Black aggression

That populations of African ancestry worldwide are characterized by enormously high levels of aggression,  violence and crime is beyond question.  It happens in Africa.  It happens in Britain and it happens in the USA.  It can of course be suppressed.  Apartheid South Africa and pre-1960 America certainly kept it down to much lower levels than it is these days.  But the extremity of the measures needed to suppress it tells a tale in itself.

The only really interesting question is why the levels of black aggression are so high.  The kneejerk Leftist explanation is of course that it is all due to white “racism”.  How that explains the huge levels of violence in the all-black countries of Africa is not mentioned.  Generations have now grown up in Africa who have scarcely even SEEN a white man and the violence seems to have escalated rather than diminished.  So I propose simply to ignore here brain-dead Leftist “explanations”.

The higher level of black aggressiveness COULD be explained as an outcome of the exhaustively-documented black/white difference in average IQ.  Stupid people have fewer ways of getting what they want so often resort to violence as a last resort.  For that reason, Australia’s prisons are full of dumb whites. Lynn, however, points to statistical studies showing that the higher level of black aggressiveness cannot be explained by IQ differences alone.  He shows that there must be personality differences involved as well and goes on to make a carefully-reasoned case for saying that Blacks are more psychopathic than whites.  In a slightly earlier work, Lynn interprets psychopathy as being itself the manifestation of two more basic traits.  To quote Itzkoff’s summary of Lynn: 

“He demonstrates convincingly that from all the available research, psychopaths along with low intelligence are responsible for society’s problems with crime, drug addiction, unwed mothers, drug abuse, rape, child abuse, unemployment, etc. These people are the underclass. And they result from the combination of two behavioral traits. They almost universally have low conscientiousness and agreeableness or altruism. (Lynn explains that “altruism” would be a better term than “agreeableness” but that term has now “stuck” as the common descriptor for this behavioral trait). That is, people who are both highly unconscientious and disagreeable are pathological, and both of these traits are highly heritable.”

So there is a reasonable case for saying that many blacks have personality deficits on top of ability deficits.  And the results are all to obvious in the form of massive black crime—often crime of the most callous sort. 

What the above analysis overlooks to some extent, however, is that whites can be pretty aggressive and violent too.  Neither Hitler nor Stalin were blacks and the recent barbarities in the former Yugoslavia are surely second to none in brutality.  The obvious difference is, of course, that aggression is not a daily experience amongst most whites, whereas it certainly is a constant undertow in most black populations.  It can certainly be argued that the occasional explosive outbursts of aggression that characterize white populations are in fact worse than the constant bubbling of aggression that characterizes black populations but I am here concerned with the factual rather than the evaluative aspects of the matter.

And it would seem that there is at least one place where whites have a pretty high level of constant aggression too: Scotland in general and Glasgow in particular.  Glasgow is an enormously violent place in some ways.  Knifing people to death in drunken Saturday night brawls is an old tradition among the Glasgow “Jimmies”.  Yet Glaswegians do not at all come across as particularly aggressive people.  In 1977 I personally did a doorknock survey of a random sample of Glaswegians—including slum-clearance suburbs such as Easterhouse.  And, accent aside, they seemed to me to be no different from the average Anglo-Australian.  And the results of the survey tended to confirm that lack of distinctiveness.  On the two major personality variables that I measured (aggressive dominance and ambition), Glaswegians were found to be no different from Londoners. 

So I think that in Glasgow we have a very clear case of a difference being solely attitude-driven—attitudes which are themselves in turn tradition-driven.  I found that Glaswegians were as different to Londoners in attitudes as they were similar in personality.  And the tradition at work in the Glasgow fighting is really no mystery.  Clan warfare was long endemic in Scotland until the accursed English suppressed it.  But attitudinal remnants of that warfare survive.  To this day you can hear in Glasgow derisive words such as “Choochtah” applied to Highlanders.  In short, I think a culture of pugnacity was long ago generated in Scotland (presumably due to rivalry over very scarce resources) and that the persistence of culture has ensured that considerable remnants of that pugnacity survive into modern times.

That similar traditions would be at work among blacks is obvious.  They really are victims of “three strikes and you are out”. They are disadvantaged by their abilities, their personalities and their attitudes.  Changing ability and personality is is not at present within our reach but there are some possibilities for changing attitudes.  So those who aim to improve the situation of blacks should concentrate on the attitudes that blacks have.  The attitudes that are at present being inculcated in blacks (that they are helpless “victims”) would however seem to be the exact reverse of what is required if improvements in black welfare are seriously desired.

Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, February 19, 2006 at 11:04 PM in Race realism
Comments (55) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by JRM on February 20, 2006, 01:40 AM | #

Knifing people to death in drunken Saturday night brawls is an old tradition among the Glasgow “Jimmies”. 

You overlook a reason why the English can handle their alcohol better than the Scots can.  The ability to handle alcohol is a function of the distance from the Mediterranean and the Middle East.  That is, genes which help an individual drink ‘responsibly’ are likely present in greater frequency in the English than the Scottish due to a shorter migration from their origin.
Sorry to shoot a hole in your ‘attitude’ theory so quickly.

