Black IQ Gains in the US

These scores are taken from this paper, and indicate varying scores for IQ tests and semi-IQ tests taken over about 30 years. As you move down in each individual row, you move into revised versions of the tests in more recent years. Standard deviation is not all that relevant to me, but may make sense to someone else.

As you can see, White adult IQ (age 25+) in the US is now 102.9 or 103 rounded off. Black adult IQ (age 25+) has increased in recent years to 89.1. There remains a 13.8 point gap between Blacks and Whites.

Ok, let us take a look at Black and White IQ's in the US.

These scores above are over roughly 30 years or so, and all tests are standardized as more or less IQ tests, though there is a lot of controversy over whether or not the AFQT is really an IQ test, since it mostly just questions what you learned in high school, and if you did not learn much in high school, which I suspect is the case with a lot of Black students, your score is going to be low on that test.

It is true that Murray and Herrnstein in The Bell Curve treat AFQT as an IQ test, but that is really their problem. A casual glance at this chart indicates that Blacks seem to have made some definite gains on White in the IQ department over the past 30 years. This is something no one wants to talk about, since all talk about this whole subject is just completely banned.

On the Stanford-Binet, the B-W gap shrunk from 13.6 pts to 10.8 pts, a gain of 2.8 pts for Blacks. White scores actually declined by .7 pt, and Black scores went up by 2.1 pts. The S-B is probably given to both adults and children.

The WISC is the children's IQ tests. It is here that Blacks have shown the most massive gains of all. Blacks gain 5.3 pts, while Whites gain .9 pt, and the B-W gap declined from 15.9 pts to 11.5 pts, a gain of 4.5 pts for Blacks. Black adults gained 2.3 pts on the WAIS and White adults gained 1.2 points. There is not much difference.

The WAIS is given to adults of all ages and is now normed even for older adults, I believe. The B-W gap declines from 14.6 pts to 13.5 pts, a .9 pt improvement. I realize that this is not much of an improvement, but US Black adults have shaved the B-W IQ gap by about 1 pt over 30 years.

Considering claims that the gap is set in stone for all time, this does count as very real progress. Even more important that according to the WAIS, Black adults can no longer be said to have IQ's of 85!, as the White Nationalists scream and scream.

WAIS puts Black IQ at 89.1. That is definitely getting up towards the level of some European White groups. For instance, Serbs and Croats both have IQ's of 90. 89.1 is not all that different from 90.

For the WAIS under age 25, the scores are a bit better. Blacks shrunk the gap from 14.2 points to 11.7 points. That's a really significant reduction. Blacks raised scores by 3.9 points, while Whites only went up by 1.4 pts.

On the AFQT, which I am not even really counting, the gap declined from 18 points to 14.4 points. It is here that we are really getting into the hardcore achievement gap stuff, but as you can see in the real IQ scores above, the huge gap does not have to do so much with raw brains as with failure to learn much in high school.

The median gap between Black and White adults, young and all adults conflated, is now 12.6 IQ points, not 15 IQ points.

The median gap between Black and White kids, with some adults conflated, is now 11.1 points, not 15 IQ points.

The median gap between mixed Black and White kids and adults is now 11.6 points, not 15 IQ points.

Blacks of all ages conflated have gained a median 3.1 IQ points over 30 years on average, and Black children have gained 5.3 pts. Whites of all ages conflated achieved an average 1.1 IQ points gain over that period, with White children showing no special gains relative to adults.

The median reduction in the B-W gap for both Black adults and children combined over 30 years has been on the order of 2.7 IQ points . Black kids reduced the gap by 4.5 points. Philippine Rushton and Charles Murray have actually acknowledged that Blacks have closed the gap by "a couple of points". Jensen and Gottfredson will probably never come around.

The median Black IQ for both Black adults and children conflated is now 91.3, not 85. For Black children, it is 91.7, not 85. For Black adults under 25, it is 90.9, not 85. For Black adults of all ages, it is 89.1, not 85.

There are those on the other side who like to pull up plenty of modern studies that, compared to the above, show little or no gains in Black IQ. That is interesting, but we should at least point out that there are a number of IQ tests out there that are showing significant Black gains and Black reduction of the famous 1 standard deviation IQ gap.

Those who charge that US Blacks "have an IQ of 85!" (implying they are idiots) need to be seriously challenged, at least to hedge their responses, as there is good evidence that it is now 91.3, not 85. The continuous refrains of the 15 pt B-W IQ gap in the US also need to be seriously challenged, as it appears that on many tests the gap is now on the order of 11.6 points for Blacks of all ages, not 15 pts.

Debaters ought to adjust their talking points in light of these new realities. Any refusal to do so borders on hate propaganda against Black folks, as if they don't have enough problems as it is.

References

Dickens, William T. & Flynn, James R. October 2006. Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples. Psychological Science.

Dickens, William T. & Flynn, James R. Common ground and differences
Forthcoming: Psychological Science

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

La Fameuse Publicité Offensive Interraciale Sears Retirée des Ondes

I am looking for translators to translate this post into German. Email me if you are interested.

Spanish translation (en Español).

This is the French translation of the Famous Offensive Interracial Sears Ad Pulled Off the Air post. Translator: Jay Brad.

Ceci est une annonce Sears de Noël qui a été diffusée à la télévision ces derniers temps. Elle montre un groupe de jeunes gens heureux en train de s'embrasser et de donner des cadeaux pour Noël. Bien sûr, ils ont acheté tous les cadeaux dans les magasins Sears. Dans le milieu du segment, trois beaux hommes noirs font des cadeaux à trois belles blondes blanches eten s'embrassant.

La vidéo a été téléchargé sur YouTube, où elle a comptabilisé 33.000 vues. Elle a été inondée de commentaires raciaux négatifs des blancs. Dans de nombreux cas, des insultes anti-noirs et des propos racistes ont été utilisés par les commentateurs blanc indignés. Après l'effusion de haine à propos de la publicité sur Youtube, Sears a décidé de la retirer. Plus tard, la vidéo sur Youtube a disparu aussi.

Les nationalistes blancs deviennent fous avec ça et vont dire que maintenant les sociétés devront écouter leurs plaintes et leurs boycotts. Le problème est que les nationalistes blancs, comme tous les gens de leur espèce sont des réactionnaires qui sont engagés dans une guerre contre le temps. L'histoire va vers l'avant, pas en arrière, et le bon vieux temps n'était généralement pas si bon.

En 1958, 96% des Blancs américains désapprouvaient le mélange amoureux ou sexuel entre Blancs et Noirs. Au début des années 1990, ce nombre avait chuté à 49%. En 1998, seulement 25% des Blancs désapprouvaient de telles choses. Entre 1992-2008, le pourcentage de Blancs désapprouvant le métissage chutait brusquement de 1,5 par an. Si cette chute se poursuit à ce rythme, dans environ 15 ans, les Blancs anti-métissage seront quasi inexistants.

C'est pourquoi les nationalistes blancs sont perdants, et le temps n'est pas de leur côté. Leur ordre du jour s'estompe au fil des ans.

Mon avis sur la vidéo? Je m'en fous, mais alors, je ne m'intéresse pas au comportement sexuel interracial de toute façon. Je ne suis pas contre, mais je ne vais pas lui faire de la publicité non plus. Il s'agit simplement d'une liberté que les gens devraient être autorisés à avoir, s'ils souhaitent se livrer à de telles choses.

Ce qui est certain, c'est que les Blancs doivent être libres de refuser des relations interraciales avec n'importe quelle race ou origine ethnique, sans être considérés comme raciste. De plus en plus, les Blancs perdent cette liberté, alors que les femmes blanches qui disent qu'elles ne veulent pas de relation avec un noir sont battues par leurs compatriotes blancs (et, évidemment, par les hommes noirs, dont les chiffres) considérés comme «racistes». C'est tout simplement stupide, et il faut que ça cesse.

Le sexe est le plus intime des comportements humains. Vous avez le droit de le faire ou pas, autant que vous le souhaitez, avec des partenaires de sexe, race, origine ethnique que vous choisissez, et il n'y a rien d'anormal ou racistes sur l'un ou l'autre des choix qui en découlent.

Various Prison Assaults Caught on Videotape

The first scene opens in July 6, 1994 at the Central Utah Corrections Facility in Gunnison, Utah. 2 White Supremacists corner a Black inmate in the shower area. While one White holds him down, the other stabs the Black repeatedly with a shank. The SWAT Team tries to move into the area as the stabber wipes the blood off his hands with a towel.

The attack goes on for several minutes before the cops can get onto the scene. The suspects are cuffed and the victim is carried away by paramedics.

The second scene is on March 17, 1997 in the Rahway, New Jersey Prison mess hall. One inmate holds a victim down while the other stabs him over and over with a shank. The attacker appears to be a Black man. The stabbed man was attacked for "dissing" the attacker and his family.

The assaulted man tries to crawl under a table to get away, but his attacker keeps on beating and stomping on him. The Plexiglas shank actually broke during the attack.

The third scene is again in the prison mess hall fight in Rahway. Two fights break out at once, both involving Blacks. The fights go on for several minutes. The attackers finally got tired of beating each other up and that is what ended the brawls.

In the fourth scene, on May 25, 1994 in Rahway, one man, apparently a White man, prepares to assault a White inmate on the exercise court. He turns his back on the man, then suddenly turns around and assaults him with a shank. Even though the victim is seriously wounded by the shank, he fights back hard with his fists and a fistfight ensues. Finally the attacker runs away towards the handball court.

Even though this man was stabbed in his chest near his heart, he still somehow managed to survive.

Comercial Famoso Interracial de Sears

I am looking for translators to translate this post into German. Email me if you are interested.

French translation (en Français).

This is the Spanish translation of the Famous Offensive Interracial Sears Ad Pulled Off the Air post. Translator: Fabián Aguilar, a crazy guy from Bogotá, Colombia who likes Saturdays.

Este es un comercial de Sears Christmas que ha estado rondando en TV últimamente. Muestra un grupo de gente feliz besándose entre ellos y repartiéndose regalos. Obviamente compraron todos sus regalos en Sears. En medio del segmento, tres apuestos hombres negros dan regalos a tres diferentes rubias blancas y se besan mientras lo hacen.

Este video fue subido a YouTube y obtuvo 33.000 visitas. Allí abundaron los comentarios sobre racismo por parte de la gente blanca. En muchos casos, con lenguaje muy violento. Luego de esta polémica, Sears bajó el video. Más tarde, YouTube también lo quitó.

Los blancos nacionalistas se están volviendo locos con este comercial diciendo que ahora las empresas tendrán que escuchar sus quejas y boicots. El problema es que los miembros de este grupo saben que están luchando una guerra contrarreloj. Los tiempos cambian, para bien, no para mal y los viejos tiempos no es que hayan sido tan buenos.

En 1958, 96% de los blancos de EEUU, desaprobaron cualquier mezcla romántica interracial entre blancos y negros. A mediados de los noventa ese número había decaído a %49. En 1998, sólo el %25 de los blancos desaprobaron semejantes cosas.

Entre 1992 y 2008, el porcentaje de blancos en contra de este comportamiento ha caído precipitosamente 1,5 puntos por año. Sí continúa a este paso, dentro de 15 años, los blancos en contra de esto, desaparecerán.

Esa es la razón por la que los blancos nacionalistas son unos perdedores y el tiempo no está de su lado. Su agenda se desvanece con el paso de cada año.

¿Cuál es mi opinión del video? No me importa, por lo tanto, tampoco me importa el comportamiento sexual interracial. No me opongo, pero tampoco voy a ir por ahí promoviéndolo. Simplemente todos los seres humanos tienen la libertad de hacerlo si lo desean.

Ciertamente los blancos deberían tener la libertad de declinar propuestas o citas con personas de otras razas sin que se les llame racistas. El problema es que los blancos están perdiendo ese derecho ya que otros blancos, incluso otros negros les llaman "racistas" por no salir con ellos. Eso debe parar.

El sexo es tan íntimo como el comportamiento humano. Usted tiene derecho de hacerlo, no hacerlo, tanto o tan poco como usted quiera y con la raza, etnicidad o compañera, compañero que desee. Y no hay nada anormal o racista sobre ninguna de estas elecciones que usted tome.

Famous Offensive Interracial Sears Ad Pulled Off the Air

I am looking for translators to translate this post into German. Email me if you are interested.

French translation (en Français).

Spanish translation (en Español).

This is a Sears Christmas ad that has been running on TV lately. It shows a group of happy young people kissing each other and giving each other presents for Christmas. Of course they bought all of the presents at Sears. In the middle of the segment, three different handsome Black men give presents to three different beautiful White blonds and kiss as they are doing it.

The video was uploaded to Youtube, where it got 33,000 views. It was flooded with negative racial comments from Whites. In many cases, anti-Black slurs and racist language were used by outraged White commenters. After the outpouring of rage at the ad on Youtube, Sears pulled the ad. Later the video disappeared on Youtube too.

The White nationalists are going nuts over this and saying that now corporations will have to listen to their complaints and boycotts too. Problem is that the WN's, like all such folks are reactionaries who are fighting a war against time. History moves forwards, not backwards, and the good old days were usually not so great.

In 1958, 96% of US Whites disapproved on romantic or sexual mingling between Blacks and Whites. By the early 1990's, that number had dropped to 49%. In 1998, only 25% of Whites disapproved of such things. Between 1992-2008, the % of Whites disapproving of miscegenation was dropping precipitously by 1.5 points per year. If this freefall continues at this rate, within 15 years or so, the anti-miscegenationist Whites will be all but gone.

This is why WN's are losers, and time is not on their side. Their agenda fades with each passing year.

My opinion of the video? I could care less, but then, I care nothing about interracial sexual behavior anyway. I'm not opposed to it, but I'm not going around cheerleading for it either. It's simply a freedom that folks should be allowed to have if they wish to indulge in such things.

Certainly Whites ought to be free to decline interracial dating with any race or ethnicity without being thought of as racist. Increasingly, Whites are losing even that freedom as White women who say they do not wish to date Blacks are pounded by their fellow Whites (and obviously by Black men, which figures) as "racists." That's simply PC run amok, and it's got to stop.

Sex is as intimate as human behavior gets. You have the right to do it or not do it, as much or as little as you like, with whichever consenting partners of either gender or whatever race or ethnicity you choose, and there's nothing abnormal or racist about any of the choices that result.

The Flynn Effect and "g"

The Flynn Effect (FE) is a secular rise in IQ over time that has been occurring throughout the West for 80 years now. All ages and ethnic groups are effected. Preliminary evidence indicates that it is also occurring in the Caribbean (Dominica), South America (Brazil) and Africa (Kenya).

An overview of the FE itself goes beyond the scope of this post, but if you click on the Flynn Effect category at the end of the post, you can read up on what I have written about it.

The FE is quite complex, and many people do not seem to understand the concept properly, hence are not able to discuss it, much less debate it. However, most people of reasonable intelligence, if interested, seem to be able to grasp the basic implications of the FE.

Hereditarians, most of whom are White racists, are very upset by the FE (Talk about being opposed to human progress!) because they have a strong emotional investment in White intellectual superiority and the intellectual inferiority of Blacks, Hispanics and other groups. We know that the major hereditarian researchers on intelligence are racists because almost all of them support getting rid of all anti-discrimination laws.

The agenda is clear for both lab coat racists and White nationalists: if we can prove that Blacks, Hispanics and others are intellectually inferior to Whites, we can legalize discrimination, especially job discrimination, against them.

A particularly frightening lab coat racist endeavor is attempting to prove that Blacks are inferior employees to Whites on average. If they prove this scientifically, then they will have a logical reason to support discriminating against Blacks in employment.

Almost all of these folks are White, and most of them call themselves race realists. They spend a good deal of time screaming and yelling about why Blacks and Browns will not accept that they are intellectually inferior (Steve Sailer specializes in this). Why would anyone want to accept, or accept, such a thing?

Furthermore, given the nefarious agenda behind those promoting these theories that seeks to legalize discrimination against Blacks and Browns, any Black or Hispanic person who gets behind this would have to be out of their minds.

I have ritually added "Hispanic" after Black above, but in general, Hispanics are being left out of this debate. The real effort here is directed by racist Whites against Blacks, not Hispanics. It is against Blacks that these Whites seek to legalize the right to discriminate.

The Flynn Effect has been hard to argue against, but the hereditarians have tried hard. They have shown that the FE is not on g. G is a hypothesized common correlational factor that supposedly measures pure intelligence. Everything outside of g is "not real intelligence".

However, according to one paper, the very concept of g is tendentious to say the least, and possibly nonsensical. The paper is titled G, A Statistical Myth, by an admittedly brilliant mathematician named Cosma Shalizi. I read through the whole thing but I couldn't really make sense of it. Perhaps someone who knows math better than I do can have a go at it.

A schematic of the g, or general intelligence, factor. The ovals represent subtests on an intelligence test. G represents the totality of the areas where the purple subtests shade into the pink circle, and the degree to which they correlate (line up) with each other.

G is a correlation coefficient of various tests. It measures the tendency of superior test takers (and someone who has a brain that works a bit better), if they do well on one test, do also do well on all other tests. The FE is generally not on g because some tests have risen dramatically, others moderately, and still others little or not at all.

Therefore, intelligence has not risen in a general, across-the-board kind of way. However, certain aspects of intelligence have definitely risen, and those aspects have quantifiable benefits in modern society, occupationally, academically and in other ways.

The argument of whether or not the FE gains are on g or not is very complex, about as complex as the FE itself. First of all, the FE gains have not been across the board. In general, they have focused on verbal analysis, visual analysis, verbal intelligence, and problem-solving. Gains have been few to none in basic things like general knowledge, mathematics, mathematical analysis, spelling and reading comprehension.

G is a hypothesized and problematical construct that is a correlational factor all of the subtests on an intelligence test. It is thought to be highly heritable and physiologically based, and this is why the hereditarians have gone nuts over it.

It measures how someone with a somewhat more neurologically efficient brain will tend to score better across an entire range of subtests than someone who with a less efficient brain.

The reason the FE is not on g is because it is limited to a subset of intelligence subtests, and gains have been small to none across another subset. Therefore, there is no g gain.

However, Raven's Progressive Matrices has shown larger gains than any other test. Raven's was designed to measure pure g and nothing else. Raven's scores are not thought to be effected by environmental factors outside of pregnancy and the first few months of life, and are thought to be purely neurologically, physiologically or genetically based.

Given the pure g basis for Raven's, the wild secular gains on it on the FE are most puzzling.

However, recently James Flynn has shown that the FE does show a .5 correlation on a factor analyzing fluid g.

There is fluid g and crystallized g.

Fluid g is thought to peak early in life. This is why things that require raw brain processing power tend to peak in young people. Creative persons - artists, musicians, poets, novelists, filmmakers, mathematicians, physicists - often do their best work as young people (usually as young men). Fluid g is really a measure of how well, fast or efficient your brain works.

Crystallized g is another matter altogether. Crystallized g may be seen as "what you know" as opposed to "how fast of a brain you have." While fluid g peaks early, crystallized g often goes up throughout life, and people can still score high on crystallized g in their 50's, 60's, 70's and even 80's.

This is what we might call "accumulated knowledge" or "wisdom." The old person's brain does not work as fast, but the accumulated knowledge makes up for that in that they can see connections between things easier.

The young person's brain works very fast, but with the lack of accumulated knowledge and life experience they are not able to put things together as well to arrive at the correct conclusion. This is why no society has ever put the 18-23 year old's in power, no matter how zippy their brains are.

Instead, the old men have always been put in power. The accumulation of a life of learning is thought to lead to a wisdom that will manifest itself as the ability to make "wise," correct and proper decisions.

The concepts of crystallized and fluid g are complicated, but hopefully that explanation helped you understand it.

The FE is on fluid g, not crystallized g. Visual intelligence and analysis, problem solving, verbal analysis and analytical thinking in general, on intelligence tests, is in the realm of fluid g. Those are those little puzzles that ask you to decide which figure goes next in the series.

On intelligence tests, crystallized g measures accumulated knowledge and the degree to which one has learned basic tasks of modern life. The gains on mathematics, math analysis, reading comprehension, vocabulary and general knowledge are small to nil, and all of these tests measure crystallized g. To sum, these are the sorts of things you learn in school.

This is why, despite skyrocketing IQ's, we cannot read a book, add and subtract, or calculus any faster than our grandparents. We also do not know any more than they did, and we know no more words than they did.

This is obvious in the many reports on "idiocratic" state of high school seniors, college students or college grads. And this is how a puzzle is solved - how IQ's are surely rising at the same time as idiocracy is.

From Flynn's chapter summary:

IQ gains over time were calculated for each WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) subtest and the subtests ranked by size of gain. Verbal Similarities led at 20 points per generation - larger than gains on Raven's Progressive Matrices. Similarities measures on-the-spot problem-solving (something akin to fluid g ); verbal subtests that do not measure this show low rate of gain.

WISC subtests were also ranked by their correlations with Raven's, the latter being used as a marker for fluid g. The r between the two hierarchies was calculated to approximate a correlation between IQ gains and fluid g.

The result of 0.50 contrasts with the negative correlation between IQ gains and the g generated by factor analyzing the WISC battery itself, which is generally viewed as predominately a crystallized g.

In sum, it appears that human groups can make massive fluid g gains in a period too short to accommodate radical change in the speed and efficiency of neural processes. Moreover, once gains in intelligent behavior over historical time are seen to be independent of brain physiology, does g really provide a criterion for assessing their significance?

Finally, not only a measure of fluid g (which is highly heritable) but also inbreeding depression are shown to be correlated with IQ gains - gains overwhelmingly environmental in origin. Therefore, correlations between such genetically influenced factors and the size of the black/white IQ gap do not show that the gap has a genetic component.

The Similarities test has risen faster than any other test. It measures analytical thinking and is thought to be a good measure of raw fluid g. The final paragraph is interesting. The Black-White IQ gap is correlated with something called inbreeding depression score, a purely heritable measure. Hereditarians use this to say that the B-W IQ gap is genetic.

But Flynn shows here that the FE (a purely environmental gain) also correlates with inbreeding depression, a purely hereditarian score. Flynn uses this to say that the B-W IQ gap is not necessarily genetic.

Flynn notes above that the FE cannot possibly be caused by brains that actually work better physiologically than the brains of our grandparents. Genetics doesn't work that fast.

Therefore, what does the FE measure? Flynn says it measures "intelligent behavior". So our brains don't work any better than our grandparents' brains, but we show improved "intelligent behavior" over them.

Therefore, another mystery is solved, how massive IQ gains can occur without concomitant improvement in the physiology of our brains.

Since hereditarians use g as a measure of physiological efficiency of our brains, Flynn calls this into question by noting that g gains can occur too fast to be accommodated for by physiologically improved brains. Therefore, Flynn suggests chucking g as a measure of pure brain physiological efficiency.

Therefore, the White nationalist and hereditarian argument that the FE is not on g has been proven wrong.

References

Flynn, James R. 2000. IQ Gains, WISC Subtests and Fluid g: g Theory and the Relevance of Spearman's Hypothesis to Race, Chapter 12 in Bock, Gregory R., Goode, Jamie A., Webb, Kate. Novartis Foundation Symposium 233 - The Nature of Intelligence, pp. 202-227. Novartis Foundation. Published online.

Yet Another Fake Quote

This one making the rounds of White nationalist, White Supremacist, etc. sites:

In 1922, the Bolshevik leader Selenkov stated in Moscow: "We must create a climate of anti-nationalism and anti-racialism amongst Whites. We must reduce patriotism and pride of race to meaningless abstractions and make racialism a dirty word."

Not only that, but obviously Selenkov was Jewish. Or he was named Zelenkov. Or whatever.

There never was any Bolshevik leader named Zelenkov/Selenkov, and for all I or others can tell, this is yet another fake quote.

You can usually tell these fake quotes just be looking at them, because it seems like no sane prominent person would ever be caught dead saying something so outrageous.

Also, fake quotes are usually manufactured by nationalists. They place the quotes in the mouths of politicians they don't like and make them say they are going to hatch some kind of conspiracy against the ethnic group or nation in question.

See my previous post, Lord MacAulay's Speech to British Parliament 1835, for a particularly famous example made up out of whole cloth by Hindutva Indian Hindu nationalists. I get hits for that post from Indians from all over, and I get the distinct impression that they still don't understand that the quote is a fake.

Porn Star Does Her Bit For the Obama Campaign

This is supposed to be a blog that is open to viewers of all ages, so if you're under 18, don't click the link in the post.

We also generally don't deal with porn on here, but since this video is topical and hilarious, we might as well. Joanna Angel, a punk rock porn star who has opened up her own studio called Burning Angel with her boyfriend and frequent co-star James Deen, recorded a video called Vote Obama! in which she, a White woman, has sex with famous (and very large) Black porn star named Sean Michaels.

Thankfully for the Obama campaign, she released the video the day before the election, otherwise the rightwing would have gotten a hold of it and gone nuts.

What's interesting is that I'm pretty sure that I read that Angel was one of the few White female porn stars who was refusing to have sex with Black men recently. I guess she changed her mind.

This video seems designed to drive White nationalists into a homicidal frenzy.

Angel and her outfit, to their credit, are some of the smartest porn stars out there. They are also very heavily into tattoos and piercings.

For those who care about such things, Angel and Deen, who run Burning Angel together, are both Jewish. So a Jewish woman made a video of herself having sex with a Black man on the eve of the election that elected our first Black President. It's stuff like this that drives White nationalist anti-Semites nuts.

This is like something out of a neo-Nazi comic book; I can't believe this is real. This kind of stuff just feeds that "evil Jews leading the charge of the destruction of the White race" stuff.

Thoughts on Ethnocentrism and "Race-Mixing"

White nationalists tend to say that any White person who dates or marries outside the White race is a "race traitor" who is engaging in "race mixing" and is fostering "racial suicide". They also say that any such person must be a "White self-hater" with no love or pride on their own people.

This post will examine whether or not that is so. It will also examine ethnocentrism cross-culturally, with a view towards whether or not it is normal. It will also examine the tendency among human groups to simultaneously guard their women from outsiders while the males also attempt to mate with outsiders.

I argue that all of these things are cultural norms in human beings and may have biological or genetic origins.

I've been talking to some of my smart friends about this stuff, and here's what we came up with.

I noted that I have met persons from all over the world. One tendency that I noted among most, but not all, persons, was ethnocentrism, often of an extreme type. They all had a lot of pride in their race, nation, ethnic group, religion, or whatever. In particular, they did not like to hear criticism of it from outsiders.

At the same time, many were not particularly racist. They certainly were friendly enough towards me. These same people, if they were young and unmarried, often combined a profound ethnocentrism with a desire to marry outside their group. In this case, many of them wanted to marry an American, especially a White American.

This would seem to strongly contradict White nationalist theory that everyone who desires to marry outside their race, nation or ethnicity is race-traitor who is full of hatred for their own kind. That just doesn't seem to be true. White nationalists are flat out wrong. It's perfectly possible to love your people and marry outside of them.

Oddly enough, people seem to be able to combine an often profound ethnocentrism with a desire to marry out and commit "race-treason" or "racial suicide".

I talked to one of my friends, and while he is not a White nationalist (He despises them), he admitted that he thinks Whites, specifically Northern Europeans, are superior to all other groups. He also said that he had been in love with a number of non-White women, and he would have gladly married them.

He said that even after he married them, he would probably still have felt that Northern Europeans were superior, even though he loved his wife. He suggested that many people of other races who marry non-group members probably feel the same way.

How can we make sense of these findings?

First of all ethnocentrism does seem to be a norm in human societies. As an example, let us look at a tribe in the Brazilian Amazon called the Pirahã.

This tribe has been the subject of a lot of research lately because they appear to lack recursion in their language. As recursion is said to be a human linguistic universal (or part of universal grammar in the Chomsky-Pinker paradigm) that is genetically coded into our brain, its absence in the Pirahã implies either that they are genetically distinct (dubious) or that the Chomsky-Pinker theory of universal grammar needs a lot of work.

Leaving aside the Pirahã's lack of recursion for a moment, let us look at their extreme ethnocentrism. The Pirahã have been in contact with Europeans for a good 200 years. During that time, many a missionary has tried to convert them to Christianity. However, for a primitive people, the Pirahã are very scientific-minded, so they have never accepted Christianity.

Anthropologist/linguist Daniel Everett has worked with the Pirahã for 30 years. He originally started out as an evangelical minister to them, but their rejection of his preaching caused him to question his own religion, and he is now an atheist.

He used to talk to them about religion and the Pirahã would say, "Well, who is this Jesus guy? Have you ever seen him? Have you ever met him? Do you know anyone who has seen him or met him?" He would have to answer no to all of these questions. The Pirahã would then say, "So why should we believe this stuff?"

According to their culture, one can only believe things that one has experienced with their own senses, or that someone you know has experienced sensually.

Anyway, this is why the Pirahã have been rejecting missionaries for 200 years now. Not only have they rejected missionaries, but they have also rejected the Portuguese language and modern living, which they have also been exposed to for 200 years. They know what the Portuguese language is, and they know what modern living is, but they want no part of either.

Portuguese language classes have often been offered to the Pirahã, and they attend the classes and pretend to be engaged, but actually refuse to learn any of the language. Some of the children start to learn Portuguese, but as soon as they show signs of learning the language, the parents pull them out of class and refuse to let them return. They don't want to learn Portuguese! Period!

Further, they want no part of modern culture. They have been told over and over the advantages of modern culture, but they're not buying.

These refusals are rooted in the Pirahã's profound sense of ethnocentrism. The Pirahã see themselves as superior to all other races, and they are even superior to all of the Indian tribes around them, whom they want nothing to do with. I've seen pictures of the Pirahã, and they just look like Amazonian Indians to me. In my ethnocentric mind, I can't see how they have anything to feel superior about. But they do feel this way.

From this interesting post in Majority Rights, a White Supremacist site that is nevertheless intelligent, interesting and relatively easy to tolerate, we can see that this feeling is not limited to the Pirahã. It's a discussion of racism in China. One commenter, who is Chinese, notes that most NE Asian groups see their race, nation or ethnic group as superior to all others, including surrounding Asians.

A White commenter who met Vietnamese students in Europe noted that these Vietnamese felt the same way. Furthermore, he noted that the Vietnamese place strong restrictions of their women marrying out.

The commenter said that a female member of the group that married out to a White man would be considered a whore who was lower than dirt who had just married into a subhuman race, the Whites. But if she married into an Asian group not her own, that would be even worse. She was now worse than a whore for marrying into a group that was even lower than Whites. The commenter noted that the Chinese felt much the same way.

I would imagine many other East Asians, especially the ethnocentric Koreans and Japanese, feel the same.

We really could go on and on here, but ethnocentrism, even profound ethnocentrism, seems to be a human norm. We can certainly get away from it as individuals, but it's probably always going to be with us. It also implies that the thorough deracination of Western Whites, to the point of deliberate self-abnegation, is simply not normal. Much as I dislike them, the White nationalists are correct on this point.

Another commenter linked to this article, reported in the press as racist anti-African riots by Chinese students in China against African students. To the extent this stuff was written up at all in the Western press, it was as irrational racist riots against innocent Africans by racist Chinese.

The truth seems to be more complicated. A White American who was a student in China at the time noted that the African students were throwing wild parties in their dorms. Non-African males were allowed in, but not Chinese males. Chinese females were very much invited. He attended one of these parties and "rescued" two Chinese women by getting them out of there.

It was common knowledge at the time that the Africans were getting Chinese women drunk and then "raping" them. Whether that meant date rape or actual physical rape is uncertain, but after a while, Chinese students (probably mostly young males) had had enough and there were days of anti-African riots.

Among the regulations that followed was that African male students were forbidden from consorting with Chinese females in their dorms.

In the examples above we see another essential part of ethnocentrism - "Don't any of you outsiders dare to fuck with our women. We will defend the honor of our women with our lives and we will kill any outsider males who take liberties with our females."

You don't have to study a lot of anthropology or history to see how this line seems to be written all through human history. The horrible stoning of Dua Khalil Aswad, a 17 year old Yezidi girl who eloped with a non-Yezidi man, is an example. She was stoned to death by a crowd of 10,000 Yezidi men for "marrying an outsider".

One of the best ways to rile up a population against an invader or an enemy is to suggest that "they are taking liberties with our women." Countless male armies have been roused to defend the honor of the nation's or group's females.

We also see this in the Jim Crow laws of the South where Black males were lynched for looking at, whistling at, talking to, having sex with, or raping White women. The image of pure Southern womanhood was to be upheld with blood.

What's up with this? Kevin MacDonald argues that there are probably dual imperatives operating here. The first is protection of the females of the tribe from mating with outsiders. This is probably done in the furtherance of "ethnic genetic interests." That is, most tribes probably want to survive for as long as possible as an entity. The best way to do this is to keep outsiders away from your women.

At the same time, MacDonald argues that there is an opposite genetic imperative at work, that the males seek to mate with outsiders, while protecting their females from doing so. MacDonald sees this as attempting to add genetic diversity to the group to make it more fit, but I see it as more base than that.

Probably many of these mating occurred during raids in which the outsider females were raped. In many cases, they were captured as some sort of slaves, brought back to the group, and forced into marriages with males of the group.

In this way, the tribe poaches the women (probably the best, or most attractive women were favored), removes them from the competing group, and brings them into one's own group. Though White nationalists would argue that this is genetic contamination, it surely was not seen that way. The tribe simply wishes to perpetuate itself, and the genes it utilizes in that goal are not relevant.

In older times, a woman who mated out probably was carted off by invading outsiders or went off with the outsider willingly, and hence was simply lost to the group. If all the women did this, the tribe would go extinct.

Yet males could mate out and still live with the group, since they would bring any captured women back to reside with the tribe of the man who captured her.

Further, by capturing the best females of competing outsiders, you deplete them of their best resource. If you rape them and run off, you force the outsiders to bear the children of your tribe (assuming they raise the child and don't kill it), interjecting the genes of your own tribe into theirs against their will. It's a form of domination and aggression of a very base sort.

Racists typically use these facts to try to justify racism by saying that everyone is a racist and that anti-racism is abnormal. This is to be condemned. At least here in the modern West, there seem to be an awful lot of folks that are significantly free of racist feelings, so it would seem we are not genetically doomed to racism.

Modern political correctness argues that the tendencies above, ethnocentrism and protection of one's women from outsiders, are examples of the most horrible and evil racism.

The Left would simply argue that these are reactionary archaisms that must be swept away via revolution. They would probably throw in something stupid and say that these backwards tendencies are all related to economics.

But it seems so much deeper than that.

Though civilized man is capable of transcending most of his base instincts much of the time, the fact remains that at the end of the day, we are just long-legged bipedal apes.

Any sensible analysis of human behavior needs to recognize that.

KKK's of the US and Israel

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

A good joke - the notion that Nazis, White Supremacists, White nationalists, White pride types, etc., give two tenths of 1% of a shit about Palestinian Arab "muds", "mud-people", "sand niggers", "non-Whites", etc.

You've got to be kidding. You guys just use the Palestinian thing as a stick to beat your hated Jews with.

The only people who make sense on this are White nationalist racists who are logically allied with more or less White, more or less European, civilized, Judeo-Christian, Israeli Jews against Arab, Muslim, Palestinian non-White barbarians.

These White nationalists see the US as a White nation and wish to marry ethnicity with nationality. They wish to deny non-Whites the full rights of citizenship in the US. They support segregation, Jim Crow, the South in the Civil War, apartheid South Africa and getting rid of anti-discrimination laws.

Israel is the state of all of the Jews of the world, not the state of its citizens. In other words, non-Jews in Israel are not full citizens of the state and are possibly not even philosophically members of the state at all. The notion of racial or ethnic separatism, the backbone of White nationalism, reverberates throughout the Jewish state.

There are Jews-only towns, roads, cities, schools, you name it. 93% of state land is reserved for Jews-only, almost all of it stolen from the native Arabs.

No matter how you look at it, the Zionist project has much in common with the White racialist one today and yesterday. Principled White racists ought to support Jewish racism (Zionism) the same way they support Black separatism. Principled non-racists and anti-racists ought to oppose Zionism the same way that they opposed segregation and Jim Crow and supported civil rights and anti-discrimination law.

Too many Nazi types don't make sense. Jews are terrible because they ended legalized White racism in America (that is, they are faulted for being the leading edge of anti-racism in the West), while at the same time they are faulted for creating a racist Jewish state in the Middle East.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Racism is either good or bad. You're either for it or against it. If you're for it, you need to reserve everyone the right to practice it, in their own separatist communities to be most consistent. If you're against it, you need to oppose it all the time, not just oppose it when Jews do it and support it when US Whites and German Nazis do.

Israel is the corollary of the KKK dream for America; it's the state of the KKK-Jews. Principled White racists ought to look on Israel as a model for the exclusionary vision that they purport to pursue.

If we oppose KKK racist White types in the US, progressives really need to oppose the KKK-Jews in Israel too. This political formulation is not too difficult, folks. Think about it.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

A World Without Blondes

When the White race goes extinct, White nationalists tell us, blonds will go with us. Blonds like this one below will be known only from photos in museums. It will be a sad day for mankind.

In a world without Whites, all mankind will have dark hair and dark eyes. The blond, beloved by men for 10,000 years, will go the way of the dinosaur. All that will remain will be the bottle blonds known today from such lands as Israel and Argentina. "Does she or doesn't she?" we may inquire of the lass above. Only her hairdresser knows for sure.

What Do White Nationalists Want?

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated December 7::

We clearly established here a while back that White nationalism is for the most part simply White racism or White supremacism with a nice-sounding new name to keep from scaring people off. In a fancy, innocuous-sounding package, in other words.

I think maybe less than 5% of White nationalists are actually not racists. I'm not sure what's up with them. A greater percentage are fond of Asians. Some have even married Asian women. It's hard to call folks like that White supremacists, since they usually think that NE Asians are equal to or superior to European Whites.

On more moderate sites like American Renaissance, the view that NE Asians are equal to or superior to European Whites is commonly held, such that we must note that many White nationalists are in fact not White supremacists. This is an important distinction. The Left always calls these folks White Supremacists, and in many cases, that's not fair.

I'm fascinated with White nationalism for some perverse reason, and to be honest, that's why I write about it all the time.

Reading this blog is unfortunately just a glimpse into my perverse, unhealthy and chaotic mind. I wish I was more mature than that, but I'm not. Whatever is in my mind during given periods ends up on the blog. I admit I'm obsessed with race. Hence, the blog is race-obsessed. I'm not able to separate my private mental life from this blog yet, and I may never be.

Let's look at the White nationalist program to see if this movement is racist or not.

Even on Amren, in the comments, you see a very large number of White nationalists saying that, ideally, we ought to throw all non-Whites out of the US. I don't know how many feel that way. I never heard any of them say that they morally oppose such a project. I wonder how many WN's don't think this is a good idea. Clearly such a desire is racist.

On a lesser but yet important level, the vast majority of WN's seem to take the opinion that only European Whites are real Americans. All others, no longer how long they have lived here, will never be Americans. I argue that this notion is racist in and of itself. Those opposed are invited to the comments to disagree.

A very large number of White nationalists, even on Amren, hanker for a race war, in particular a war between Whites and Blacks.

They also like to project about this a lot, claiming that Blacks want a race war with Whites. Sure, Nation of Islam Black Nationalists might, but it's not a common view. I've been around thousands of Blacks (I taught in Black schools for years) and I've never heard one Black person say this.

White nationalists hanker for this because they think they can win this war. Most Blacks don't think this is a good idea, I assume because it's obvious that they would lose. If anything is racism, hankering for race war sure as Hell is.

One thing that is clear is that almost all WN's seem to want White separatism in some form or another. I'm aware that some WN's say that they are not White separatists. Their numbers are very small. Even those who say they are not White separatists still support "the right of communities to implement separatism at a local level." Hmmm.

It seems to me that in general, White separatism would have to be driven by feelings of racism. I wouldn't say all the time, but surely most of the time. As a political project, White separatism must be seen as racist to the core, regardless of the motivations of individuals.

The final WN view is that all anti-discrimination laws should be repealed. Some say we should only do this a piece at a time, but they all seem to support it. I would be very interested to meet a White nationalist who does not support getting rid of all anti-discrimination laws.

This project is so obviously racist on its face that I have even said that non-racist folks pushing this, such as libertarians and anarchists, are de facto racists in that they are pushing a racist agenda, no matter what pretty and loving thoughts may be dancing in their empathy-drenched minds.

This has aroused a firestorm of fury on libertarian and rightwing anarchist sites, but it's always a pleasure to have the right kind of enemies.

Just to be fair, let's point out what's not racist about WN. Discussions of race realism are not necessarily racist, depending on how they are handled. Complaining about or criticizing other races is not necessarily racist either. Maybe they're just telling it like it is? Opposition to anti-White hate propaganda, so prevalent in our society, is not necessarily racist.

Feeling pride in being White is not necessarily racist either.

My opinion is that all races and ethnic groups should take pride in themselves. It's sad that more ethnic nationalists don't feel this way. In fact, if you meet people from around the world, most people do take pride in their race or ethnicity! It's healthy! Love yourself, love your tribe, love your nation, love your race.

Ideally, if WN's respected the right of other groups to take pride in themselves, WN's could look at proud Blacks and Hispanics and at least respect them for standing up for their people; instead, WN's almost always see such folks as deadly enemies.

Let's look at the White nationalist project in summary:

Project/philosophy                Racist?

Strike anti-discrimination laws   YES
Remove non-Whites from US         YES
Only Whites can be real Americans YES
Advocate race war vs. non-Whites  YES
White separatism project at core* YES

*At project level, not individual level.

I would argue that from an anti-racist point of view, WN is invalidated right there.

We don't need act silly and beat people up for talking about IQ or crime rates, feeling filial pride, or defending their people against idiots of other races. Given my argument above, why on Earth would any non-racist to anti-racist White person, however proud, sign on to WN? Forget it.

In an incredible book about Peru's Shining Path, The Shining Path: A History of the Millenarian War in Peru, Peruvian journalist and uber-intellectual Gustavo Gorriti wisely noted that Sendero's revolution was a "race against time."

Gorriti speaking at some sort of citizens' security committees conference in Peru on July 4, 2008.

Sendero saw Peruvian society as it was, not as it is. Sendero saw Peru as semi-colonial and semi-feudal, but it was moving away from both by the time they started their war. Their war was actually a war against time, progress and modernity itself.

Peruvian society is horrible, and armed Left revolution is more than justified, but Sendero's analysis applied better to 1960 than 1980. In the ensuing 28 years, Peru only moved further from semi-colonialism and semi-feudalism.

US White nationalism is, like Sendero, in a race against time. In the past 45 years, support among US Whites for the five core projects/philosophies listed above has apparently declined each year in the US. The decline seems to be continuing. Yet White nationalists are racing harder than ever to implement their projects, the prospects for which seem to grow dimmer by the day. How many ways can you spell "doomed"?

References

Gorriti Ellenbogen, Gustavo. Translated, with an introduction, by Robin Kirk. 1999. The Shining Path: A History of the Millenarian War in Peru. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

James Flynn on America

James Flynn is an Emeritus Professor of Political Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand. He has also done a lot of work on the Flynn Effect, which shows IQ's rising all over the world in the past 80 years for unknown reasons. We've written about at a lot on this blog. Click the Flynn Effect category at the end to read up.

For reasons that remain unknown to me, White nationalists (almost all of whom are just White racists really) are driven into a frenzy by the mention of Flynn's name. I find this very mystifying.

First of all, White racists insist that Blacks are defective, and present a lot of evidence indicating that Blacks as a group do have a lot of problems and that this group does do a disproportionate amount of damage to society. All of this is noncontroversial to anyone whose brain has not been turned to mush by political correctness.

Low IQ is frequently cited by White racists as one of the reasons for Black dysfunction and the resulting serious problems inflicted on society.

Other reasons are given too, but all of these are chalked up to genetics for some odd reason. It's an odd White racist who thinks culture or environment is behind Black pathologies. Fair enough.

But when someone like Flynn comes forward and notes that Blacks have gotten dramatically more intelligent in the past 80 years, White racists for the most part just go ballistic and see red. Why?

If Black dysfunction really is caused by low IQ, and these problems cause massive damage to society, would it not be better for Blacks, White racists and everyone else for the Black IQ to go up, and problems resulting from the low IQ to diminish? Sure, right?

Think again. White racists are furious at the notion that the Black IQ is rising. Almost nothing sends them battier.

This is very strange. It implies, despite all of their rhetoric, that White nationalists really do not have the best interests of Blacks at heart. They don't want Blacks to get smarter, better, or less dysfunctional. The more fucked up, stupid, violent and criminal Black people are, the more joyous White nationalists are.

Wow.

Excuse me, but what a bunch of cruel, perverse assholes White nationalists are! You bitch that Blacks are incompetent, violent idiots, but that's just the way you want them to be. If that's the case, then maybe you just deserve to live with them and their messes after all?

There must be some other motivation here. The only thing that makes sense is a hoary cliche that I usually don't consider.

White nationalists want Blacks to be stupid, dumb and fucked up because that way White racists can feel superior to Blacks.

White nationalists are the insecure punks from high school rejoicing in the failures of their rivals. White racists have an emotional investment in feeling superior to other races, and anything that suggests that the folks they dislike are gaining some ground in the footrace sends them into conniptions.

Sheesh. How petty and childish can you get? As long as this is what really motivates White nationalists, I'd say they have no right to diss Blacks for being pathological. Looks like White nationalists are plenty pathological themselves. We need to feel better than others because we're a bunch of insecure weenies! Waaa waaa!

Grow up.

Anyway, Flynn has a very good article on the stupidity and uselessness of US liberalism from a sane First World point of view. He points out quite well what a bunch of political morons we are. But if the Democrats took up Flynn's philosophy, they would get massacred. America is a center-right to conservative society at best, and liberal pikers like Obama are the best we can do.

Flynn also talks about US Blacks. He points out that between the ages of 25-45, there are only 57 Black men likely to be permanent (or even semi-permanent) partners for every 100 Black women. Sure, Black women could marry out, but few non-Black men want them. If you're a Black female, you either have a kid out of wedlock with some Black loser, or you forego now and forever your chance to have a kid.

I think that most people have a right to have kids. As such, it's reasonable that Black women are going to figure out a way to become mothers one way or another. That's reasonable. I've made this argument to some White "liberal" Americans and they frowned. "Having kids isn't all it's cracked up to be," a mother of four (!) grimaced. Hmm.

Flynn points out that for every 100 Hispanic women, there are 96 promising males, hence their single parenthood rate is 50% lower than Blacks. It all makes sense. Black illegitimacy isn't sky-high due to Black genes (Why were 80% of Black parents married in 1960?) but due to unpleasant circumstances, namely the catastrophic state of Black men in America.

Equality is Not a Prerequisite For Liberalism

On a White nationalist blog that linked to me, I noted that it was possible to be a race realist and a socialist. This provoked the following objection:

...That makes no sense. A fundamental principle of liberalism is that of equality, of human beings being equal and interchangeable. It's false of course, but take it away and all sorts of other leftist and liberal ideas crumble by implication.

I don't see how one can be a race realist without that leading naturally to some sort of white supremacist / white nationalist / white exclusiveness position.

First of all, I would like to say some things about White Nationalism. I've finally concluded that White Nationalism is nothing but White racism and often White Supremacism.

It's just White racism and White Supremacism repackaged with a fancy new name called White Nationalism to make it seem like it's not those nasty things that we know of as White racism and White Supremacism, the latter being largely discredited. Well, if a philosophy is discredited, just invent a fancy new word for it and say it's not the bad thing it really is.

It also explains why White Nationalists are so sensitive about the word racism and always put it in quotes like this: "racism". Of course, they only do this when referring to White racism. Black racism, Hispanic racism, and all the other kinds are quite real; it's only White racism that is phantasmagorical.

It's also interesting how White Nationalists project. While they are denying their own racism, they are often fulminating about Black racism and Hispanic racism and whatnot. That's clearly denial and projection.

There does seem to be a trend now with a lot of White Nationalists to come right out and admit that they are racists. This is to be encouraged. If you're racist, what the Hell, just admit it. It's not like you're alone in the world - the world is full of racists. And it's not like it's the worst thing in the world to be anyway - as White Nationalists note, there are sure plenty of Hispanic and Black racists out there.

White Nationalists think they have excellent reasons to be racists - they've had bad experiences with Blacks and Hispanics and want nothing more to do with them. If that's the case, then just admit it and make your case to an inquiring world.

There are a few White Nationalists who don't seem to be racists, but I would say that 98% of them are.

No, onto this fellow's rejoinder. This is a typical White Nationalist position. To them, one is either a silly race-denying liberal or one is a White Nationalist racist.

It doesn't work that way. I know a number of White liberals and even Leftists who feel that there are intrinsic differences between the races; they just don't think the question is very important. They date, befriend and even marry non-Whites. You might be surprised how common this type of thinking is.

One thing that always bothered me about the race realist crowd is that they insist that there are intrinsic differences between the races, and then proceed to blame races and ethnic groups for various average shortcomings and higher rates of pathologies.

But if those shortcomings and pathology rates are indeed genetic (This is what almost all race realists insist) then it follows that those groups should not be blamed for their shortcomings or pathologies. After all, it's genetic and nothing can be done, right?

So, first of all, they accuse a group of being the equivalent of handicapped, then they throw the crutches away, kick the wheelchair to the side, throw the person into the gutter, all the while cursing them for being a cripple. How cruel can you get? Why does a realization that humans are not intrinsically equal automatically seem to lead to the cruelest sort of Social Darwinism, at best?

And by the same token, if the superior races are only superior through the luck of the dices, what on Earth do they have to feel proud of anyway? Nothing, really. Have they done anything to earn their superior status? Hardly. They just lucked out in the genes crapshoot. Big deal.

If humans are not equal, then it would be up to the state to equalize things. If Blacks, on average are always going to fall behind due to lower IQ (I am beginning to fear that this may be the case), then that is no fault of their own anyway, and it's cruel to force them to suffer the ravages of the market, which is what most White nationalists seem to perversely want to do.

If Blacks were on average the same as we are, and the failures of their group were just due to their being a bunch of willful, perverse and deliberately wicked and stupid pricks, I would just say the Hell with them. But I honestly think that they can't help it.

Nor can Amerindians, Polynesians, Hispanics, Aborigines, or any other group that is going to tend to fall behind. It's really not their fault. Therefore, they should not be punished with failure for things that they can't help.

If Black income is always going to be a lot lower on average than, say, Whites, due to an IQ deficit that they have no control over, then it is the duty of the state through redistributive taxation to equalize things a bit and make it more fair for Blacks who fail through no fault of their own.

Humans are not necessarily equal at all. Even within a race, we are born with wildly differing IQ's and whatnot. I think most liberals would agree with that.

Even from a White Supremacist point of view, libertarianism makes no sense. Libertarianism is not only perverse for conscious White nationalists, it's downright cruel.

If you really love your own people so much, why throw them into a Roman-type pit where they consume each other alive while you cheer on the deadliest and most homicidal of the White cannibals? Only via some form of socialism can Whites really work together to help each other and have real solidarity.

I'm not interested in supremacism or chauvinism or nationalism or any of that. What are you looking for in your acquaintances? There are smart or good or kind, or any combination of many other great qualities, Blacks, Hispanics, Amerindians, Arabs, East Indians and all sorts of other non-Europeans. Just as smart, good and kind as your European White friends.

I love my people finally (after decades of self-hate) but Whites are not the end-all and be-all. I think Whites are a bit cold, for one. Hispanics and Blacks are much warmer and friendlier, and it's much easier to befriend them. Of course, their lower-income neighborhoods also have some big downsides too. There's good and bad with all groups, including Whites.

If people are not equal, that's no argument against liberalism. It actually implies we need it even more.

It means we need affirmative action, progressive taxation, humane prisons and all sorts of things you would never think of.

Niggers* and Beaners* Wrecked the Economy Redux

White nationalists have advanced the extremely racist argument that Blacks and Hispanics are responsible for blowing up the economy with the latest subprime mortgage meltdown, which has taken out titans in the insurance and brokerage industry. Lehman Brothers, the 3rd largest brokerage firm on Earth, was allowed to implode.

AIG, one of the world's largest insurance companies, was about to go bankrupt until socialism stepped in, as the Bush Administration bought an 80% stake in the firm. I do support nationalizing huge industrial titans like this that have proven too irresponsible to run a modern company.

AIG went down because they insured the subprime securities that investors bought against going bad. Yes, you can buy insurance on your stocks, bonds, derivatives and other financial crap. Amazing, huh?

It remains to be seen whether an $85 billion bailout of AIG is a good bargain for taxpayers. It seems that we are investing public money in this mountain of AIG's losses, no? How is the public supposed to benefit from this?

AIG investors are now scrambling around trying to figure out a way to pay back that debt in order to ward off a government socialist buyout of 80% of the stock. I do not think that they can do it. AIG is, in my opinion, insolvent. Nor do I think they will have much luck borrowing money from anyone else. Would you loan these losers any money? Get real.

Meanwhile, even after the bailout, AIG's stock is still being pounded into the dirt. I guess that bailout didn't make anyone happier about AIG stock. Everyone exposed to AIG stock in the form of pensions and other funds is scrambling to get out from under the avalanche. Pension funds are suing AIG for wiping out their holdings.

Do you own an AIG insurance policy? That's not worth much, if you ask me. States are now "reassuring" policyholders. I'd be canceling that toxic policy in a New York minute.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I do not agree with the White Nationalist racist argument that niggers* and beaners* blew up the economy.

They apparently got this argument for articles like this Village Voice piece. However, if you read the piece carefully, it does not support the WN argument at all.

Under the cover of anti-racism, Andrew Cuomo and the rest of the Clinton criminals gave the industry what it wanted - loosened regulations on whom they could loan to. "It is also worth remembering that the motive for this bipartisan ownership expansion probably had more to do with the legion of lobbyists working for lenders, brokers, and Wall Street than an effort to walk in MLK's footsteps", as the article notes.

Note that the Bush Republicans did not overturn a single one of Cuomo's "anti-racist" loosening of standards. Furthermore, as I read the article, there was no federal "mandate to loan to more Black and Brown poor people."

This argument makes it seem like Evil Big Government liberals forced prudent bankers to make loans to non-White deadbeats that they knew would go bad, loans that they themselves did not want to make. This is not the case.

The debt was already being sold and resold all over the place, and, as the article notes, even if the borrower defaulted, that was no big deal either, as they would just resell the home. Lots of money to be made all around on every step of the chain, even if the borrower defaults.

The latest insanity, where Joe Public gets to bail out a bunch of gambler criminals, is truly horrible. Basically, you and me will be forced to buy up all this bad debt from a bunch of white collar crooks, debt that is nearly worthless. For this worthless debt, we will fork over $1 trillion for a pile of stinking garbage.

Further, the crooks are absolved of all of their losses at the Mortgage Casino and free to go gamble away again. This means we are setting ourselves for this situation to recur over and over, and as long as the public bails out all losses and guarantees all gains, there is zero motivation to be prudent. Wow, isn't neoliberal capitalism a great system!

Incredibly, both parties, from the most liberal of Democrats to the most conservative of Republicans, got in on this bullshit. A particularly horrible feature of the plan that the "liberals" went along with is that there are to be no new regulations whatsoever on the financial industry. Gotta love those liberal Dems!

In this way, corporate criminals get to make all of the money they can with this sort of gambling, but then when they start losing money, you and me have to bail them out. What a bunch of fucking shit!

That's like giving me a credit card to go to the casino and I get to keep all of my winnings and any time I lose money, you all get to pay me back so I can go to the casino tomorrow. I like that deal! Let's set it up now!

*Used sardonically

Niggers* and Beaners* Wrecked the Economy and Other BS

It's not just White nationalists who are making this racist argument. The business class has also taken it up. Turns out Bill Clinton blew up the economy by forcing fine upstanding loan sharks to loan to stupid, low IQ, morally depraved, irresponsible Blacks and Hispanics.

I do not agree with this argument, "Blacks and Browns ruined our economy" one bit. For one thing, there is not the tiniest bit of evidence that this is true. Social scientists and journalists, liberal or not, often tell the truth. If Blacks and Hispanics ruined our economy, that's unpleasant to hear to most liberals, but it's going to come out sooner or later, because a lot liberals (like me) would write about it whether it's PC or not.

First of all, the "pressure to loan to Blacks and Browns" thing came in under Clinton around 1992 or so. There was a problem, because entire Black and Brown neighborhoods were redlined as bad credit risk. There were all sorts of creditworthy folks living there, but they could not get a loan because of where they lived.

This was back in the American Middle Ages, 15 years ago, when lenders actually cared whether or not you could repay a loan.

The economy blew up due to subprimes in 2008. There is a horrible time lag there that just does not make sense.

This argument portrays lenders as the good guys who were forced to loan to scummy non-White ghetto types who never intended to pay back their loans.

First of all, the banks were never really involved in any of this from what I can tell. One of the drivers of this whole crazy mess was the farming out of home loans to home loan institutions like Countrywide which were basically run by criminals. The banks washed their hands of the debt because it wasn't getting paid back to them anyway.

The Countrywide folks deliberately made bad debts to noncreditworthy folks because the debt wasn't going to be paid back to them either. Why? They were going to package it and fraudulently sell it to a bunch of sucker victims. Criminal accounting agencies gave the crap mortgage securities AAA ratings so they sold better.

Suckers all over bought the stuff, including I guess a bunch of banks?! Surely, brokerages went up to their necks in buying crap mortgage securities. Then insurance companies like AIG insured the buyers of this crap debt in case it went bad. The whole fraudulent mess blew up, as anyone with any sense knew it would. But when to scammers and fraudsters ever care about the damage they do?

This argument attempts to portray the Countrywide criminals as fine upstanding citizens, forced by Evil Big Government into making loans to deadbeat niggers* and beaners* who anyone knew would never pay back the loans.

That's not true. These guys were deliberately making shit loans because they make like ~$5,000 commission on each one. They sold the debt so they didn't give a damn if it went bad. The more loans the better. Standards were lowered and subprime bullshit was invented to get noncreditworthy folks in the door and put their John Hancock on the loan they could never pay back.

Suckers were fooled about their real ability to pay back the loans - they were told that they would be able to pay back the loans easily, and they fell for it. Hey, scammers and fraudsters are good. They fool all sorts of people, even smart people, all the time. It's not the victim's fault when he's taken by a sociopathic con artist.

Furthermore, it is not up to me to decide whether or not I can pay back a loan.

Me? I'm basically insolvent.

I'd love to have a loan for $20,000, $50K, $100K or however much your fool ass is willing to loan to me.

Of course I can't pay it back.

My credit rating will get wrecked, but if I need the cash, I won't care, and anyway, you will be left holding the bag, and out for $100K or whatever. It's up to you, the lender, to decide if I am a good credit risk or not. One look at my bottom line should send any lender into paroxysms of laughter.

Anyone who makes an extravagant loan to me is an idiot, deserves what they get, and odds are they are going to lose big. Lending institutions used to be sane. Borrowers were examined with a fine tooth comb and run through the gauntlet. Few loans went bad.

When the loan isn't coming back to you anyway, there's zero motive to care about repayability.

That's a recipe for disaster.

Here a smart commenter, turkey, offers a modified theory that offers bits of both theories and seems to make sense. Clintonite neoliberal hucksters used anti-racism as a ruse to allow (Not force, since they wanted to do it anyway!) lenders to lower standards. They tossed in the clincher of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac backing of the crap loans.

This was an era in which both Republicans and Democrats were in on the increasing privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Some Clintonite Dem criminals like Franklin Raines made millions off this fraud. Republicans were basically along for the ride. Black and Brown proles were used as suckers and conned into credit-wrecking loans that they could not pay back so huckster-criminals could make a fast buck.

RL: "There appears to be little evidence to back this up. For many years, banks had different standards for Whites versus non-Whites and many Blacks found it almost impossible to get a home loan no matter how good their credit was."

turkey: Actually, the VDare top guy (Brimelow) pointed out in a '93 Forbes article that the default rate in the early '90s was the same for blacks and whites, i.e. the mortgage lenders were using correct terms and the market was sane. If blacks were held to unreasonably high standards they'd have had lower default rates than whites.

Instead during the '90s the neoliberal Democrats used race crusading as a ruse to let lenders make quick money off marginal loans often implicitly backed by the government (which they were all champing at the bit to do - this does not excuse them), while seeming to stay on the side of the angels, and Republicans saw the angle and got down in the trough, too.

The default rate differential between whites and black ballooned under the irrational regime. I'm not familiar with the "Hispanic" analogs but there's been so much immigration that it's probably hard to follow.

There's actually a PDF on the net of a response from Fannie Mae propagandists in the early '90s trying to get Brimelow to shut up about their gravy train that you can download. The bullshitting is obvious in hindsight.

So the higher quality of white nationalists are laying some blame on the exploitation of the religion of anti-racism, not on lumpen whites and blacks and mestizos and Amerinds themselves, who shouldn't be blamed for trusting a smiling fixer that said they could have a nice house.

*Used sardonically

Albanians Are Neither White Nor Europeans?

A lot of White Nationalist idiots insist that Albanians are either not White (Whatever the Hell that means!), or, more particularly, that they are not Europeans (!). The reason that "Albanians are not Europeans", despite the fact that they live in Europe (!) is apparently because "Albanians are Muslims". So White folks, who live in Europe, but are Muslims, are automagically transformed into "non-Whites". Nice magic!

First of all, that is not entirely true. It's true that the Kosovars were mostly Muslims, but in Albania proper, the population was originally about 50% Muslim, 30% Catholic and 20% Orthodox Christian. Albanian Orthodox, apparently. I never even knew that existed.

Pretty interesting phenotype. I like those girls. Love the way they look. I'm not sure quite what they look like; I'm thinking they have a phenotype all their own? They look a lot like Italians. Looking at the guys, I think they look like Greeks. They have a very interesting nose. I'm not sure if it's a Greek nose or an Italian nose. It's prominent, but still attractive.

I assume they are just some type of Meds. I'm not down with all those old anthropological types. Notice that there are a fair number of blonds. Nordicist retards say this is because "Nordics" went down to the Mediterranean, civilized the backwards Meds, become their ruling class, did all those great Italian and Greek civilizational Med things we swoon about, then took off back to Germany or wherever to run around in bear skins with rude tribes of White gangbangers called Vandals and such.

Dumb, huh? Truth is, Meds went up north and actually helped to form those great Nordics. Nordics are part Med. I got my hands on this great proto-Nazi Nordicist book once out of Germany from around 1920. Everything was race, race, race. It was kind of cool the way he split Caucasians up into all these groups. But it seems that the ruling classes of all of the great empires - Indian, Persian, Armenian, Roman, Greek, you name it - were all Nordics!

Germanic proto-Nazi dudes were running all over Europe and West Asia forming ruling classes and creating great civilizations and lording it over the the untermenschen darkie types, then high-tailing it back to Germany as soon as civilization collapsed. Back to Germany, one of the least civilized places on Earth, except it was exporting Platos and Caesars to the world. Yeah right! Supremacists are so funny sometimes.


More Albanians! All blonds, pretty much. You see any particular phenotype there? I don't. They just look like White people. No wait! They're not White! Only Nordics are! Snark. These people don't look like Muslims either. They look like young folks who like to have unmarried sex. Have fun kids!

100% of Hardcore US Racists Vote Republican

If you go to White nationalist sites, you will be damned if you ever find even one Democrat on those boards. You will find some ex-Democrats. Nor will you even find one person who votes Democrat, except some now voting Obama for racist reasons*.

I've made the rounds of many of these sites. The truth is that 100% of US hardcore White racists vote Republican! Year in and year out. Are there any hardcore White racists in the US who vote Democrat? I do not think so. I've never met one, and I've never seen one anywhere on the Net.

The White racists are simply a subset of US Whites. On the White racist sites, they make it completely clear that the Republican Party is the party to vote for if you are White, and especially if you are a racist White.

In looking at how White racists in the US vote overwhelmingly Republican, we can begin to understand why US Whites vote so overwhelmingly Republican. I suggest that the hardcore racists and the rest of the Whites are voting Republican for some pretty similar reasons.

James Schipper in the comments points out that the Republican Party has hardly given US Whites a damned thing for their racist votes. At the very least, he argues, it could have come down hard on illegal immigration, reduced legal immigration and ended affirmative action.

Instead, the Republican Party is 100% Open Borders and can't get enough millions of legal immigrants to satisfy their needs. It's true that they have made some movements on affirmative action, and it's being outlawed by many states anyway. But private firms can still have diversity goals and whatnot, and that's apparently legal.

The Republican Party has been winking at White racism for decades now. In 1981, Reagan went to the site in the South where the bodies of the two murdered civil rights workers were found and spoke before a crowd of hollering, hooting White peckerwood crackers, saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been a horrible mistake. Bush's appointees to the Supreme Court apparently oppose civil rights, but little has come of that.

The Republicans, a plutocratic political party, have used the racist Whites in the same way they used the culture warriors, the Christian Right and the rest. Your average plutocrat is probably not very racist, not very religious and cares nothing about holy roller Christians.

Wealthy young women have abortions in very high numbers. The wealthy drink, use drugs, have promiscuous sex, have homosexual sex, and do all sorts of depraved things at a greater rate than the middle classes - they always have in most every society. At the same time, they cynically use the culture wars stuff to get the fools and suckers to vote for the plutocratic party.

Like the rich who supported the Nazis, they hope to use them for the ride and hopefully never implement any of the projects of the racists or holy rollers. When it finally gets to the point where the rich need to implement racist or holy roller policies in order to stay in power, things get awfully dicey. It's a dirty, dirty, dirty, dirty game the rich play.

*There is a fascinating movement within White nationalism called White Nationalists For Obama. The idea here is to "heighten the contradictions" in Marxist terms. Electing a Black president will be so horrible that it will "wake up the sleeping Whites" to the White racist cause.

The resulting tumult will be so great that a vast race war will break in the US. In the course of this race war, the Whites will win. The upshot will be either the removal of all non-Whites from the US, or their sequestration to a few states of their own.

I used to think that the race war thing was only a dream of the real hardcore White power types, but even if you go to the more moderate sites, you will find huge numbers of commenters who are all for race war in the US to "shake things out". I was appalled. I really don't think it's ever going to happen, but in analyzing White nationalism, we ought to conclude that many, perhaps most, of them long for a race war in the US.