Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:47 | #

James,

As an alternative or, possibly, supplementary theoretical motivation to the racio-sexual one, how about Evolved Socialisation Dissonance?

East Asian socialisation is evolved along highly cooperative and conformist lines.  It’s easy to see that assertive, individualistic blacks will navigate the highly liberalised and deracinated social topography of America generally, and the American university campus in particular, with relative alacrity.  But it could be a stressful environment for unassertive and emotionally constrained EAs who naturally look to a setting of supportive conformity for the prompts and affirmations that they need.

Posted by Yawn ... on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:28 | #

Guessedworker:

How about, instead of that theory, it’s just that Asian men are completely obsessed with white women, but because MTV only props up negros as cool, white women never take an interest in Asians (despite their success).  Which leads to sexual frustration and hence hormonal rage syndrom (sounds like something real) which can lead to a tipping-point of all-out total war on student populations with firearms. :p

Man, that almost sounds scientific.

Posted by JB on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:43 | #

why limit yourself to college shootings ? lots of high schools are pretty ‘diverse’

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:06 | #

GW: I suspect conformity is ecologically in the paleolithic and then socially imposed in the neolithic, as is monogamy—and herein may lie the link between the raciosexual hypothesis and the evolved socialization hypothesis.  I suspect that where European and east Asian cultures most obviously parted ways in this respect was in how they made the transition from ecologically imposed conformity to socially imposed conformity, with Europeans making the choice to favor the individual in that transition.  Again, I might point to the Jomon/Ainu/Samurai culture here as an exception that proves the rule, but I understand you object to my bringing up their single combat tradition as being related to our own—or rather that the single combat traditions of different cultures might differ in the degree to which they are imposed by cultural design vs atavistic male behavior.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:33 | #

JB: While the integrationist aspect of the government mandated human experiment has been going on in secondary schools for some time, the immigrationist aspect of that experiment has lagged quite a bit primarily due to the relatively close ties between the student bodies and their parents.  You’re just not as likely to see as clear a signal.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:20 | #

James,

I’ll buy some of that, no problem.  But I don’t think Europeans and East Asians started from the same point.  I don’t know how well I can explain this, but I’ll have a try.

Just concentrating on the European EEA for a moment, would not selection for our middling-individualism have occurred in the Paleolithic and been adjusted towards a more cooperatist selection with the arrival of communally-based agriculture in the Neolithic?

The selection of cooperatism among EAs would appear to me to have been advanced by the end of the Paleolithic/early Neolithic, as you say, and not linked to the arrival of agriculture.  Therefore it is conceivable that the extreme EA socialisation towards agriculture-related cooperatism (witnessed today in, say, beatings of errantly individualist children at school) is a tweaking of an earlier cooperatism, taking it towards the extreme we see now.

What I don’t know is why EAs found cooperatism gainful to fitness in the Paleolithic.  However, it must have been k related.

At this point I will pose a question: What happens to an EA child today that is not “socialised” in extreme cooperatism?  Answer (more or less): it is forced back upon the naked fact of its, in European or SSA terms, uncompetitive Paleolithic endowment.

Ergo in theory, at least, the two hypotheses do indeed mesh.

As a final wry observation, it is surmiseable that since the end of the Stone Age but especially in the last 500 years, Europeans have been progressively developing technologies that render cooperatism less selectable.  We, too, are reverting to our pre-Neolithic adaptive preferences, of which liberalism - the pursuit of individual freedom - might be seen to be such.

EAs don’t have a chance.  But then neither, possibly, do European racial nationalists.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:20 | #

The difference, as I see it, is childhood conformity vs adulthood conformity.  Harsh climates select for childhood conformity.  If a child can’t conform to the culture of his parents, he can kill not only himself but his entire tribe (playing with fire in the longhouse during winter, etc.).  Childhood conformity is therefore vital.  Adulthood conformity, on the other hand, is not nearly as crucial since an adult in a low population density paleolithic environment will frequently become relatively self-sufficient.

The problem of conformity becomes critical for adults when agriculture arises and civilizations start to grow atop agriculture.  There is no particular reason great population centers _must_ exist simply because they _can_ exist.  But this is rather like saying there is no particular reason a person _must_ become a junkie just because he is high on heroin.  This is where I think cultural difference started driving neolithic genetic evolution in different directions between Europeans and east Asians—not to say that they didn’t start out in different places due to differences in multiregional evolution going back many tens of thousands of years.

Posted by iix on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:25 | #

Cho seung hui         33 dead   Virginia Tech         2007
Gang Lu         5 dead       University of Iowa     1991
Robert Flores         4 dead       University of arizona       2002
Peter Odighizuwa     3 dead     Appalachian School of Law   2002
Frederick Martin Davidson   3 dead       San Diego State University   1997
Wayne Lo         2 dead       Simon’s Rock College of Bard   1992
biswanath halder       1 dead       university of clevland       2003
Jillian Robbins       1 dead       penn stat         1996
James E Kelly         1 dead       University of Arkansas       2000

The breakdown:
3/9 Asians
4/9 immigrants
5/9 non immigrants
9/9 psychos.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:34 | #

If you want to make up your own list defining “major US school massacres” you are free to do so but then so am I.  Your spin doctoring doesn’t really change the conclusion much anyway.

Moreover, I didn’t make up my own list—I went to a widely-accepted third party:  Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Well_known_shootings

This was linked in the original post.

If you want to try another metric, try perps by number of deaths where more than one person was killed (minimum definition of “massacre” by any reasonable stretch.  The results are closer to the results I found but as I said, even your results are supportive of the general thesis.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:07 | #

James,

Is it possible to model EA cooperatism without heavy reliance on the agrarian revolution?  How about this:-

Taking things back to the EA Paleolithic, conformism to adaptive behaviours was surely first expressed in taboo and stigma, and became increasingly socialised as the generations arose and fell.  This was a simple function of cold-climate k selected intelligence.

Now, the unusual characteristic of this as a survival strategy is that herding everyone together on a single strategy cheated the strongest in the conventional sense from ownership of the morrow.  The usual gold standard of reproductive fitness was not directly served thereby.  The more successful it was for the group, the less individual human fitness was important and the more conformism was prized.  At an individual level one would expect East Asians to have been evolutionarily weak.  It became a vicious circle.  Finally, the means became the end, and we have the beating out of childish self-will by school-teachers, with the full approval of the parents.

One more point:-

Perhaps by the time of the EA agrarian revolution the third party enforcement of conformity was actually an expression of authoritarianism for its own sake, since respect for authority had assumed the gold standard otherwise applied to classical reproductive fitness.

On this model, the dissonance experienced by EAs outside of the group is literally the dissonance between group reproductive fitness and classical reproductive fitness as it applies in the other EEAs.

Posted by Yuezhus on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:28 | #

I don’t know if this information is helpful, but the worst killing spree in known history was committed by a severely stressed out South Korean police officer. While a raciosexual motive is very possible, there may be another more universal factor, such as an increased ability of EAs to break down the mental barriers that otherwise discourage slaughter, and sometimes cruelty. This isn’t to say that all EAs lack empathy; far from it. What I mean is it may be easier to, shall we say, circumvent such feelings when the ‘need arises’. The Mongolian Empire may be a result of this, in conjunction with the slight advantage NE Asians have in archery over Europeans, as might the performance of the 442nd, the rape of Nanking, amongst other Imperial Japanese war crimes (of course this may be because of the short amount of time Japan had been subjected to international treaties and war conventions) and the killers mentioned above.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:35 | #

Yuezhus,

You are probably correct in surmising that a powerful prompting towards group-welfare can, under certain psychological circumstances, the more easily transmogrify into group-destructiveness.  The focus on the group is likely to work to that end - and, of course, likely to undergo projection onto to laowei/gaijin groups in times of stressful contact.

But the sceptic will quickly remind us that barbarity to other groups is hardly the preserve of EAs, and he too would be right.

Posted by Mark on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:56 | #

Cho had a history of mental illness.  His grandmother spoke to the press and stated that even as a child he was strange and would not even speak to her.  The parents are partially to blame for not getting Cho the professional help he needed.

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:59 | #

As is customary at times like this, America’s freedom-haters re-commence their attack on the citizen’s right to bear arms.
Citizen is the operative word here, because Cho was a non-citizen and the others mentioned in James’s excellent post were probably aliens also.

The US should never have allowed non-citizens to own firearms and a change in the law is now both urgent and important.

Separately, Cho, it seems, was mocked at High School for his fractured English, then goes on to major in that very subject at tertiary level.  In the Marxoid madhouse of America’s universities it was probably felt that to refuse Cho’s subject choice would have been interpreted as an act of ‘racism’. leaving the hapless zombies of academe open to frivolous but expensive litigation.

For a witty, albeit fictional, look at the perversity of the PC-dominated American campus, I recommend Dr Tom Wolfe’s masterly, ‘I Am Charlotte Simmons’.

Posted by alex zeka on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:33 | #

Gun rights are indeed likely to be one of the prime culprits for this as far as the MSM is concerned. What should give them pause for thought is the following anecdote, courtesy of Alexander Cockburn:

Five years ago Peter Odighizuwa a 43 years old Nigerian student killed three faculty members at Appalachian Law School Dean with a semi-automatic handgun, but before he could wreak further carnage two students fetched weapons from their cars, challenged the murderer with guns levelled ,and disarmed him.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04212007.html

Quite inevitably, disarming the citizenry will have more of an effect on ownership of fire-arms by non-criminals vs. criminals. After all, criminals by definition break the law, and somebody willing to commit a massacre isn’t likely to be dissuaded from this by the thought that owning a gun is illegal. As such, we might say that gun grabs will mostly prevent such fine citizens as the students mentioned above from protecting their co-citizens from belligerents.

What’s interesting here is that will licensed fire-arms are now under threat as a result of this, no action is being taken to identify potential psychos before they flip. The gov’t is more afraid of vigilantes than of criminals! - which says alot about their priorities

Posted by Rnl on Thu, 03 May 2007 05:30 | #

Buchanan on “The Dark Side of Diversity”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55463

Posted by Gilly on Fri, 04 May 2007 18:50 | #

I think it is sick and twisted to correlate massacres with minorities, immigrants, skin color, etc.  You can twist any information you want to fit an argument.  I’ve never seen this sight before.  Is this where all the KKK members are hiding?  People like you are the ones who create these violent people.  Examine yourself before examining others.  Feel free to take the blame for Virginia Tech.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 04 May 2007 20:39 | #

“People like you are the ones who create these violent people.”  (—Gilly)

Oh?  Who creates them in the New & Greatly Improved South Africa?  “People like us” aren’t there any more, remember?  (Thanks to people like you they’ve been killed, evicted, expropriated, hounded out, starved, beaten, maimed, robbed, raped, car-jacked, and terrorized).  Are “people like us” still creating “these violent people” down there?  By remote control maybe, Gilly?

Enoch Powell understood Gilly’s type.  He described to a T (below, highlit in red): 

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.

In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: At each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “if only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.” Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it, deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

So no Gilly, the ones who create the problem are you and your friends, not us.  In fact, we’re trying to solve it, wondering how we’re ever going to pick up the pieces after the epoch-making mess you and your pals have made of things.  But with any luck you and your sad ilk will stay strictly out of our way from now on and let us sort things out. 

Ever hear of status quo ante, Gilly?  No?  Well ... you’d better get used to that term because it’s exactly what we intend to restore. 

Bye and have a nice day, Gilly ...  Oh and, uhhh ... any hope of getting that IQ boosted a bit? ... (Just thought I’d ask ... I’m sure lots here were wondering besides myself ...)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 04 May 2007 21:16 | #

Today Randall Burns blogs on the same general topic as the log entry:

8 of these 15 [college-campus] killers were immigrants. [...]  About 6 of these shooters were Asian men [...].  This raises the question of what was going on here? The question most likely lies in economics.  [Read more.]

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 May 2007 23:57 | #

“WE DIDN’T PROMISE PEACE, LOVE, AND HARMONY GILLY…YOU DID.”

That is an excellent point.  But if we didn’t promise anything to Gilly and her preferred interlopers, what, if anything, did we promise to ourselves?

Posted by JB on Sat, 05 May 2007 03:22 | #

re: Enoch Powell

was his famous Rivers of Blood speech ever recorded ?

Posted by Yuezhus on Sat, 05 May 2007 17:02 | #

Guessedworker,

Indeed, a higher bias towards conformity among NE Asians would certainly allow group efforts better execution, be it barbaric or otherwise, but I don’t think that explains Woo Bum-kon’s ferocious yet machine-like dispatching of innocent people, which ended up with him grabbing three people, strapping grenades to himself and blowing himself up. This is hardly group positive behavior. I don’t think it explains the Japanese school child who, quite contrary to the well-recorded docility of his ilk, sliced off another kid’s head and brought the dismembered head and the blade he used into school premises and attempted to maim his peers. He was prepubescent, by the way.

I’m not entirely sure the tactics of the Mongolians during the Middle Ages, being intelligent yet ruthless, were all due to a conformist upbringing. If anything, such an upbringing would be detrimental to a steppe warrior; seeing as each Mongol had to perfect his skills in horse rearing and farming, riding, archery, horseback archery and fletching, I would say independence was stressed. Despite respecting horses and forming a close bond with their mounts (each horsemen usually kept more than one), they would slaughter them on the spot if they had no other food supplies. Similar behaviour is observed in NE Asia today; horrible cruelty abounds among some of the uneducated, rural farmers towards their animals, and hardly any empathy at all can be felt from them, but in wealthy Taiwan, there were huge protestations against Shangwen Fang’s cat abuse, which involved 72 hour angry demonstrations outside his flat and threats of violence against him.

Barbarity in one form or another has been perpetrated by every single group of people on the planet, that can’t be denied, but NE Asians are, on average, less impulsive and more placid than whites, and yet it these uncommon yet curious lapses of empathy seem to take place more often in NE Asians than whites, despite lower crime levels. This may explain why 3 out of 4 of the above college shooters are NE Asian, even though many other ethnicities are present in college campuses that are also not too far up on the raciosexual ladder and perhaps even commit more crime.

Posted by The Hypocrite on Sat, 05 May 2007 20:08 | #

Colleges, high schools, post offices, etc are all places where spree killing usually happen. Why restrict the analysis just to colleges? It seems a little biased of you.

Spree killings happen because the future killer feels isolated from and oppressed by others (society in general). The “loser” kid in high school who doesn’t hang out with the populars (Columbine), the post office worker who doesn’t get a promotion (any post-office killing) or the immigrant kid who didn’t get any friends at college (Cho). What is common in all these events is the building up of anger and hate against society by being an “underdog”. It doesn’t seem a racial fact as in “East Asians are more socipoathic inclined to commit spree killings when in multicultural environments”. Besides, universities aren’t the only places where immigrants from different races interact, your analysis should include workplaces, high school, churches and other public spaces as well.

Posted by Yuezhus on Sat, 05 May 2007 20:27 | #

Svi, the Mongols actually did settle among some of the places they conquered, for example the Yuan Dynasty was founded by Kublai Khan, and the Mughal Dynasty was founded by a Turkic nobleman who claimed direct descent from Genghis. I’m not sure if those examples count as pioneer homesteads (I assume they do, because Mongols didn’t live there before), but Mongoloid admixture among Central Asians are primarily a result of the Mongol invasions. Similarly, many port towns and fortresses were built in Malaysia and Indonesia by Chinese traders during the Song, Yuan and early Ming Dynasties.

While I did mention a finite list of specific abilities of the average medieval Mongol, surely you agree it reflects a high degree of versatility? I don’t think that is a result of a conformist upbringing, at least not compared to the average Chinese, or even European, of the period. Many high ranking Mongols were able to adapt to a sedentary, Sinicized lifestyle in the court of Kublai, and learned how to manage the Yuan empire pretty well in such a short timespan.

What would you say qualifies as skill set non-specificity?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 May 2007 22:40 | #

Kenneth Eng, the black-hating former AsianWeek journalist, has been busy aince Cho hit the news:-

Sharing in the Gory

Back in February, Kenneth Eng made news for writing a column titled “Why I Hate Blacks” in the Bay Area–based newspaper AsianWeek. Not a stunt—Eng apparently really did hate black people (and whites, and even other Asians, according to other of his writings). Embarrassed by the publicity, AsianWeek fired Eng and published a front-page apology.

But Eng is far more bent on destruction—or just plain bent—than anyone realized.

Eight hours after the executions of 32 students at Virginia Tech, Eng posted a grainy video of himself on YouTube. “Good morning, America,” says an exuberant Eng from his New York apartment, “I’d just like to say that I just read about the Virginia Tech incident and it was the funniest thing I ever read in my life.”

The video was pulled, and then reposted a week later. But now, Eng tells the Voice that he has something else to say about Cho Seung-hui’s bloody rampage in Virginia: He wants credit for it.

Eng likes to believe that his own hate-filled writings about non-Asians motivated Cho, and as far as we can tell, he’s serious. Eng also claims to “admire” Cho for the worst individual mass-murder in American history, and tells the Voice that he, at one time, planned to go on his own killing spree while he was a student at NYU, but couldn’t afford a firearm.

“It’s speculative but I think that there is a good chance that Cho may have read my work,” says Eng. “I might have had something to do with [the VT shootings] because it’s kind of conspicuous that [Cho] would shoot all these people so shortly after AsianWeek published all my articles.” Cho, in his manifesto, railed against “you,” making no reference to race. But Eng believes he understands why Cho felt compelled to commit the murders and applauds him for doing so. “A part of me wishes I was Cho,” says Eng, who is the same age as the murderer, 23. “He is my hero.”

To explain Cho’s rampage, Eng points to the way Asians are stereotyped. “Look at Hollywood,” he says. “How many Asian heroes have you seen? If you watch just a few minutes of television, Prison Break, Lost, and 24 all have Asian villains.” To Eng, the Virginia Tech shootings were a victory for Asians in America.

Eng says Cho’s life—his being institutionalized, stalking female classmates, and professors feeling threatened by his presence in class—eerily resembles his own. Eng was committed, and he was suspended from NYU after spitting on a white classmate. He also admits to stalking a white female student. “All the white and black kids cared about was sucking up to each other and that just really pissed me off,” Eng says of his college classmates. “It would be OK if they kept it to themselves, but what they did was literally try to ruin my life.”

Eng turned over examples of tension-filled correspondence with NYU officials during his days as a student. “I wrote a script where I stereotyped whites and blacks, and said that the average white girl is an absolute whore. The teacher went to the dean and had everyone in an uproar. No one would talk to me anymore. That’s when I realized how disgusting these people were.”

In a 2003 memo Eng provided between two Tisch School of the Arts deans, one official wrote: “It is my belief that Kenneth poses a real threat to the Tisch community and has the capacity to harm or kill someone . . . I would like to offer Kenneth the opportunity, in lieu of a disciplinary hearing, to withdraw from NYU with a refund for the semester.”

Eng says NYU officials were correct to be concerned about him. “Frankly, I was planning on going to NYU and going on a rampage,” he says. “The only thing that stopped me was that I couldn’t afford a gun.”

NYU officials declined to comment about Eng.

Posted by God from above on Tue, 08 May 2007 03:14 | #

yet it these uncommon yet curious lapses of empathy seem to take place more often in NE Asians than whites, despite lower crime levels

I would hypothesize the lack of religiosity combined with greater utilitarianism. Life being utilitarian, isn’t sacred.

Posted by Austin on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:22 | #

Asian guys are not the biggest threat to America most killings comes from blacks Mexicans and whites.