2

Posted by David B on February 20, 2006, 03:41 AM | #

I wonder how much of Glasgow violence is sectarian (Catholic v Protestant, or Celtic v Rangers, which is much the same thing)?  I don’t know the answer, I just thought it was worth raising the question.  Even if the violence is not *directly* sectarian, the sectarian problem may create a background in which inter-personal violence is promoted.  I recall reading that the gangs in Glasgow have a sectarain basis.

3

Posted by Lars on February 20, 2006, 03:44 AM | #

Well, culture is not completely independent of genetics, and one cannot rule out genetic factors shaping culture, which in turn shapes attitudes. What do you mean that they really are victims of “three strikes and you are out”? Blacks incarcerated for life are not victimizing the public. Are you blaming the policy for angering other blacks and thereby prompting them to commit crime? If so, then this is absurd. Richard Lynn’s paper on the higher prevalence of psychopathic personality in blacks should be read.

4

Posted by Al Ross on February 20, 2006, 04:05 AM | #

An explanation of Glasgow’s violence is related to a politically incorrect finding of a PhD student at Stirling University, viz Catholics (the vast majority of whom are Irish-descended) comprise 15% of Scotland’s people whilst providing 30% of the prison inmate population. Glasgow has a very large number of Catholic lumpen proletarians and this is reflected in the city’s infamous reputation for violent crime.

5

Posted by John S Bolton on February 20, 2006, 04:28 AM | #

Such problems are worsened when a low-IQ population obtains license to form a hierarchy of ruthless violence.  Aggressive personalities are rewarded and encouraged then, and they will dominate also the breeding of the next generation. The women will see as a poor protector, the smarter and more self-restraining type. Those who unthinkingly, and immediately, lash out violently will appear as better self-defenders, and better allies against other aggressors. Even the stupider they are, in their unwittingly altruistic, immediate recourse to aggression, when feeling insulted; the more they will be then seen as better such allies.
Attitudes of gratuitous malice against everyone and everything, will look like successful adjustment to the low-IQ milieu. A group removed from such incentives, and valuing the opposite characters, may impose punishments from afar.
That group must be really free of the hierarchy of ruthless violence; which is how we know that pleas for integration of such a bifurcated society, are really a depraved wish to universalize the hierarchy of ruthless violence of the retardate population.

6

Posted by John S Bolton on February 20, 2006, 04:44 AM | #

Large-scale imprisonment works up to a point. To move beyond that, though, there should be more law enforcement resulting in additional echelons of aggressivity beyond the imprisonables, being held to certain neighborhoods that the better minorities may live just beyond. With electronic monitoring, the intermediate class living outside prison, can be left to damage and destroy only each other; while the next class of minorities up from them, have a chance to develop a hierarchy of intelligence and self-restraint. That is, not all the way, if their endowments do not allow for it; but still greatly improved over the circumstance in which mobile aggressors follow them.

7

Posted by Guessedworker on February 20, 2006, 07:36 AM | #

I don’t believe the propensity towards violence and disorder in black societies can be profitably understood without first understanding ourselves.  The difficulty with black individualism is ours.  It is us, not blacks, who find it pathological and hard to bear.  It is our valuation of human life and our pursuit of human progress - out of which grows respect for property, btw - which are offended by black aggression and individualism.

We value human life today because our ancestors in the cold, food-scarce north found that its preservation facilitated and rewarded survival.  We strive for human progress because the threat to survival from Nature was cyclical and predictable - not sporadic as in African droughts and deseases - and, therefore, amenable to challenge and control.

Accordingly, we stand far apart from that gift of African sociobiology: individualistic, short-termist gratification of the senses.  We look upon it and see hopelessness - but that is our emotional response, not theirs.  We see corruption and failure and a fatal lack of intellectual horizons, but all that is rooted in our own expectations, our sociobiology.  If blacks care all that much for their condition, they don’t care as we do.

The life which we lead is the only life we can lead.  For example, all our authentic political voices (ie. excluding those of Middle-East origin) obey the quiet dictates of our two principal sociobiological norms: a high valuation on human life and the pursuit of progress.  If we could only cease trying to impute these things to the African mentality we might understand how great and how profound is the width of the Saharan sands.

8

Posted by JW Holliday on February 20, 2006, 08:56 AM | #

JJR: What the above analysis overlooks to some extent, however, is that whites can be pretty aggressive and violent too.  Neither Hitler nor Stalin were blacks ...

That’s sort of the comment made by anti-‘racist’ leftists attempting to refute The Color of Crime, but no matter.

Hitler and Stalin.  Why not also Mao and Tojo?  The point is, all human societies engage in warfare and the level of organization in the society, and the intelligence of the population, influences the resulting level of devastation.  That Europeans and East Asians are more destructive at the state level of aggression is due to their innate abilities, not their levels of aggression.

Where racial groups clearly differ is at lower, ‘personal’, non-state levels of aggression, as crime data make clear.  To make my own breezy Sailerian anecdote, when you’re walking down the street at night, it is not Americans of Austrian descent who make you fear for your life ...

This post also underscores another important difference between the worldviews of JJR and I.  While we both are against the idea of integration with Sub-Saharan African-derived peoples, there are fundamental differences in the reasons for this.  My understanding is that JJR’s objections are purely proximate: that SSAs exhibit an undesirable extended phenotype, and thus create problems when living amongst other peoples (or, even, amongst themselves).

