Barrel Strength

Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

Barrel Strength - Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

Perhaps the laziest blog posting ever, and the most complete

Day by day pontificating on the Greek crisis, the black American underclass crisis, the non existent global warming crisis, Islam, Putin, Obama, the Democrats, the Republicans, the Grits, the Tories, IQ differences among races, automation, modernity and every sort of ephemeral dispute: let me summarize.

Check how many propositions you agree with below. Send me your scores and how you counted.

1. Global warming

a) not happening, as it appears from evidence

b) solar radiation and the amount received by the planet earth drives most of the climate,most of the time.

2. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW)

a) could be happening but is not, see 1 above

b) could be happening but it is too expensive to address it directly, compared to other highly soluble environmental and social problems.

3. Anthropogenic global warming craze

a) a delusional belief system, akin to the cholesterol panic, with a roughly sixty year cycle from invention through inflation to evanescence.

4. The Pope and his recent support for AGW

a) traditional catholic anti-capitalism dressed up in new clothes

5. Taking down the confederate flag in South Carolina

a) about time. The US Civil War was about the enslavement of blacks. I do not approve of slavery, slave owners, or blaming personal or collective failures on the heritage of slavery.

6. American blacks

a) according to US Department of Justice statistics, a white person is 67 times more likely to be attacked by a black person than a black person is likely to be attacked by a white person. Handle with caution.

7. Racial differences in  IQ

a) quite real and possibly genetic in origin,  and susceptible to improvement by the imposition of academic standards.

b) the imposition of academic standards is highly difficult in times of raging desire for equality of outcomes.

8. Islam

a) a totalitarian political ideology dressed up as a religion

b) in the main, a complete waste of time, Civilizations that succumb to it have succumbed to a complete failure to advance socially, materially, or spiritually.

9. Materialism

a) a gigantic limiting assumption on whatever could be real.

b) the predominant intellectual fashion of our age.

c) To my mind, completely refuted by split screen experiments and the confirmation of the mind’s influence on the outcome of split screen experiments.

10. God

a) some kind of superintending and creative intelligence is, in this view, highly likely.

b) by definition, not subject to scientific refutation or support (if it is in the domain of material reality, it is not God)

11. Mind

a) likely to exist apart from its material substrates, such as brains.

b) intimately related in normal conditions to awareness, intention, emotion, and other states of mind.

12. Inequality

a) there is too much emphasis in contemporary on the evil consequences of inequality and too little emphasis on the degree to which inequalities are natural.

b) All men are equal, and all men are unequal, and any society that tries to suppress the truth of either proposition will end in violence.

13. The sexual revolution

a) we are heading rapidly back into a pagan attitude to sexuality. Pauline Christian ideas about with whom to have sex, in what legal constraints, and in what orifice are going out the window.

b) I am ambivalent about it, but I enjoy the changes so far as they have affected me.

c) The state has successfully substituted itself for the ancient ties of family and community, and this with immense popular support in all democracies. Most people in advanced cultures trust the state more than they trust their cousins.

14. Change

a) It is likely that 50% of the ideas expressed here will be repudiated in the next century.

b) which 50% – or larger – is impossible to determine

15. Fossil fuels

a) the advances of wealth, and with wealth, tolerance and the ability for self-expression, that have been made since 1800 are primarily the outcome of increased amounts of energy available to each person on the planet.

b) that increase of wealth is largely the result of burning fossil fuels.

c) Wind and solar energy sources should be pursued up to the limits imposed by physics and the costs of production, and no further. Large scale substitution of wind and solar for fossil fuel energy is demonstrably uneconomic and anti-ecological.

16. On male and female

a) while the Scientific Revolution of the last two centuries derives from other sources than male/female intelligence differences, it is males whose minds, procedures, and cooperation  have generated nearly the totality of scientific and technical progress in that time.

17. On science

a) science as we understand the term has proceeded from a confidence in the intelligibility of the universe as the creation of a rational God, and not otherwise.

b) Chinese, Indian and Arabic civilizations did not develop science for reasons particular to each of those civilizations and cultures. They discovered knowledge in various ways, but not in the rigorous exploration of the boundaries of what is known, and in the organized procedures of intellectual challenge, free from physical violence and the suppression of inquiry by religious authorities, that characterize most other civilizations and cultures, and which threaten ours.

