to respond to Asian women than one would expect if race were not a factor, while Asian women are 10 points less likely than expected to respond to Black men. White men disfavor Black women by 10 points. Indian women disfavor Indian men by 9 points. But White women respond to White men at exactly the expected rate.

The overall findings are not surprising, provided you know more than a few people of other races.

  • “Black women write back the most.”
  • “White men get more responses.”
  • “White women prefer white men to the exclusion of everyone else — and Asian and Hispanic women prefer them even more exclusively.”
  • “Men don’t write black women back.”
  • “White guys respond less overall.”

The article concludes:

It’s surely not just OkCupid users that are like this. In fact, [any] dating site (and indeed any collection of people) would likely exhibit messaging biases similar to what I’ve written up. Any dating site probably has these biases. According to our internal metrics, at least, OkCupid’s users are better-educated, younger, and far more progressive than the norm, so I can imagine that many sites would actually have worse race stats.

Note that racial preferences, which we all have (no exceptions), are to be considered bad — at least, they are when they disfavor certain minorities. I can only speculate that “better” race stats would show that people ignore race when choosing a partner, which would be dangerous and stupid; or that people actually prefer those Designated Victim Groups, e.g. choosing Black men over those awful, nasty Whites, which would be even more dangerous and stupid.

Objective Beauty

Four points:

  1. Evolution favors reproductive fitness.
  2. Human reproduction is accomplished through sex.
  3. Sex is driven by sexual attraction. That is, attraction is the proximate cause of sex. (“Why did you sleep with her?” “Because she was hot.”) The ultimate cause is evolution. (“Why did you find her hot?” “Because I evolved that way.”) Radical pseudoscientists like Hank Campbell don’t understand the difference, which is why they reject Kanazawa’s findings.
  4. Sexual attraction is the basis for beauty.

As a result of 1–4, we have evolved a universal ideal of beauty, like not being fat. Someone who prefers fat people for sex is abnormal, just like someone who prefers infants for sex, or inanimate objects; or someone who prefers to wash his hands until they bleed, ten times a day.

Certain characteristically White traits, including skin tone and hair texture, appear to be part of the universal ideal of beauty. I invite the skeptic to consider this fat Black chick.

Obligatory Hot White Girl

You can’t seriously be disappointed by the lack of pictures of hot white girls in this post. You’re on the Internet, for crying out loud. Exert yourself.

Alright, fine. In honor of Norway, here is a hot Norwegian girl.

She is indeed a hot Norwegian girl.

In retrospect, that was a really good idea.

Read Full Post »

The word “racism” is now meaningless in Norwegian as well, reports a reader via email from the land of snipers and black metal. (What do you mean, I don’t have a thorough understanding of Norwegian history and culture?)

Norway!

Below is his translation of an article, “Chaudhry accuses FrP of racism,” from the Aftenposten (“Evening Post”), Norway’s largest newspaper. Note that the “FrP” is Norway’s “Progress Party,” which values individual rights, a free-market economy, small government, restricted immigration, and law and order. Since its inception, the FrP has resided on the political fringe because of its stance on immigration, i.e. its failure to recognize the wonderful, unspecified benefits of filling your country with the kind of people who build the kind of countries those same people are desperate to escape from. Since 2005, however, as Europe has begun to realize (and pay) the true cost of “diversity,” the FrP has flourished as Norway’s second largest party (currently the most popular among secondary school students).

Member of Parliament Akhtar Chaudhry (Socialist Left Party) accuses the Progress Party of racism after Per-Willy Amundsen said that Muslims have the lowest workforce participation rate.

“This borders on racism,” said Chaudhry to Dagsavisen.

Akhtar Chaudhry is a Pakistani immigrant and 4th Vice President of the Norwegian parliament.

Sniff sniff. "I think I smell some non-Dhimmis around here..."

He is also a whiny little bitch who seeks to undermine Norwegian values (like the separation of Church and State, women’s rights, and not stoning homosexuals) by shutting down debate and suppressing dissent with accusations of discrimination.

Chaudhry is distressed and concerned, and draws parallels to the growth of National Socialism in 1930s Germany. Amundsen’s comment is not in good taste.

Note the appeals to emotion: “distressed and concerned,” “not in good taste” — as if Chaudhry’s (fake) sense of propriety and (fake) distress define the limits of free speech.

“It’s completely borderline. [Note that completely almost racist is still not racist.] If you switch out ‘Muslims’ for ‘Jews’ in the criticism, you understand the importance of what is being said,” says Chaudhry.

