Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 03:54 | #

OH,WOW! What a revelation-HIV is decreasing among the IV drug users-clean needles help,and are free in any large city clinic.But the ‘both-way “Brothers” pass it on to their women,and OURS.Just one more reason for the seperation of the races-preferably by the Atlantic ocean.Fact—HIV/AIDS in Black males is primarily by Homosexual activity. Fact—HIV/AIDS in Black women is due primarily to Hetrosexual activity with their “on the down low"partners .Check the CDC studies,if you don’t believe me.Some where along the line,we have to again teach our White females that miscegnation will kill them morally,pyschologicaly,AND FOR REAL!!

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 04:58 | #

So many Black males are in prison (but, I fear, not nearly enough) that homosexual behaviour, rather than innate homosexuality per se, is rampant and the Congoids seem to indulge this aquired taste upon release. Unfortunately today’s young women, especially university students, have been so thoroughly brainwashed by ludicrious propaganda about so-called racial equality that many of these unfortunates actually confess to feeling guilty about refusing to date a Black, instead of responding to the invitation with disbelief and horror.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 05:46 | #

Al Ross -My daughter was taught many years ago that “FU*K OFF NI**ER!” would suffice.It did,and now I have two beautiful,WHITE grand-daughters.Liberals are killing our race-perhaps their own testosterone levels [non-existant] cause them to preach self-destruction?

Posted by Karlmagnus on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:18 | #

You guys are cuckoo.  It’s perfectly obvious that HIV-AIDS is more dangerous to black populations, like sickle cell anemia.  That’s why the infection rate in Africa is so high. If you think sexual behavior among those of African stock is more than marginally different from that in most other poulations, you’re living in an unpleasant fantasy land. I trust that GW will police this blog adequately and prevent anti-African “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” fantasies of this type.

The greater prevalence of HIV-AIDS is of course further evidence for substantial genetic differences between the races. However, genetic vulnerability to disease is NOT evidence of sexual “bad behavior” beyond that we all more or less indulge in.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:18 | #

Martin,

The HIV explosion among the white patronisers of SF bathhouses in the 1970’s and early ‘80’s, whom one must presume shared the genetic vulnerability to HIV/AIDS with the rest of their racial group, surely argues that behaviour is the key.  African children begin imitating adults sexually very early in life - as young as seven.  Europeans researching African sexual mores are often astounded at the easy-going frequency that attends sexual relations.

This is old hat.  Sam Francis, reviewing Rushton in December 1994, wrote:-

Blacks reach sexual maturity sooner than whites, who reach it sooner than Asians. By age twelve, 19 percent of American black girls have fully developed breasts and pubic hair whereas only five percent of white girls do. Blacks, on average, have an earlier first menstruation than whites, and Asians menstruate later than whites. In the United States, the average white woman is two full years older than the average black woman when she first has sexual intercourse, and Asians start having intercourse even later than whites.

Professor Rushton has bravely taken on the delicate subject of genital size, which has received reluctant but official attention because of AIDS. International organizations that try to provide condoms to people all over the world have discovered that one size does not fit all. Blacks have larger penises than whites, who have larger penises than Asians. The length of the vagina also differs proportionately in each race. Black men produce more sperm than do whites, and Asian men produce the least.

In the United States, black married couples report the greatest frequency of sexual intercourse, and Asian married couples report the lowest frequency. AIDS, like other sexually transmitted disease, is most common among blacks, rarest among Asians.

In Africa, compared to Europe or Asia, it is common to have sexual relations with many partners and to expend less effort on child-rearing. Older brothers and sisters often look after smaller children. There are also huge racial and regional differences in the number of offspring produced. In the United States, the average woman produces 14 children, grand children and great-grand children; in Africa the figure is 258. This prodigious African reproductive effort takes place over a shorter life-span. Blacks do not live as long as whites who, in turn, do not live as long as Asians.

Posted by Karlmagnus on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:00 | #

White gays who get HIV/AIDS today have quite a high survival rate, not true of blacks.  Gay bathhouse behavior clearly spread AIDS rapidly among the initial population, but today almost the only way in which the disease is spread heterosexually is in the black population.  Non-African sexual behavior is certainly “bad” enough to spread the epidemic to the entire population if non-Africans had the same predisposition to the disease as Africans.  You get 30% or 40% infection rates in well run African countries like Botswana; this is NOT inferior African morals.

African sexual mores are the kind of subject like the world Jewish conspiracy that brings out the worst/most offputting in MR writers; I suggest you keep it under control.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:26 | #

There are no “high” moral criticisms to be made here.  African sexual behaviour is an ecological fact, that’s all.

Morality, anyway, has been demonstrated as substantially genetic in origin.  JJR has posted about it here.  In part, sexual morality is a product of natural selection, and is localised accordingly.  So, we Europeans cannot criticise Africans on our moral grounds.  But we do need to recognise that African sexual (and parental) mores are non-adaptive, ie bad, for us.

Human bio-diversity exists and should be respected.  When it isn’t there are real-world consequences.

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:42 | #

Karl Magnus, who seems to have adopted the same priggish posture of unsupported assertion as Martin Hutchinson, is wrong when he states “this is Not inferior morals”.  Leaving aside the contemptible savage who rules Swaziland and lectures his subjects on celibacy (a concept as alien to an African as Mensa membership) whilst choosing a new harem of ‘wives’ annually, the naturally promiscuous behaviour of Africans in Botswana and elsewhere has been well documented.
As for American Blacks, their moral inferiority is such that 68.7% of their babies are bastards :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf

and 56% of Black women have genital herpes :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf

When it comes to puerile attempts to shoot the messenger, I suggest you, KM, ‘keep it under control.

Posted by JW Holliday on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:32 | #

KM: “White gays who get HIV/AIDS today have quite a high survival rate, not true of blacks”

JW: Isn’t this “high survival” mostly due to access to expensive
medications, and other advanced medical care,  not currently accessible to Africans?

KM: “Gay bathhouse behavior clearly spread AIDS rapidly among the initial population, but today almost the only way in which the disease is spread heterosexually is in the black population.”

JW: I have read of white women who have contracted the disease from heterosexual (presumably same-race) contact; one middle aged woman seems to be the “poster child” for this mode of infection.

KM: “Non-African sexual behavior is certainly “bad” enough to spread the epidemic to the entire population if non-Africans had the same predisposition to the disease as Africans.”

JW: Look,some few whites have a mutation that seems to protect from infection (note: these are a minority of the population in every white nation, with highest percentages in NW Europe).  However, as far as I know, that is all that is known about different predisposition.  I know of no other data that distinguishes non-Africans (including most whites) from Africans with respect to a genetic predisposition to the diseases.  Such may exist; if you know of concrete evidence for this, please share it with us.  By the way, East Asians do not have the protective mutation at all, and although AIDS is spreading in China, East Asian infection rates are nothing compared to that from Africa.  So, a relatively infrequent mutation does *not* explain racial differences, and such evidence would not logically suggest that morals are not also involved in any case.

KM: “You get 30% or 40% infection rates in well run African countries like Botswana; this is NOT inferior African morals.”

JW: “Well run” by African standards; the relative lack of corruption in their government does not logically connect to the levels of sexual activity of the population.  The “NOT” in this sentence is just an unsupported assertion.  Evidence, please?

KM: “African sexual mores are the kind of subject like the world Jewish conspiracy that brings out the worst/most offputting in MR writers; I suggest you keep it under control. “

JW: I see. Censor the blog so as not to “insult” minority groups. 
“Majority Rights”, indeed!

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:52 | #

These guys suggest one of the big causes of AIDS in Africa, is contaminated punctures:

A determined renegade group of three scientists has fought for years – with little success – to get out the message that no more than a third of HIV transmission in Africa is from sexual intercourse and most of that is anal.
[...]
These renegades point out that a reason we know vaginal sex can’t be the risk in Africa it’s portrayed to be is that it hasn’t been much of one risk in the U.S. Here 12 percent of AIDS cases are “attributed to” heterosexual transmission, meaning they claimed to have gotten it that way. Of these, over a third are males.

Yet San Francisco epidemiologist Nancy Padian evaluated 72 male partners of HIV-infected women over several years, during which time only one man was infected. Even in that case, there were “several instances of vaginal and penile bleeding during intercourse.” So even the small U.S. heterosexual figure appears grossly exaggerated.

The chief reason it’s so hard to spread HIV vaginally is that, as biopsies of vaginal and cervical tissue show, the virus is unable to penetrate or infect healthy vaginal or cervical tissue. Various sexually transmitted diseases allow vaginal HIV infection, but even those appear to increase the risk only by about 2-4 times.

So if vaginal intercourse can’t explain the awful African epidemic, what can? Surely it’s not homosexuality, since we’ve been told there is none in Africa. In fact, the practice has long been widespread.
[...]
Yet almost certainly greater – and more controllable – contributors to the African epidemic are “contaminated punctures from such sources as medical injections, dental injections, surgical procedures, drawing as well as injecting blood, and rehydration through IV tubes,” says Brody.

You don’t even need to go to a clinic to be injected with HIV: Almost two-thirds of 360 homes visited in sub-Saharan Africa had medical injection equipment that was apparently shared by family members. This, says Brody, can explain why both a husband and wife will be infected.

Posted by Amalek on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:21 | #

Steve Sailer (http://www.isteve.com) has some telling examples, other than the sexual, of how African Americans manifest greater impulsivity and the desire for immediate gratification.

For instance, controlled for income, they spend far more of it than whites on clothes, shoes and jewellery (BIG surprise!). Michael Levin in ‘Why Race Matters’ cited similar market research, e.g. that the average black at any given SES level spends more on movie tickets, takeaway food and home entertainment gear, but less on computers, than the average white.

The failure of blacks to build businesses and pay their own way is not so much down to discrimination against them by lenders (rational anyhow considering their fecklessness) as due to the unwillingness of blacks to save if it means postponing pleasure. Then there’s the weak, chaotic family structures, another result of short horizons in behaviour, which inhibit the transmission of capital. These traits are phenotypical. Levin outlines a theory of time preference and racial differences in attitudes to it.

Of course orientals are more diligent, thrifty and family-minded than whites or blacks, which is why the Koreans, not the bruthas, get their stores burned in riots.

Posted by Marc on Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:01 | #

Fred,

The whole “down low” phenomenon is totally overblown.  Oprah Winfrey and other black pundits can say whatever they like, there is no scientific evidence suggesting that black men are more predisposed to bisexuality - which is really very rare - than are white or Asian men. 

Blacks spook easily.  I think that’s what drives a great deal of the whole “down low” discussion: fear of an inordinate number of closet bisexuals, not their actual presence.

Posted by Karlmagnus on Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:54 | #

I don’t claim parity, and wouldn’t expect it.  However the huge differences in susceptibility to AIDS between different populations are far more than could be explained by limited differences in sexual behavior. As I said above, there’s quite enough enthusiastic nookie in the white population to spread AIDS like wildfire if it was anything like as virulent as it is among those of African stock.

Differing susceptibilities to AIDS, like differing susceptibiities to malaria and sickle cell anemia and different average IQs are a natural result of the genetic separation between populations. It is most unfair to anathematise African sexual practices in order to explain a perfectly natural genetic phenomenon.

Posted by Marc on Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:44 | #

Marc, the point is these black men don’t consider themselves bisexual.

Fred, regardless of whether they consider themselves gay, straight, or whatever, is there any scientific evidence to support the assertion that black men are more bisexual in their behavior than white and Asian men?