 18.Obama

a) A half-black Woodrow Wilson, an academic, brought up by white Lefties, an ungifted politician, not half as smart as he thinks he is, who rode the wave of being “black”, which he is not, into power. Never bought into him, never was disappointed, never was impressed.

b) His appointment of the racist anti-white Eric Holder as Attorney General, has legitimized, and augmented, a general anti-whitism in the public discourse. White people have not yet shown signs they are collectively fed up with it.

19. The Left

a) is premised on the notion that society is wrongly constituted, that they know what is wrong, that their analysis is perfect, and that what is wrong can be cured by social, political, or economic measures, which act as external constraints on behaviour, not inward changes in man.

b) At their worst, a Godless bunch of destroyers who have been unleashed on our churches, schools and universities, and have destroyed them. By Godless I mean not merely atheistical, but narrowly and stupidly materialistic.

c) They are totally in denial about their destructive impulses and effects, and firmly believe they are morally superior to any opposition, though they deny the basis of morality in any supernatural, metaphysical basis.

d) lacking a metaphysical basis of agreement among themselves, or confidence in the constitution of material reality to cause things to turn out right, they turn politics into a series of tests of agreement on increasingly ridiculous propositions, disagreement with which is cause for expulsion, derision, calumny, and, in the extreme, death.

e) the belief in the rationality of their analysis of  the world ends in irrational politics, and the celebration of that irrationality.

20. Conservatism

a) A strong distrust of the perfectibility of man.

b) The deep suspicion that one could be wrong about many large, important things.

c) the confidence to argue for what you believe, despite a and b above.

d) A deep distaste for persecuting hypocrites, and for persecutions in general.

e) a confidence in the saving power of Jesus Christ – whatever that may mean.

f) The confidence that somehow, against many odds, and multiple sources of error, sin, passion, ignorance, and ideology, that  the human species, and not just its its living conditions, is getting better.

__________________________________________________________

Materialists, feminists, lefties, Muslims, progressives, slave holders, Confederates, and Obamanauts can vie to see who among them is the most offended.

The rest of us can get on with life, knowing that someone sane is out there.

 

 

 

 

The colonization of Britain

A most surprizing entry today in the Guardian, about the genetic origins of people in the United Kingdom. Surprizing because the great unmentionable in PC circles is genetics, and surprizing – to me – in that the article says that most people in the United Kingdom are of germanic origin.

This finding contradicts those of Bryan Sykes, in his Saxons, Vikings and Celts, who says that most people of Great Britain are, with limited exceptions, “aboriginal”, that is, they have been there since the end of the last ice age (13,000-11,000 years ago), and that scandinavian and germanic  admixtures were relatively rare and confined to the eastern shores.

Take your pick.

 

 

The latest DNA research from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, in Oxford, claims “astonishing results”. According to its author, Peter Donnelly, there was no specific Celtic people before the Romans arrived, or after: only genetic clusters. There was no Anglo-Saxon genocide after the Romans left but a steady westward movement of Germanic peoples, intermarrying with the pre-existing Britons.

The Oxford team has studied the genes of 2,000 Britons who can trace their parentage back to the late 19th century. The results mostly confirm conventional wisdom. The Celtic scholar Barry Cunliffe has long argued that after the last ice age the British Isles were repopulated by waves of migrants returning from warmer climes. With his emphasis on “mobility, connectivity and the sea”, he separates the “west side story”, of Atlantic colonisation, from the “east side story”: of Germanic and other northern Europeans’ migration across the North Sea. We already knew that by the sixth century Frankish-German tribes occupied most of what is now England.

What we do not know is when they came, how they settled and who, if anyone, was there before them. Donnelly claims that his gene map shows a Saxon migration “moving into what is now eastern England from AD450-600 after the collapse of the Roman empire”. It shows 20-40% of the study’s English gene pool to be north European, spread across what is now considered England.
Advertisement

This migration was apparently so potent that in just a few centuries it eliminated almost all trace of indigenous language and archaeological remains in its newly settled lands. Donnelly’s co-author, the geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer, adds that “Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD”.

(As long as you ignore recent immigration from former parts of the Empire and a massive influx of Eastern Europeans in the EU).