He’s absolutely right: if you switch our “Muslims” for “Jews” in the criticism, and see that the result is a false statement, you will understand the importance of addressing Muslim immigration.

He is referring to Amundsen’s comment yesterday that Muslim immigrants have the lowest workforce participation rate. Minister of Labor Hanne Bjurstrøm (Labor Party), and Geir Bekkevold, political immigration speaker for the Christian Democratic Party, distanced themselves from the statement.

Cowards. Traitors.

Hardly in keeping with the proud Norwegian tradition of badassery.

Here’s why Amundsen is right, and also why he’s on Unamusement Park’s List of Cool Norwegians (along with Max Manus, Roald Amundsen (no relation?), all the Vikings, and of course anyone who reads this blog):

Amundsen is standing his ground and insists that he’s not racist.

“I disagree entirely. I am referring to public statistics. It’s clear that the immigrants in Norway with the lowest workforce participation rate are from countries in the Muslim world,” says Amundsen.

Amundsen is backed by the Central Bureau of Statistics. According to CBS, immigrants from Somalia have a workforce participation rate of 31.9 percent. In other words, almost seven of ten Somalians are unemployed. The next lowest countries on the list are Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco, Turkey, Kosovo and Iran.

“The eight countries with the worst workforce participation rate are Muslim countries. That speaks for itself,” says Amundsen.

Remember: pattern recognition is racist.

Here is the actual ending of the article:

He also says that Islam’s view of women is a hindrance to their employment.

Here is my fantasy ending:

He also says: “Suck it, Chaudhry. If you and I had been born 70 years earlier, you’d be telling us how ‘distressed and concerned’ you are that I said Germans have the highest Holocaust participation rate. ‘It’s completely borderline! It’s not in good taste! Waaaaah!'”

At this point, Amundsen made an unprintably obscene gesture in the direction of Chaudhry’s seat in the Parliament Building, sang the national anthem with the voice of an angel and the raw power of a proud Norwegian muskox (bringing tears to this reporter’s eyes, and the eyes of every other true Norwegian within singing distance), performed a vigorous Norwegian folk dance, and declared the interview terminated.

Full disclosure: this reporter is now in love with Mr. Amundsen.

"And then he made us muck out his sheep. His proud Norwegian sheep."

News of Norway

From OzConservative to The Fourth Checkraise to Sofiastry (and also from Jewamongyou to Human Stupidity) to me to you: a video from Norwegian TV.

Norway is known for its news.

Yes, I follow the Norwegian news. Who doesn’t? (Google’s suggestion, based on my browser history: “Showing results for I hate all the Muslims and wish they would just go back to Johnny Arab land as soon as possible. Search instead for news of Norway.”)

FEMALE ANNOUNCER: In Oslo, all sexual assaults involving rape in the past year have been committed by males of non-Western background [meaning non-White]. This was the conclusion of a police report published today.

MALE ANNOUNCER: This means that in every single sexual assault in the last five years, where the rapist could be identified, he was a man of foreign origin [meaning non-White].

MALE REPORTER: The young girl we are about to meet was raped about two years ago. As she entered her apartment she was assaulted, and endured hours of threats, violence and rape by a [non-White] man unknown to her. She will be struggling with this experience for the rest of her life.

YOUNG GIRL: I have found it difficult to go out shopping on my own because I felt anxious. I was simply too afraid to go out the door, and had problems contacting and speaking to friends and family, and simply to live a normal life.

MALE REPORTER: In April, a few weeks ago four women were assaulted and raped on the same night [by non-White men]. None of the [non-White] perpetrators has yet been found.

Well, you can start with racial profiling. Call it “community policing” or something. Then round up all the young Muslim men for questioning.

Today Oslo police presented the total figures revealing how in the past year all sexual assault involving rape had been committed by men of non-Western background [meaning non-White].

FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: Many of the [non-White] perpetrators who commit these rapes on the edge of [White] society, often unemployed [i.e., too lazy to get a job; would rather live off White Norwegians’ tax dollars], arriving from traumatized countries [which, of course, excuses anything they do to their White oppressors — I mean, it’s not like it’s non-White people are the reason non-White countries are so “traumatized” (read: shitty).] In the past five years, it has often been asylum seekers.

“My country is mean to me! Waaaaah! Let me in to yours! I promise I won’t rape anyone! Waaaaah!”

MALE REPORTER: This girl was raped by a [non-White] man of Pakistani heritage. She is an ethnic Norwegian [i.e., White], as are almost all victims who are assaulted and then raped.