I agree with that, but I also take a more “ultimate” view, that SSAs are undesirable for reasons other than their IQ and personal behavior: they are a biologically/genetically (and, thus, phenotypically) very alien people, and, from a deeper proximate view as well, they derive from outside the Western culture (actually outside of any “High Culture” whatsoever).

Therefore, even if every SSA was a learned academic in suit and tie, I would still be against their integration into Western societies.  However, the reality does add especial urgency to these racial problems, no doubt about that.

One should not equate two positions, even if the outcomes of the positions, for any one particular case, are roughly equivalent.  For, when these positions are then applied to other cases (e.g., Asians) the outcomes would be completely different.

9

Posted by labantall on February 20, 2006, 10:18 AM | #

The Scots violence is more likely cultural than genetic.

Stornoway is a lot safer than Drumchapel - why ? They’ve had liberal welfarism in full effect for 60 years.

There’s a great difference between fighting races and violent ones - the best fighters historically are often very peaceful and civilised at home.

This stuff about Glasgow in the 30s is a bit of a myth, in that there were some gangs and stabbings which would never make the national news now, but which stood out then BECAUSE the UK and lowland Scotland was so peaceful.

Victorian and Edwardian Scotland was a basically peaceful place. Think Buchan’s Glaswegian grocer Dickson McCunn.

10

Posted by Voice on February 20, 2006, 10:52 AM | #

Here is some anecdotal evidence for you…

When I was in my early 20’s(in the 90’s) ,  I began selling door to door in UK Tyne and Wear council estates selling of all things cable television and phone(there is a book in their somewhere lol ).  I found the Geordies to be very rough(in the sense that they we sturdy and strong stock) but very gentle in there manner and easy to get along with.  We are talking very poor people as well.

Sooner or later, I was promoted to business telecom sales and begin covering the Northeast and Scotland(including Glasgow). Edinburgh was fine, no issue, but the Glaswegians were the most belligerent bastards I had ever met!  More than a couple of times they would physically challenge me by stepping into my personal space and say “what ya trying to say laddy”?

Granted , I am an annoying american.

This difference in such a tight demographic area has to be cultural.

11

Posted by Matra on February 20, 2006, 12:40 PM | #

the English can handle their alcohol better than the Scots can.

Did you really mean to say that? If there were a World Cup for binge drinking and alcohol related hooliganism the English would be hard for even the Scots and Irish to beat.

12

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 20, 2006, 01:51 PM | #

What do you mean that they really are victims of “three strikes and you are out”? Blacks incarcerated for life are not victimizing the public. Are you blaming the policy for angering other blacks and thereby prompting them to commit crime? If so, then this is absurd.

I don’t think he was referring to sentencing laws; I think he was just speaking metaphorically.

Has no one mentioned testosterone and androgen receptors?

13

Posted by Voice on February 20, 2006, 02:11 PM | #

Fred

Trust me when I say there was physicality to the confrontation.  I have been a salesman for 15 years with thousands of instances of varying levels of confrontation with different and culturally distinct peoples both on my turf and theirs and I can be quite perceptive of the mood of the buyer.

In parting, calling them “bastards” can be taken as a positive, in MR context in what we are trying to achieve, because these are the white people that we want on our side!

BTW, I think they were like that to eachother without much american bias unlike Aberdeen were they just hated me , in a nice way, because of their experience with Texas oil men.

I may be losing my edge by running my own business where I spend too much time in front of the computer!  Nice schedule though
LOL

14

Posted by Phil on February 20, 2006, 02:36 PM | #

And it would seem that there is at least one place where whites have a pretty high level of constant aggression too: Scotland in general and Glasgow in particular.

Actually this isn’t entirely true.

The (white) underclass in England can be pretty violent too. And in Eastern Europe and Russia, some nations have pretty high rates of violent crime.

However, I think these things are spasmodic. Communism destroyed the basic fabric of society in the Eastern bloc. I have a friend who just returned from Russia and said he was amazed at how rampant prostitution is in Russia. Without putting too fine a point on it, he said half the women in Moscow would be willing to sleep for money (this is over the top I think but similar observations have been made by other people).

As John correctly notes, violence is the black norm. And it is true that IQ doesn’t explain it. In much of South Asia and South East Asia, average IQs are lower than 85 (the Black American mean) but the levels of violence not as great.

15

Posted by Phil on February 20, 2006, 02:38 PM | #

the English can handle their alcohol better than the Scots can.

That’s splitting hairs. The Scots are the worst with alcohol now but the English aren’t a long way behind.

16

Posted by Amalek on February 20, 2006, 03:22 PM | #

I was reading Nancy Mitford’s letters to Heywood Hill today and came across this one written on Christmas Day, 1963:

I turned on the Eng. wireless, hoping for a carol & got a song written by Vanessa Redgrave. ‘I saw a black mun, hunging on a tree.’ I do wonder if the blacks go on about the white men *they* have slaughtered.