The original Guardian article from which the Simon Jenkyns article is drawn is found here.

ukgeneticmarkermap

National-socialism without the interesting uniforms

My constant theme about Quebec is that it puts a kindler, gentler face on fascism. Fascism with a small “f”: everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. Nationalism for the people, socialism for the people, and those who are not part of “the people” will have to dwell in the outer darkness of competitive capitalism and live without state subsidies. Those not part of the people include  the “ethnics”, the Jews, and the English, as we are bluntly described in la belle province. This is a caricature, but it is uncomfortably close to the truth.

Pierre-Karl Péladeau made the mistake of speaking truth in public again.

Péladeau was speaking at the end of a debate at Université Laval in Quebec City on Wednesday evening when he summed up his belief that the march toward sovereignty should be conducted at double time.

“We won’t have 25 years ahead of us to achieve this. With demographics, with immigration, it’s clear that we’re losing one riding a year,” he told the crowd.

“We would like to have more control of it, but don’t be fooled. Who controls the immigrants who settle in Quebec? It’s the federal government. Of course we have shared powers, but they swear allegiance to the Queen.”

Mr. Péladeau, new arrivals are not made federalist because they swear allegiance to the Queen. What makes them anti-separatist is that, being obliged to go to French-language schools in Quebec, courtesy of Quebec’s Official Language Act, they encounter French Quebecers. Closer acquaintance with French Canadians inside Quebec exposes immigrant kids to the difficult-to-imagine levels of ethnocentricity, exclusion and hostility endemic to many levels of Quebec society.  Immigrants learn that, no matter what, they are not part of nous-autres, us-guys, but remain eux-autres, those guys.

People keep saying it is changing, but Quebec’s attitudes  were laid down by Louis XIV and will never change: uniformity in religion, conformity in society, and exclusion in economics.  If I may quote myself from an earlier blog:

The attitudes are: there ought to be one kind of steeple in the town, teaching one orthodox doctrine. Diversity is weakness, argument is divisive, we must be unified and strong to deal with our enemies, who happen to be everyone who is not us.

To wit, the recent decision in the Loyola High School versus Quebec Minister of Education case, in today’s postings.

I can sympathize with Quebecers’ natural desires to remain French-Canadian, and in control of their own province. This is the deal they got on Confederation in 1867 and it is natural for a people to want to continue to be.  Nevertheless, they share a space with other ethnicities, tribes, and nations. Unlike the English-speaking liberal society which surrounds them on three sides, they seem to have little aptitude for forming allies. Make the effort to befriend us, my fellow French-speaking citizens, and you might find life less fraught with dangers.

<sigh>

Don’t be like that!

The New Yorker is a magazine of comfortable liberal opinion, with good writing, great cartoons, plush ads, and an alarming tendency to stick its head in the sand rather than confront its readership with ugly facts.

This week’s case in point is a book review by staff writer Kelefah Sanneh on the subject of a massive tome written by leading black sociologists. The debate inside sociology concerns structuralists versus culturalists. Structuralists believe institutional racism and poverty explain American black performance, culturalists argue that the culture – the set of values shared many American blacks – results in their relatively greater poverty, criminality, and levels of family breakdown, compared to whites, Latinos, or any other American ethnic group.

For most of the New Yorker’s upscale readership, the only exposure they will have to this debate is through the magazine itself. Attitudes towards a phenomenon are often more important than what the phenomenon is in itself, so the function of the New Yorker is to comfort those who might be afflicted by illiberal thoughts with the soothing balm of correct thought.

Let the New Yorker article speak for itself:

Orlando Patterson, a Jamaica-born sociologist at Harvard with an appetite for intellectual combat, wants to redeem the culturalist tradition, thereby redeeming sociology itself. In a manifesto published in December, in the Chronicle of Higher Education, he argued that “fearful” sociologists had abandoned “studies of the cultural dimensions of poverty, particularly black poverty,” and that the discipline had become “largely irrelevant.” Now Patterson and Ethan Fosse, a Harvard doctoral student in sociology, are publishing an ambitious new anthology called “The Cultural Matrix: Understanding Black Youth” (Harvard), which is meant to show that the culturalist tradition still has something to teach us.

The article reviews the debates generated by  Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s famous description in 1965 of the decline of African-American families, the increasing matriarchy, the descent into crime of fatherless boys, and the prediction – which turned out to be accurate – that the result would be an explosion of crime. In fact, the US murder rate doubled in the decade from 1965 to 1975.

Orlando Patterson, the black sociologist, came to Moynihan’s defence, arguing in later years that Moynihan had given too much credit to the structuralist side of the argument: that black underperformance was the heritage of slavery and racism. Patterson felt that Moyhnihan had got it mostly right by his largely cultural interpretation of American black pathologies.

At this point the New Yorker’s reviewer, Kelefah Sanneh, points to the drop in crime rates, and in particular the black crime rates, that have occurred since the 1990s as the strongest argument against the culturalist interpretation.

But the contemporary era has been marked by the opposite discrepancy: even as the new culturalists were resurrecting Moynihan’s diagnosis, the scourge of crime was in retreat.

And why was this so? One part of the answer is demographics. The baby bust, and in particular, the decline in the the relative number of young black males, has led to corresponding drops in the number of crimes committed by young males of all races, and in African- Americans. While demographics does not explain everything, the number of males over 15 and under 24 as a proportion of the society exerts a powerful effect on crime. (An excellent article “Is violent Crime Increasing?” on crime rates in America is found here). Another explanation for the drop in American crime is that enough young black males were imprisoned that crime had to drop, since about one-third of them have been imprisoned at some time in their lives.

Sanneh then uses the apparent drop in crime rates committed by American blacks as the large fact that a culturalist interpretation of American blacks fails to answer.

I cite the article “Is Violent Crime Increasing?” on the effect of imprisonment.

After 1975, the expected cost of violence began to rise. First, while the police continued to make arrests for about half the violent offenses they recorded, arrests rose considerably faster than victimization rates. Thus, if victimization rates are our best indicator of the underlying trend in violence, the percentage of violent offenders getting arrested must have risen. At the same time, those who went to prison were staying longer. The net effect of these changes was that violent offenders could expect to spend more time in prison. Judging by murder and victimization rates, the violent crime rate was about 10 percent lower in 1988 than in 1975. Yet the fraction of adults in state and federal prisons more than doubled during this period. In part, this was because we were locking up more people for drug-related offenses. But those who committed violent crimes could also expect to spend considerably more time in prison in 1988 than in 1975.

Thus demographic change – including the reduction of the number of young black males- and tougher imprisonment policies – had their effects on levels of violent crime.

All this was as available to Sanneh as it was to me, with ten minutes of rummaging about in the Internet with search engines.

Sanneh concludes his attack on Orlando Patterson and the culturalist interpretation thus:

Black cultural sociology has always been a project of comparison: the idea is not simply to understand black culture but to understand how it differs from white culture, as part of the broader push to reduce racial disparities that have changed surprisingly little since Du Bois’s time. Fifty years after Moynihan’s report, it’s easy to understand why he was concerned. Even so, it’s getting easier, too, to sympathize with his detractors, who couldn’t understand why he thought new trends might explain old problems. If we want to learn more about black culture, we should study it. But, if we seek to answer the question of racial inequality in America, black culture won’t tell us what we want to know. 

The last sentence is the kicker. Though everything in the review of evidence shows considerably worse performance by the generality of American blacks compared to the generality of American whites, this fact is not explained by black culture. Okay so what explains it?

The implicit invitation is to blame white racism, but suppose the answer lies deeper than attitudes.

If black culture will not tell us about black inferiority, try this thought experiment. What if all American whites were instantaneously removed and replaced by Japanese?

Those who know the Japanese know they think that their race/tribe/nation is ineffably superior to all others. Conformity and obedience to the requirements of their tribe/race/nation are the supreme values. Tenth generation Koreans living in Japan may not have full Japanese citizenship. No one may immigrate to Japan.  Thus Japanese find American white agonizing about race to be incomprehensible. They are very nice about their race-ism, but they are not apologizing for their views of themselves, nor of you, whiteman.

By this act of magic, you would achieve the total replacement of all American whites by a group of people who find it inconceivable to apologize for “racism” because for them, “race” is the basis of all social cohesion, hierarchy and meaning. No guilt, only calm acceptance of the racial nature of human existence. What would happen then?

Again, Sanneh’s last sentence:

But, if we seek to answer the question of racial inequality in America, black culture won’t tell us what we want to know. 

Maybe not. Maybe we need to recognize the superiority of Japanese culture, in this thought experiment. In short, the inequality does not proceed from racism; rather, race-ism is the result of differences  experienced by people of different tribes in dealing with one another (and the same applies to tribes, nations, and any conceivable group with discernable characteristics) . Racism, in short, is more about observation of real differences and acting on those observations than some inherent sin tainting the observer of a difference.

That, I suppose, is now a heresy and a thought crime.

Consider, if only for a moment, whether Sanneh would have made the same argument to a culture that could not compute what the matter was with race-ism/tribalism/nationalism. It would not work. The effect of not being able to understand what is wrong with race-ism, would focus the issue not on attitudes, but on the actual differences that generate the attitudes in the first place.

For the mind liberated from the burden of concern about race-ism, the world can be seen in its true light. It is not made prettier or uglier; it is to see the world as a competition and collaboration between genetically different but similar peoples. Expect friction.

Why I love Steve Sailer

“By contrast, political correctness struggles are all about rigging debates by ruling out opponents’ best arguments ahead of time.

Thus, an inevitable difference between sports and identity politics is that competition encourages excellence in sports, while political correctness dumbs down debate.”

“…If your group can be criticized for your stereotypical faults, you are less likely to obsess over the mote in your opponent’s eye, because you can be called out for the beam in your own. Thus, a culture of open debate leads to more civility than the current rules by which the rhetorically privileged—such as blacks, women, Jews, gays, and miscellaneous—can demonize white men qua white men without fearing verbal pushback for their own faults. Rhetorical aggression is inevitable in a culture without reciprocity.”

“By contrast, a rhetorically armed society is a polite society.”

Sailer can also be read at his regular posting site, the Unz Review.

Quite possibly the most racist thing you will read this year

Confessions of a Public Defender drew this comment from Allen West, who agreed that it described the situation of American black underclass behaviour.
By “racist” is meant “describes the behaviour observed without resort to exculpatory ruses such as blaming the situation on other people’s racism”. So in this sense, the description offered by the unnamed American public defender is not racist at all; it is merely an accurate description of the behaviour observed.

This quote is drawn from a description of the thugs who beat two girls at a cash register.

This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.

My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

The anonymous Public Defender concluded:

However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.

 

What makes so difficult public discussion of events, such as those that took place at Ferguson Missouri this year, is the total inability of any public figure to refer to a commonly observed but absolutely forbidden-to-mention reality of how American blacks of the underclass actually behave.

This vast and effective social prohibition makes it possible for many people to believe that the police are oppressing the black underclass, and that this is bad. Whereas, in truth, they are oppressing the black underclass barely enough to let white liberals drive to work in safety and tut-tut as they tune into National Public Radio reporting on Ferguson Missouri and police over-reaction.

It is so much easier to blame white racism, or anything handy, than to confront the reality of racial differences.

I notice the same thing with the Conservative government and global warming. They are allowed to say anything except that the phenomenon does not exist.

Whence do we get these vast and effective limits on thought and speech?

The inability to tolerate the truth is the persistent trait of the politically correct. The truth is what they insist that it is, and there is no objective standard against which to measure. In addition, there is no reason whereby to measure, there are only various “narratives” based on sex, class and power. The politically correct have abandoned faith in reason, because reason and objective standards stand in the way of their wish-fulfilment social policies. The only issue is who controls the “narrative”, in short, who shall rule.

It is by abandonment of faith in reason that we engender the social agreement to enforce the rules on what may be said and thought, that makes these prohibitions possible. There is no KGB doing this to us. It is we alone who are to blame.

The nauseating moral swamp of black and liberal reaction to Ferguson

No one over sixteen has failed to have had a negative interaction with police.

Here are instances from my life:

Your bicycle has just been stolen and you flag down a cop car. You cross the street to approach the car and the idiot chides you for crossing the street against a traffic light, or something. Then they tell you your stolen bike is their business, and don’t go looking for it. They do nothing but give you a number where you can reach a kindly old retired cop who handles stolen bicycle complaints. They do nothing effective.

You are a teenager on your way to your friend’s house. The cop stops you, you get into the cop car at his command and he proceeds to intimidate you for daring to be in that part of town at night. The entire proceeding is just a cop being a thug.

Your house has been thoroughly robbed. On the cop’s second look through your house, the improperly stored firearm -according to our draconian firearms control law –  is discovered in its hiding place. They take the rifle and never give it back. You have to hire lawyers to defend yourself. You make it clear to the prosecutor that there will be plenty of newspaper coverage of the fact that your door was broken down, your house robbed, and the homeowner is in more trouble than the thief who stole $20,000 worth of stuff in several trips, who has got away clean.

So do not accuse me of being soft on the constabulary. Like most of the human species, there is a strong case for eliminating the half of them with IQs below 100. But with what portion of the human species would we begin, in that case?

Yet even after a lifetime of not always happy interactions with these authoritarian twenty-five year-olds and older self-satisfied uniformed idiots, I still think they have a difficult, rough job to do.

Fred Reed has a great insight into the life of a cop at the Unz Review, called Notes from the Drains. It should be read by all who fulminate about police brutality and shooting. It describes the life of a normal well-motivated cop.

With time, your views on police brutality will become ambivalent, or not ambivalent. You will see the pretty blonde rape victim, fifteen, about due for her first prom, screaming and screaming and screaming, sobbing and choking, while the med tech tries to get a sedative into her arm. And you will hear the cop next to you, hand clenching hard on his night stick, say in cold fury, “I hope the sonofabitch resists arrest.” Yeah, you may find yourself thinking, yeah. Social theories are nice. The streets are not theoretical.

And you will find that the perps are almost always black. If you are a good liberal, you won’t like this, but after three months on the street you will not have the faintest doubt. If you are a suburban conservative out of Reader’s Digest, you will be surprised at the starkness of the racial delineation.

All cops know this. They know better than to say it. This can be tricky for black cops, especially if former military who believe in law and order.

You will find that there are white cops who knock blacks around, who humiliate them. You will think it wrong, and so will many of your fellows, but you will decide not to turn them in. You have twenty more years on the streets with them. You will discover that black cops exist who also mistreat blacks, and this will confuse you.

A more statistical approach is found in the City Journal this week. After showing that the number of citizen interactions with police has been going down in the past decade

 …another series of Justice Department surveys,… ask Americans whether they have been victimized by crime. Those who say yes are then asked to identify the race of their attacker. In a 2008 survey, 58 percent of violent crime victims of identified the perpetrators as white, and 23 percent as black. That compares with a national population 74 percent white and 12 percent black. (After 2008, questions about the race of offenders disappear from the victimization data on the FBI’s website.) Police frequently point to this survey and others like it to explain that stop rates and arrest rates are higher for minorities because crime rates are higher in minority areas. Victims disproportionately identify perpetrators as minority.

The real indicator would be a significant dissimilarity between the incident rate, the arrest rate, the prosecution rate and the conviction rate. Dissimilarities would indicate that too many arrest were being made, or prosecutions initiated, relative to convictions. But there are not. Blacks fill American jails, and North American Indians fill Canadian jails, disproportionately to their presence in the population, because they engage in crime disproportionately to the population.

The notion that the thug who attacked the store owner in Ferguson, punched the cop in the police car, escaped, and charged back at the cop is some kind of innocent: it revolts me. The attempt by Obama and his more revolting – if that is possible – Attorney General Holder  to divert moral judgment from the American black propensity to commit crime disproportionately to other ethnicities, and blame police, makes me ill.

It starts to make Stuff Black People don’t like look like a description of facts. Actually, it is all factual, just the selection of facts is biased.

Fred reed again, explaining the speed with which cops must make lethal decisions:

If you shoot, and the object turns out to be a cell phone, “White cop shoots unarmed teen.” If you don’t shoot, and it turns out to be a gun, your wife gets to explain why daddy isn’t’ coming back. Ever.

Cops understand this. Delicate Ivy flowers in the peat moss of the Washington Post do not.

Let’s drop the “You are a cop” narrative. Instead, let’s try an experiment. In your living room, no adrenaline, no darkness, no danger, I will turn my back on you, holding in front of me in one hand a Day-Glo yellow plastic banana and, in the other, a realistic plastic pistol. You, in calm, perfectly safe circumstances, will point a “pistol” at me. Your finger will do fine. I will turn as fast as I can with one or the other in my hand. You have to shoot or not.

You will find, no matter how many times we try the experiment, that I can turn and fire (if I turn with the gun) before you can decide whether I have a gun or a Day-Glo banana. Try it in a dark alley.

Nuff said.

 

 

 

A delicious, if fatal, irony

American Thinker posts a piece called Black Crime Claims life of Apologist for Black Crime. It appears the Chris Ruenzel, a propagandist for the Southern Poverty Law Center, was a long standing author of theories of “white privilege”, the theory whereby whites are responsible for black crime, or deserve it when they are attacked by blacks. He was killed in Oakland recently by black people.

Psychologist Martin Newburn commented on the liberal belief system that perpetuates their delusional thinking about black crime.

“Some liberals, most of which are ego-soaked, look for ways to support their self-perceived importance so they champion imaginary causes for that purpose,” Newburn said.  “They are adult-children who feel free to construct fantasies about their greatness. Their narcissism in part functions to blind them to inconvenient realities. So to compensate, they idealize the targets of their misdirected and pathological ‘caring.’”

The enablers are just as guilty as the predators. More Newburn:

“They perpetuate misery by defending the indefensible such as widespread black predation and other crimes. It causes too much cognitive dissonance and confusion, and it doesn’t comport with their imagined status as a great liberator and defender of their chosen imagined, downtrodden group.”

Today, Newburn is an adjunct professor of psychology at Lake Superior State University. But for the last 30 years, he toiled in Michigan courts and prisons as a forensic/clinical psychologist.  That’s a long time watching white liberals trying to ignore, deny and condone black mob violence and black criminality.

“Reality will only disrupt their fantasies as all-knowing and all-protecting avengers. Maturity is sometimes defined as when a person ends illusions in their thinking, and accepts reality, no matter how distasteful. I apply that same definition to the grounded, peaceful, law-abiding, sane, and stable.

“Over the years I’ve examined and found a trait of sociopath in most liberals. They have this sadistic gratification in creating or fomenting social chaos and conflicts, then, presenting themselves as ‘above it all,’ they arrive to fix the problem they themselves caused or perpetuated. Think of it as mental illness.  A Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, but on a very large scale.”

Ruenzel is hardly the first enabler of black violence to believe he was exempt from it, as urban pioneers are finding throughout the country.

Munchausen by Proxy syndrome is described as:

Münchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP or MBP) is a behaviour pattern in which a caregiver fabricates, exaggerates, or induces health problems in those who are in their care.[1] With deception at its core, this behaviour is an elusive, potentially lethal, and frequently misunderstood form of child abuse[2] or medical neglect[3] that has been difficult to define, detect, and confirm.

 

How far does the protection go?

Please look at the New Yorker magazine cover of last week. The title is called “Illegal Procedure”. It shows a football player chased down the field by a bunch of policemen.

 

2014_09_291-400New Yorker

Observe the face. Would you agree that the football player is white? To what does the cover refer? It refers to the case of Ray Rice, who knocked out his girlfriend in an elevator. The Rice case is commented upon by The New Yorker’s sports columnist in the same edition in a lead editorial.

So who was Ray Rice?

Ray Rice

You will observe he is African American.

So why, one asks, does the New Yorker refer to the issue of domestic violence by players in the National Football League by depicting a white football player?

Here is the racial composition of the NFL – it is two thirds black.

 

Race-Distribution NFL

 Source: http://www.besttickets.com/blog/unofficial-2013-nfl-census/

What reasons are there for depicting the football player as white when two-third of the NFL is black?

  • the problem of domestic violence is generic to NFL athletes in general, so depicting him as white draws attention to the right issue;
  • the New Yorker is too chicken shit to call attention to the race of the perpetrator because
    • his race is relevant, or
    • his race has nothing to do with it.

I was talking to a friend today about this and he said the face was not made African because it was better not to draw attention to the race issue. Everybody knows the issue is racial anyway, he said.

It is starting to be like erasing pictures of Trotsky from the pictures of Stalin. I used to snicker at such lengths to erase history. Now I see us doing the same. Nothing to look at here folks, move on.

What do you think? Am I being too critical here?

 

Those inscrutable Swedes

The usual head scratching is taking place among the bien-pensants as to why the Swedish anti-immigrant party took more seats in the recent election. Look at the figures.

Jimmie Akesson, the leader of the Sweden Democrats, has a simple explanation for the lack of jobs. “If you allow more asylum seekers into the country than the number of jobs you can create, the result is obvious,” he said in a recent speech. Sweden expects more than 90,000 asylum seekers this year, a huge number in a county of only 10 million people. According to the United Nations, Sweden received the most asylum applications per person in the world from 2009 through 2013. The share of Swedes born abroad was 16 percent last year compared with 11 percent in 2000. Akesson calls for cutting back on asylum acceptances, requiring immigrants to pass language tests, and trimming immigrants’ welfare benefits.

“The Sweden Democrats is the only political party that wants to stop immigration,” Anders Sannerstedt, a political scientist at Lund University, told the French news agency AFP. “All the other political parties have a united stance, a generous immigration policy.”

1. Why are the Nordic nations so keen on erasing their national existence?

2. Why do their policy elites believe that unlimited immigration of Muslims, Africans and every sort of refugee claimant should take place?

3. Why, when one out six people in Sweden is not Swedish by culture or assimilation, do they believe their culture will survive,  at current rates of immigration?

The usual suspects, such as the Economist, see the election as shift to the Left after a decade of conservative retrenchment. Bloomberg reports on potential parliamentary deadlock.

The only real winner is the party that is resisting the tide of immigration, the Sweden democrats, with which all other parties have pledged not to cooperate.

Screen-Shot-2014-09-14-at-23.38.31-620x407

The results for the Sweden Democrats are shown in the yellow bar.

Fraser Nelson, in the Spectator, captured the issue.

As for the other parties – they concentrated too much on denouncing the Sweden Democrats and not enough on addressing the concerns of their target voters. As one TV commentator put it, it’s all very well bemoaning racism but if a voter’s school suddenly takes in 100 kids who don’t speak Swedish then they’re going to have concerns. Who’s listening? In a lot of cases, the answer was the Sweden Democrats.

The usual charges of racism attend any attempt by any organized political movement to stop the drowning of local populations in Muslims, whatever the political stripe of the resisting party: moderate liberal (UKIP-Nigel Farage), hard line (Front National -Marine Le Pen), fascist (Hungary-Jobbik ). It matters not what the economic policies are of the resisting parties; their are branded as racist for resisting the policies chosen by their national elites. That is their common denominator. In a sane world UKIP and Marine Le Pen’s political group would be perceived as distinctly as Liberals and Tories are in Canada, but in the prevailing elite view that drowning Europeans in Islamic rabble is good for you, all resistance is “racist” and the same. On the contrary, resistance is channeled through significant  variations in local political culture.

The fact that any resistance to immigration on this scale exists at all is what makes European elites so outraged.

A report from 2013 from the BBC on rioting in Sweden shows that the usual suspects are Muslims burning cars. The issue is described as “inequality”, and strident denials of the Islamic origin of the rioting assure one that the issue is exactly what it is denied to be: mass Islamic immigration

The BBC report has all the hallmarks of denial:

There was a widespread assertion that the violence was not motivated by Islamist ideology.

Despite the assertion, some local people said the police had been heavy-handed and there is clearly much anger at the shooting dead by police of an elderly man wielding a knife 10 days ago.

Many said there was a wider context of a growing gap between rich and poor in Sweden.

On OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) figures, Sweden has seen the biggest increase in inequality of any developed country over the past 25 years.

Immigrants and their descendants tend to congregate in areas such as Husby, the neighbourhood west of Stockholm where the violence started on Sunday.

About 80% of the 11,000 residents are either first- or second-generation immigrants.

Accordingly, this week’s troubles have raised the volume of the debate in Sweden on immigration. About 15% of the population was born outside the country, the highest proportion in any of the Nordic countries.

The influx has come mostly from war-torn countries like Iraq, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Syria. In 2012, Sweden accepted 44,000 asylum seekers, up by nearly 50% from a year earlier.

Ah! The total mystery of it all! The inexplicable relationship between massive influx of low-skilled Islamic immigrants, poor assimilation, higher incidences of rape, and cars burning in the night.