That sounds almost like discrimination.

YOUNG GIRL: He said that he had the right to do exactly as he wanted to a woman. [“Why?”] Because that is how it was in his religion. Women did not have rights or opinions. He was in charge.

Hey, who are we to judge?

Oh, right: we’re rational, moral human beings, whereas these people are objectively inferior savages. That’s who we are to judge.

FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: The way women are viewed [by non-Whites] is at least one of the questions we have to ask in order to understand the motive of the [non-White] perpetrators. …

The motive, incidentally, is sex. It’s just that they’re not decent-enough people to suppress their animal instincts.

… It should not stand on its own, as a stigma [meaning we should never incorporate race and religion into police work, no matter what the cost to real Norwegians], but it is an element we must have the courage to address.

Well, you could start by (a) calling them what they are (Muslims, non-Whites), and (b) not excusing them as “asylum seekers” from “traumatized countries.”

Your Mission, Should You Choose to Accept It

Here’s what I want you to do, you compassionate reactionaries: bring up this video in conversation. Real live conversation. Not on the Internet. You could wait until someone starts talking about Europe, or the Middle East, or immigration, or women (“speaking of which…”), or just start a conversation about it (“hey, did you know that…”).

"Hey kids, it's time to learn about Norwegian crime statistics!" "Sir, I'm going to have ask you to leave the playground."

After all, it’s just an interesting statistic you heard on the news. You don’t have to “defend” it. It’s not a political philosophy or a policy proposal — but see below.

Suppose you do bring it up, and someone says “so what?” Well, I tried having this conversation with myself, which is

  1. probably a sign of mental illness, and
  2. a good way to practice debating.

The following is a dialogue between a compassionate reactionary (CR) and a stupid, liberal, anti-white bigot (SLAWB), which I ranted to myself in real time, cleaned up, and annotated.

Warning: CR is compassionate, so he emphasizes the positive (crime prevention, women’s rights, preserving one’s culture), but of course he’s also a reactionary, so he probably goes much further than you’re comfortable with (outside the Internet). Consider him an upper bound on acceptable debate.

CR: Hey, so I saw this news report that says every rape in the capital of Norway in the last five years was by a non-White immigrant. Check it out.

SLAWB: So what?

CR: Excuse me? [I usually feign innocence (and confusion) after saying something provocative.]

SLAWB: What’s your point? We should just kick all the immigrants out of Norway?

CR: I didn’t make any suggestions for immigration policy. I just thought you’d like to known, ’cause you’re into, like, women’s rights and stuff. This is pretty much the number one way to identify rapists in Norway: they’re foreigners. Seems like women should be aware of that.

SLAWB: You can’t identify foreigners just by looking at them! How could you tell the difference between a Norwegian and a German?

CR: I wouldn’t be trying to tell the difference between a Norwegian and a German. [I try to shut down straw man arguments as quickly and directly as possible. “That’s not what we were talking about.”] If I were interested in avoiding rape, I would be trying to tell the difference between a Norwegian and a Turk. Or an Iranian. Or an Egyptian.

SLAWB: In other words, you want us to start using racial profiling to target Muslims!

CR: Oh, you’re saying all the rapists are Muslims? [If you deliberately avoid mentioning the problematic group you’re actually talking about, like Muslims in Europe or Blacks and Hispanics in the USA, it guarantees that your opponent will be the first to bring it up. Then it’s their idea, not yours, and you can just run with it:] Well, I guess that makes sense, considering what countries they come from.

Anyway, is this “racial profiling” anything like “sex profiling,” where you “target” men because they’re so much more likely to commit crime than women? Because that kind of profiling seems pretty reasonable: if one group of people is committing nearly all the crimes, then you should probably pay more attention to that group. Like men (sex profiling), young adults (age profiling), and Muslim immigrants (ethnic profiling). Or do you think we should be just as worried about an 80-year-old Norwegian grandmother committing rape, as we are about a 20-year-old Turkish man?

[Asking questions, even obviously rhetorical questions with only one sane answer, is weak: it gives your opponent the chance to answer you. That is why I never give anyone the chance to answer my rhetorical questions:] I don’t know about your idea of kicking them all out of the country, but maybe we could just deport the illegal immigrants and the ones with criminal records, then stop any new ones from coming in.

SLAWB: Most of those immigrants are poor refugees who just want to escape from injustice and lead a better life, the kind of life you were privileged enough to be born into.