17

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on February 20, 2006, 10:45 PM | #

Pet scorpions WILL sting you;a rattlesnake will strike at anything in his space,you can’t make a pet out of an African animal-period! You can’t make an Afgan hound as smart as an Australian Sheep dog ,nor can you make a Nigger as smart as a typical White[no matter how much affimative action].Academic blowhards withstanding,the reality has to impact on some of these idiots.YOU CAN’T MAKE CHICKEN SOUP OUT OF CHICKENSHIT!!!!

18

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on February 20, 2006, 11:07 PM | #

FRED SCROOBY-your 2-20 2:36PM posting was educational-I’m hitting the web now-you guys,ánd the web,may soon be the sole repository of non-revisionist history[I would hate it if my great-grandchildren called me a lisr] Thank You!

19

Posted by John J Ray on February 21, 2006, 01:03 AM | #

“More than a couple of times they would physically challenge me by stepping into my personal space and say “what ya trying to say laddy”?  Granted , I am an annoying american”.

They probably thought you were trying to put them down.  They are sensitive to that.

One and all were models of politeness to me but Australians are very highly regarded there—which, sad to say, is not true of Americans.

20

Posted by John J Ray on February 21, 2006, 01:05 AM | #

“The ability to handle alcohol is a function of the distance from the Mediterranean and the Middle East”

So the Scandinavians are all hopeless drunks??

First I’ve heard of it

21

Posted by John J Ray on February 21, 2006, 01:07 AM | #

“I wonder how much of Glasgow violence is sectarian (Catholic v Protestant, or Celtic v Rangers, which is much the same thing)? “

Ulster is of course even more prone to that stress but has—surprisingly—quite a LOW murder rate

22

Posted by John J Ray on February 21, 2006, 01:09 AM | #

“Richard Lynn’s paper on the higher prevalence of psychopathic personality in blacks should be read”

Since that paper was central to my post, I wonder how much people read before they comment.  Very little in some cases it seems.

23

Posted by Voice on February 21, 2006, 01:33 AM | #

JJR,

you are probably right about that.  Americans can come off as patronizing and overly glib, especially to a Glaswegian.

For an american, some of the most cutting and best advice I received from a head hunter after an unsuccessful interview with a English Sales Director, “Son, the feeback was you talk too much and you are get too personal”

That had a profound effect on me moving forward and taught me how to most effectively communicate in the UK, choose my words carefully and to use the technical term, don’t talk shit….

Funnily enough, I find the same behavioural characteristic when I deal with good ol’ boys network in the southern US..makes sense though as many of the same breed…

24

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on February 21, 2006, 01:35 AM | #

TO :GUESSEDWORKER-I sense that you have never been[lived]inAfrica,or you were a member of the Peace Corps.Your bleeding heart makes me want to puke.Rationalization of blacks failure to progress beyound the late stone-age is a Liberal Academia excuse to place the blame on the White race.You tend to justify animalistic behavior as culturely acceptable.Making excuses for your dog biting the neighbors kid,does not absolve you from the consequences.Wehave brought among ourselves these throwbacks-now the choice is-keep them penned[prison],euthanize them,or return them to their natural habitat [Africa] 300 years+ in this country,the highest per capita income of any black in the world,welfare,affirmative action,etc.,and what do we have—-NIGGERS { PS-keep an eye on your daughter-guess who’s coming to dinner]

25

Posted by Guessedworker on February 21, 2006, 03:39 AM | #

Nick,

You got completely the wrong end of the race realist stick.  Read my comment again.  It’s import is that blacks are irredeemable, and cannot raise their horizons to match our valuation of life and pursuit of human progress.  That is not a cause to demonise them.  They can’t be other than what they are, aggression included.  But it is a cause to relearn who we are, and to respect and protect ourselves accordingly.

I believe that this strategy of, essentially, stressing our positives is a better way to propose separation of the races.  We have all been caught up in black demonisation at some time, I guess.  But it will always appear negative, mean etc to unaware whites - of which there are very many.  Making the case for our uniqueness is simply more effective.

26

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 21, 2006, 02:15 PM | #

Nick, I HAVE lived in Africa (Southeast United States) most of my life and I found GW’s take very much in line with my own.

I agree wholeheartedly that it’s pointless to hold black nature against blacks; to do so is to tacitly admit that they should conform to white norms and that making them do so is a worthy goal.

It isn’t.  We’re two vastly different breeds of animals.

I wish blacks well, but I also wish whites well and so think the two groups should work toward a separation.

GW also has an excellent point about keeping positive, and this is especially so when the positives are substantial.  For example, separation will end racial competition, discrimination, exploitation, and oppression at the national level for whoever practices it; anti-racists and rabid integrationists really don’t like thinking about that.

27

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 21, 2006, 02:20 PM | #

anti-racists and rabid integrationists really don’t like thinking about that.

I’ve been arguing with the left half of the anti-racist/integrationist bell curve for 3 years now (they’re the only ones who will take on the job).  I’ve brought up the point above about separation countless times, and I’ve never once gotten a reply: no refutations, no scorn-laden rebukes, no acknowledgements.  That’s very instructive, for me at least.

28

Posted by June Gordon on February 21, 2006, 04:57 PM | #

‘Prof.’ Ray, I have a few questions. 

1)  U.S. Department of Justice statistics reveal that a large majority of heinous crimes such as family murders, workplace homicides, multiple victim assaults and murders, serial killings, poisonings, elder abuse, etc., are perpetrated by white men.  Considering your claims about white men not being aggressive, how do you explain this fact?

2)  Mental health professionals say, contrary to your claim, that white Americans have a higher rate of psychopathology than minority Americans.  How do you explain this fact? 

3)  If crime statistics are controlled for education and income, it becomes clear that African-Americans do not commit disproportional amounts of crime.  (Tim Wise has written an excellent essay on this topic you might want to consult.)  How do you explain this fact? 

4)  People with an inclination toward crime seem to be disproportionately drawn to the white supremacy movement.  Even among its leaders, there is a high rate of convictions and incarcerations.  Recent examples would be neo-Nazi Jacob Robida’s crime spree and the conviction of David Irving as a holocaust denier.  I invite you to explain why this relationship between being a white supremacist and being a criminal exists.  You may find this article helpful in formulating a reply:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_3_72/ai_99696469

5)  Do you really believe that you can determine someone’s level of aggression by having a brief conversation with the person?

I dropped by to observe the denizens of Majority Rights’ reaction to the Irving conviction.  I was in the mood to enjoy the bitching and moaning I knew I would find.  You all have fulfilled that desire.

29

Posted by Ben Tillman on February 21, 2006, 05:11 PM | #

If crime statistics are controlled for education and income, it becomes clear that African-Americans do not commit disproportional amounts of crime.

The statistics can’t be “controlled” in this manner.  It would be like controlling for the number of legs and concluding that spiders do not spin more webs than humans. 

It’s stupid.

30

Posted by Phil on February 21, 2006, 05:33 PM | #

That woman really is a retard.

31

Posted by JW Holliday on February 21, 2006, 06:14 PM | #

June Gordon: “Prof.’ Ray, I have a few questions.”

Yes, I too find it hard to believe JJR was an academic, but it is a fact.

Gordon: “1) U.S. Department of Justice statistics reveal that a large majority of heinous crimes such as family murders, workplace homicides, multiple victim assaults and murders, serial killings, poisonings, elder abuse, etc., are perpetrated by white men.  Considering your claims about white men not being aggressive, how do you explain this fact?”

I don’t know, maybe because the majority of people in America are white, and rates are more important than raw numbers when comparing groups of different size?

Gordon: “2) Mental health professionals say, contrary to your claim, that white Americans have a higher rate of psychopathology than minority Americans.  How do you explain this fact?”

Mental health professionals are politicized hacks who are trying to pathologize dissent the same way their brethren in the Soviet Union did.  Once being homosexual was a pathology, today being anti-homosexual is a pathology.  These “professionals” would benefit from the advice of , “doctor, heal thyself.”

Gordon: “3) If crime statistics are controlled for education and income, it becomes clear that African-Americans do not commit disproportional amounts of crime.  (Tim Wise has written an excellent essay on this topic you might want to consult.) How do you explain this fact?”

My copy of Color of Crime says otherwise, but the logic of the statement is flawed even if true.  If a particular group is stupid and violent, one would expect them to be low on indicators of education and income, which would of course correlate to crime statistics, crime also being related to IQ and propensity to aggression. 

Gordon: “4) People with an inclination toward crime seem to be disproportionately drawn to the white supremacy movement.  Even among its leaders, there is a high rate of convictions and incarcerations.  Recent examples would be neo-Nazi Jacob Robida’s crime spree and the conviction of David Irving as a holocaust denier.  I invite you to explain why this relationship between being a white supremacist and being a criminal exists.”

First, a person who cannot understand the difference between supremacy and separatism may themselves be pathological, I don’t know.  Using David Irving as an example is ludicrous, as he was convicted of the “crime” of expressing an opinion.  The fact that expressing opinions is illegal in Europe is what is truly criminal, not anything Irving did. Jacob Robida was no more representative of white nationalists as Condoleeza Rice is representative of African intelligence.  You can cherry-pick examples of people with particular ideologies being violent, so what?

Dissident movements, of both the left and the right, have a tendency to attract marginal, disenchanted, alienated, and unsavory people.  That reflects more on societal values that of the legitimacy of the ideology in question.

On a deeper level, and the Irving case demonstrates this, if the establishment labels certain opinions as “illegal” or “beyond the pale”, of course there will be some sort of correlation between those opinion holders and crime. If Europe made racial liberalism and race-genetic denial a crime, then you could use Wise and Ignatiev as “examples” of the “correlation” between race-liberalism and “crime.”

Gordon: “5) Do you really believe that you can determine someone’s level of aggression by having a brief conversation with the person?”

I agree that this “social science” nonsense leaves me cold.  So, rather than saying that a brief conversation can tell levels of aggression, how about a look at their appearance and a determination of their ancestry?  That’ll do the trick.

Gordon: “I dropped by to observe the denizens of Majority Rights’ reaction to the Irving conviction.  I was in the mood to enjoy the bitching and moaning I knew I would find.  You all have fulfilled that desire.”

Even the Guardian ran an editorial column stating that free speech is essential for democracy and speech is free only if all speech, including offensive speech, is included.

I wouldn’t expect totalitarian-minded Marxist fascists to understand that.

32

Posted by Svigor on February 21, 2006, 07:02 PM | #

U.S. Department of Justice statistics reveal that a large majority of heinous crimes such as family murders, workplace homicides, multiple victim assaults and murders, serial killings, poisonings, elder abuse, etc., are perpetrated by white men.

See June pretend the question is one of percentages and not rates, as if blacks and whites exist in the U.S. population in equal numbers!

2) Mental health professionals say, contrary to your claim, that white Americans have a higher rate of psychopathology than minority Americans.  How do you explain this fact?

See June pretend we don’t demand citations here!  See June pretend she’s cited more than two people when she says “[m]ental health professionals say”!

3) If crime statistics are controlled for education and income, it becomes clear that African-Americans do not commit disproportional amounts of crime.  (Tim Wise has written an excellent essay on this topic you might want to consult.) How do you explain this fact?

See June pretend we don’t demand citations here (June cites a source for neither her assertion about African crime nor her claim that Wise has written an excellent essay)!  See her pretend Tim Wise, a professional liar, is himself a credible source (Wise tends not to cite anyone for his “statistics” and ignore statistics he doesn’t like)!

The June Gordon show doesn’t come around often folks, enjoy it while you can!  The attractions are second-to-none!

I invite you to explain

I invite June to show everyone here she isn’t a raving psychopath by condemning (in no uncertain terms and without equivocation) the indictment, conviction, and incarceration of David Irving for thought crime, as well as the entire process of making free speech a crime in Europe generally.

I dropped by to observe the denizens of Majority Rights’ reaction to the Irving conviction.  I was in the mood to enjoy the bitching and moaning I knew I would find.  You all have fulfilled that desire.

I’d previously typed out something impolite here, and changed my mind.  June does us a favor every time she posts, why should I castigate her for that?

The statistics can’t be “controlled” in this manner.  It would be like controlling for the number of legs and concluding that spiders do not spin more webs than humans.

Lol.  Yeah, one can “control for” lots of things to lie, if that’s one’s wish.  In any event, the controls June mentions don’t do what she says they do.  I’ve run the poverty numbers and it only eliminates half or so of the difference; I’m guessing uneducated correlates with poor to the extent that throwing it in as well would make little difference.

Maybe June can explain to us the rape-motivation inherent to poverty and ignorance.

In language June can understand:

What is it about being poor and uneducated that forces blacks to commit rape at a rate that is multiples of the white rate?

Sorry for feeding the Trolls, everyone.

33

Posted by Al Ross on February 21, 2006, 07:24 PM | #

West Virginia is a poor state , about 96% White and has the lowest per capita crime rate in the US. June Gordon’s comments are warmed-over Leftist cant and if she were a rational Leftist, oxymoronically speaking, and believed, as Commies profess to do, that there is no discernible difference between Black and White, she would make a sensible economic decision, sell her home(which is, no doubt safely located in a safe White enclave)and buy a less expensive dwelling in a Black or Mestizo dominated area. Good luck with the neighbours. Jewn.

34

Posted by JW Holliday on February 21, 2006, 08:15 PM | #

If I may paraphrase an argument that Svigor often uses:-

Why do people like “June Gordon”, Tim Wise, the GNXPers, all non-white “Americans”, white liberals, Jews, etc. so very much want to live in the same nation as us “dumber-than-Asians, more-criminal-than-blacks, less-noble-than-Jews, less-hardworking-than-Hispanics, criminal white gentile Americans?”

If all we want is to be separate, then why can’t we have an amicable separation.  Each side can have a good-sized, ecologically viable, pleasant and productive territory.  We can have - with full freedom of speech and no media monopolization - a honest public discussion of the merits of homogeneity vs. diversity for each population group, and then give members of each group a choice between a homogenous national state, or the multiracial, diverse rump America.

Forget about the details for the moment, let us keep the issue crystal clear.  Let us focus on the principle of the matter.

Why must these folks force us to live in the same nation as them?  Assuming that everyone has free choice, and everyone has the option of a ecologically sound, pleasant state, then what’s the problem?  Do they really love us so much, that they cannot live apart from us?  What’s the fascination with living amongst us stupid, violent white gentile, racist Americans?  You’d think that given how much blacks complain about white racism, that they’d be begging us to leave them be.  Yet, it’s the other way around, white flight tries to flee from “people of color”, and the “people of color” keep on following the whites.  No matter how much whites want to be separate (in practice, if not overtly), they are forced to be integrated.

Isn’t it pathological to want to live amongst people who you believe hate you and wish to do you harm?  A large fraction of blacks think that whites intentionally infect their community with diseases, flood their community with drugs, discriminate against them, flooded the levees in New Orleans, etc.  If that is the case, and whites are so viciously racist, then, why don’t blacks and others demand to be as far away from us as possible?

After all, if blacks really are as capable as whites, and if the only thing holding them back is white racism and the legacy of that racism in history, then, by golly, all they need to do is be separate from whites and they’ll build their all-black community into a “shining city on a hill.”

Why don’t racial liberals wish to help blacks be free of the racist white parasites tormenting these intelligent, peaceful, and noble men and women of color?

The rallying cry of the racial liberal should be: “freedom and self-determination for people of color!  Get as far away from the racist white devil as possible.”

Or do they believe that without a white majority, any rump America would become Detroit or New Orleans?

And they believe that, given all the facts, and given free choice, the “white devils” will run away from the people they are allegedly tormenting as quickly as possible?

35

Posted by Guessedworker on February 21, 2006, 08:17 PM | #

June, could you clear up one thing for me.  Are you, in fact, THE Prof June Gordon whom I think Fred discovered a while back, or are you another June Gordon?  I’d certainly like to know a little more about the lady we are addressing.

36

Posted by Al Ross on February 21, 2006, 09:25 PM | #

June Gordon could be some obscure Associate Professor of a step-child subject like Education at a fourth-rate, minority-dominated Univ. of California college.

37

Posted by Svigor on February 21, 2006, 11:35 PM | #

After all, if blacks really are as capable as whites, and if the only thing holding them back is white racism and the legacy of that racism in history, then, by golly, all they need to do is be separate from whites and they’ll build their all-black community into a “shining city on a hill.”

Amen to that.  The only ones standing in the way are the “anti-racists” and the integrationists.

38

Posted by Svigor on February 21, 2006, 11:38 PM | #

No, amen isn’t enough - I’d be willing to add a sizeable parting gift of cash for all blacks (call it reparations or whatever you will) as well, if that’s what it takes.

39

Posted by Amalek on February 22, 2006, 09:15 AM | #

...all they need to do is be separate from whites and they’ll build their all-black community into a “shining city on a hill.”

As they did in Haiti, Liberia and Ethiopia;-)

40

Posted by Geoff Beck on February 22, 2006, 11:12 AM | #

Homicide trends in the U.S.
Trends by race

(US Gov. Data )

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm


Read it, before it goes down the memory hole.

41

Posted by AD on February 22, 2006, 11:53 AM | #

Do they really love us so much, that they cannot live apart from us?  What’s the fascination with living amongst us stupid, violent white gentile, racist Americans?  You’d think that given how much blacks complain about white racism, that they’d be begging us to leave them be.  Yet, it’s the other way around, white flight tries to flee from “people of color”, and the “people of color” keep on following the whites. -JW Holliday

Gold. That basically sums up everything.

The definitive book of White Nationalism should have just one page, with three words written on it: Leave us alone!

42

Posted by Guessedworker on February 22, 2006, 04:23 PM | #

Geoff,

Thank you for the link.  But what is the definition of “whites” which the BJS employs?  Do they mean what I think they mean?

43

Posted by Geoff Beck on February 22, 2006, 07:24 PM | #

GW…

This DOJ information is quite solid and reliable… its been that way for years. If anything we can assume the numbers are understated since we are dealing with a hostile government

The definition of whites correlates roughly to what common sense would dictate it to be… Americans of European descent.

BTW… Blacks are 14 times more likely to be infected with AIDS.

That information is a the CDC, Centers for Disease Control

44

Posted by Lurker on February 22, 2006, 11:25 PM | #

Kind of crime related:

In Britain today £25 million (@ $43.5 million) in used cash was stolen. By a gang of 16 men in a ruthless military style raid. No descrptions have been given that I know of but I suspect it will turn out the gang is white not black. We shall see.

45

Posted by Lurker on February 23, 2006, 12:17 AM | #

Six men not sixteen - sorry.

Seems it could be as much as £40 million ($69.6 million) in cash now.

46

Posted by ben tillman on February 23, 2006, 01:34 AM | #

http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=5309&bid=743

“Gordon” seems surprising as a Jewish name. It is usually and properly assumed to be Scottish, Norman English, or Irish as a place name meaning “spacious fort.” It also has a French connection as a nickname for a fat man. However, according to Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges, in consultation with David L. Gold, the name is also “Jewish, (E[astern] Ashkenazic): probably a habituation name from the Belarus. city of Grodno (Lithuanian Gardinas), whence the E[astern] Ashkenazic surnames Gardin(ski). It goes back at least to 1657. It was widespread among Jews in Poland by the end of the 17th cent., when two naturalized Polish noblemen, Henry and George Gordon, obtained legislation to prevent its continued adoption by Jews. . . . Others claim descent from earlier Scottish converts, but the Jewish surname existed long before any non-Jew named Gordon converted to Judaism.”

47

Posted by Ethnocentrist on February 23, 2006, 09:36 AM | #

Blacks are 14 times more likely to be infected with AIDS.

I looked into this recently, crunched some numbers and found that:

1 in 392 Whites you run across in the US is HIV positive
1 in 37   Blacks

1 in 276 White MALES in the US are HIV positive
1 in 27   Black MALES

In New York City, Blacks between the ages of 40-49:

1 in 5!

here

and

here

48

Posted by Amalek on February 23, 2006, 01:14 PM | #

I knew two brothers, David and Charles Gordon (on bad terms with each other), who were Jews. Charles, a financier, married the ballerina Nadia Nerina and wrote some of the most unctuous memoirs I have read. David became secy of the Royal Academy at the invitation of, wait for it, Norman Rosenthal.

49

Posted by PCA on February 24, 2006, 08:25 PM | #

Guessedworker, I think June just outed herself on Amren. She has posted her email address as:

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Her recent rambling plea that whites simply could not be overrepresented in black hate crimes is here:

‘These figures are simply wrong. There is no way Whites are more frequently victimized under hate crime laws than are Blacks. More Nazi lies.

Posted by June Gordon at 8:00 PM on February 22 ‘

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/02/hate_crime_vict.php

50

Posted by Ben Tillman on February 24, 2006, 10:56 PM | #

The problem with June Gordon is she’s not as skillful at spouting the swill as experts like Noël Ignatiev, Tim Wise, or this appalling Gorski character….

She is unable to listen, which means she is unable to tailor her message to her audience.  A rather serious shortcoming, I would say.

51

Posted by Voice on February 25, 2006, 01:57 AM | #

“The blatant anti-white, anti-boy (therefore, anti-white-boy) prejudices some of them harbor unsuit those particular ones to teach even at the elementary-school level, of course”

LMAO

Classic

52

Posted by Voice on February 25, 2006, 02:00 AM | #

on another note…

the leftists better get control of the internet…and quick…affirmative action ain’t working too well

BWAHAHAHA

53

Posted by Guessedworker on February 25, 2006, 09:58 AM | #

Well, Fred, one should bear in mind that anybody can steal the identity of anybody else, including the relevant e-mail address.  I could post race-realist stuff all over the internet as Richard Dawkins, and put his e-mail address on every effort.

Perhaps the only “evidence” suggesting that our June is indeed Prof Gordon is that the latter is quite unknown and not even a high profile Marxist or minority academic.  There would seem to be little reason to steal her particular identity.

But until she is graceful enough to confirm or deny the veracity of your information we should maintain a scintilla or two of scepticism.

54

Posted by Joe Doe on April 15, 2007, 02:43 PM | #

Does anyone know who wrote that article?

55

Posted by Faith Dwyer on March 01, 2008, 09:04 PM | #

I see many worthy comments made here and just wish to enter one more.  I feel we (as an American society) have gone over-the-edge in attempting to psycho-analyze every aspect of our culture.  It’s great to want to be caring and understanding people but the bottom line is that common sense has been sacrificed in favor of coddling the hundreds of cultures that exist in our country; it IS, after all, what makes this country unique from all others.  What’s bad is that we call them “minorities” and grant them special privileges rather than encouraging their assimilation into our overall society.  This has a well-intended purpose with a detrimental outcome as we see evidenced every day.  Just look at the welfare roles that get perpetuated from generation to generation because we just can’t learn to say “NO, dammit—-our forefathers came here with far less than you have and they MADE their way without handouts, without welfare, without language lessons and without committing crimes——-and so should you!”  If you don’t like how THIS country does stuff, go back to where you came from.  It’s not rocket science.  I don’t care if you’re black, yellow, red, white or any other shade in between—-it is ALL of us who make up this country.  It’s A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E that makes you a success or failure.

If you commit the crime, you do the time—-it should have no basis in color, race, or whether your mommy gave you enough cookies as a child.  I’m sick to death of all the whining and complaining—-most of which is coming from the recipients of unmerited grace from the REAL Americans in this country.  Get over it!  Grow up or go home—-whatever color you are and whatever language you speak.  Please don’t call yourself an American if you rely on everyone else to support your sorry ass.

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

Remember my personal information

Next entry: Hate sentence in Austria

Previous entry: Rhodesia

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

DanielS commented in entry '100th Anniversary of World War I' on 07/28/14, 12:03 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Israel’s Modus Operandi: Blackmail, Bribery, and Bullying' on 07/28/14, 10:01 AM. (go) (view)

cygnet commented in entry 'Israel’s Modus Operandi: Blackmail, Bribery, and Bullying' on 07/27/14, 08:44 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 3' on 07/27/14, 03:45 AM. (go) (view)

John commented in entry 'Israel’s Modus Operandi: Blackmail, Bribery, and Bullying' on 07/26/14, 08:16 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/26/14, 06:50 PM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/26/14, 06:07 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/26/14, 05:16 PM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/26/14, 04:20 PM. (go) (view)

Maria commented in entry 'Utopian idealists against the nation and the people' on 07/26/14, 05:03 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/26/14, 04:19 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/26/14, 04:07 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/26/14, 12:58 AM. (go) (view)

Dude commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 04:11 PM. (go) (view)

Dude commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 04:05 PM. (go) (view)

Dude commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 04:03 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 03:21 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 06:14 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 03:44 AM. (go) (view)

Leon commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 03:15 AM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 01:43 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 01:25 AM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 12:59 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 12:58 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/24/14, 11:58 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/24/14, 09:11 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/24/14, 05:13 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Definitions' on 07/24/14, 02:15 AM. (go) (view)

Gordon McRobert commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/23/14, 07:17 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/23/14, 04:00 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 11:22 PM. (go) (view)

Mr Nill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 09:34 PM. (go) (view)

Lawrence Newman commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 02:36 PM. (go) (view)

Gordon McRobert commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 12:54 PM. (go) (view)

Lawrence Newman commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 10:29 AM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

affection-tone