CR: It seems to me that being poor and wanting a better life don’t excuse you from committing sexual assault. I’m no expert on fashion, but I always thought women kept their money in a purse, not in their vaginas. [I actually say stuff like this. Your mileage may vary.]

Anyway, it’s interesting you mentioned that they’re escaping from “injustice” in their home country: a country filled with people just like them. Same race, same ethnicity, same religion, same culture. People just like them are committing injustices against them. So they flee. They flee to a nice country like Norway, with nice people and a nice culture. And what’s the first thing they do there? Rape spree.

I mean, if they’re committing about 100% of the rapes, it stands to reason that the rate of sexual assault has gone up, like, infinity percent since they got there. Maybe the reason their home country is so bad is… it’s full of the same kind of people who are fleeing it and coming to Norway. Everyone wants a better life… especially the ones who don’t deserve it.

Based on this news report, it looks like these immigrants aren’t assimilating into the wonderful, privileged society of Norway. They’re not changing. They’re bringing their third-world problems with them. So as more and more of them pile into Norway, Norway is going to look more and more like a third-world country. Meanwhile, Afghanisatan and Pakistan are still going to be third-world countries, so rather than raising up the foreigners to our level, we’re letting them drag us down to theirs.

The Norwegians were leading a “better life” because they weren’t committing all these injustices against one another. Good for them. They’re entitled to keep living their privileged lives the way they’ve always lived them, with each other. They do have that right. Let the Muslim immigrants — especially the poor ones, the ones who get on welfare the moment they arrive, the ones who commit most of the crime — let them stay in their own country, with their own people, and fix it up so it’s as good as Norway. Don’t bring them to Norway, so they can drag it down until it’s as bad as… whatever. Syria, I guess.

SLAWB: [head explodes]

Try it yourself. Write a dialogue, or have a real one.

Imagine yourself as a proud Norwegian muskox, locking horns with an inferior Middle Eastern, er... goat.

For extra credit, re-read this post and identify all the signs of the Dark Triad in my writing. (That’s narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy: self-obsessed; deceitful and exploitative; and thrill-seeking and callous.)

Read Full Post »

I have previously noted that should you choose the path of compassionate reactionism and take this conversation off the Internet, it might help to have a few relevant fact sheets (like, say, “Black People Are More Criminal Than White People”) written by someone else, on whom the liberal rage and malice and cries of racism can be dumped, i.e. me.

To that end, I have prepared a second flyer, entitled “There Are Innate Racial Differences in Intelligence.” I had some help from Chuck at Occidentalist, but any outrageous errors or unsubstantiated opinions are all mine. A .pdf version is available here, and a .jpeg version is available below (click for the full-size image). Links to my sources (or equivalent) appear below.

I encourage you to share this flyer with anyone, anywhere. I hope you find it useful. Let me know if you find any mistakes, or if you would prefer a version with minor modifications of your choosing, such as a less outrageous title.

Sources

The statement “Mainstream Science on Intelligence” is available here.

Linda Gottfredson has plenty of papers on the general mental ability factor g. Hunter & Schmidt’s 2004 article “General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance” is available for purchase here; Chuck sent me a copy (available on request).

The IQ gap (and the 80% heritability statistic for adults) are widely known; you can start with the American Renaissance guide. Find “Human Biological Variation” at your local library or college campus.

Roth et al.’s (in)famous 2001 meta-study “Ethnic Group Differences in Cognitive Ability and Educational Setting” is available in .pdf form here. You can read about the Kansas City desegregation experiment here. (The term “epic fail” springs to mind.)

Here is the source of Steven Pinker’s quotation. His dangerous idea (answer to the 2006 annual Edge question) is that “groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments.”

Chuck at Occidentalist can tell you all about race, income, and SAT scores.

The Rushton and Jensen article “Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy” (2005) is available in .pdf form here. The paper “Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies” in The American Journal of Human Genetics, available here, shows a 99.86 percent success rate matching self-reported race to genetic clusters. I wrote about the failure of studies claiming the gap is environmental without controlling for genes in my post “Income and IQ.”

Jared Taylor briefly discusses regression to the mean, in the context of Jensen’s research, in this issue of American Renaissance.

You can read about the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study on Wikipedia, for instance.

Here is Jensen (1994) talking about 1 in 4 Blacks having an IQ less than 75. Gottfredson’s “g: Highly General and Highly Practical” (2002) is available here. American Renaissance profiles Levin (1997) in this issue.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: