Three hypotheses

In which various explanative hypotheses for the recent black riots are contemplated:

Hypothesis One: Different races—different local varieties of Homo sap., that have followed different paths through evolutionary space for many, many generations, end up with different distributions on most heritable traits. That includes traits of intelligence, behavior, and personality.

So in a multiracial society that rewards certain traits and penalizes others, different races will precipitate out, average-average, at different social levels. American blacks, for example, with low average IQ, low average impulse control, and high average inclinations to antisocial behavior, will tend to pool at the bottom of society, in slums and prisons and criminal gangs.

The blacks thus pooled, being too dimwitted to understand anything about biology or statistics, will attribute their sorry plight to the malice of hostile agents. They’ll develop a lot of anger against those agents, the anger occasionally breaking out in riots.

Their attributing their crappy life outcomes to the machinations of evil agents is itself a hypothesis of course, one that you can set down on the table next to mine. It’s Hypothesis Two.

Here’s one black guy expounding Hypothesis Two last Saturday, one of the Milwaukee rioters.

It’s sad, because, you know, this what happen because they not helping the black community. They, like, you know … The rich people, they got all this money, and they not, like, you know, trying to give us none.

Here’s Hypothesis Three, offered by The New York Times. This one must be serious stuff, backed by rock-ribbed deep social analysis, to be aired in such a prestigious outlet. Right?


Tackling the root causes of crime would be the most effective way to make the community safer and calm tensions, Reggie Moore, Director of Milwaukee’s Office of Violence Prevention, said. “I think it’s a matter of having a dual conversation about what justice needs to look like in this particular situation, but also the broader conversation of what a just community looks like,” Mr. Moore said.

Brilliant! Tackle the root causes of crime! Have a conversation!—a dual conversation! And then a broader conversation!

With a penetrating intellect like Mr. Moore’s on the job, we should have the problem solved in no time. How can it be that, in these fifty years since the long hot summer of 1967, how can it be that no-one ever thought we need to tackle the root causes of crime? And have a conversation? It’s so simple!

So there you are: three hypotheses about what causes riots.

Hypothesis One: cranky old Derb with his stupid, bigoted, so-called “race realism.”
Hypothesis Two: It’s the fault of rich people not giving money to the black community.
Hypothesis Three: It’s our failure to tackle the root causes of crime and to have conversations.

Take your pick.

Well, regardless of which hypothesis is correct, I think we all know what the answer is: education.


The white dilemma

Think about how many nice white people in Minnesota will decry these two men in Little Falls who are doing nothing more than trying to defend their land from invasion by aliens without resorting to violence:‪

The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MN) is calling on the FBI to investigate an alleged threat by two men to burn down the house of a Somali-American woman in that state if she and her family do not leave town. The Muslim woman, who moved to Little Falls, Minn., earlier this year, was reportedly confronted at her home by two men who called her a terrorist and said Muslims are not allowed to live in that city.

Now think about how many of those nice white people in Minnesota are going to shriek like banshees among themselves when the first Somali moves into their neighborhood. And how they’re going to lament the way that no one did anything to prevent it from happening.

There are no good choices anymore. If Little Falls is now diverse, there is literally nowhere in the USA left to run, and it is apparent that the full force of the Federal government will be used against anyone who doesn’t meekly submit to the invasion. 20 years ago, leaving the USA was a realistic option. But it’s much more difficult now, since other nations want Americans about as much as other US states want Californians.

This is the world that all that lovely diversity and multiculturalism has wrought. But fortunately, no matter what happens, we’ll be able to rest secure in the knowledge that at least we didn’t give anyone cause to call us racist.


When dilution fails

Steve Sailer observes that distributed integration is bound to fail:

A general problem faced by liberal social policies is that they are all based on 1960s assumptions about the immense size of the white Baby Boom majority into which minority problem people can be diluted at little harm to individual members of the majority.

The fundamental problem with progressive social policies in 2016 is that the country is running out of white kids to use to absorb the problems of minority kids.

We could charitably call this the Tragic Paradox of Liberalism: the liberal solution has always been to integrate the problem minorities with the majority, but to get the political power to do that, liberals have systematically set about reducing the majority to a minority, which means that their traditional solutions won’t work anymore, even in theory.

The secret way in which the local governments are surreptitiously buying suburban houses and installing black families in them is downright diabolical, considering how much effort whites around the USA have put into peacefully escaping minority-invaded communities.

This is not only evil on the part of the local governments, but it is extremely short-sighted, because if white flight is removed as an option, the only alternative that remains is white fight. Perhaps triggering that is the goal, as it appears the government officials are perfectly aware of the extreme unpopularity of their actions.


That seems likely

I’m sure the good people of Calais, who can’t even drive on the highways near their homes, will be happy to have a few of the people smashing up their cars move in with them:

There are currently 147 reception centres across France, but these are in massive demand as desperate refugees continue to flee the Middle East.

Housing minister Emmanuelle Cosse has pledged to built a further 50 centres before the end of next month in a desperate bid to ease the crisis.

But she has also called on French people to open up their homes to migrants in need. Several organisations have already promised to help.

The group Singa has helped 300 migrants find a temporary home since it launched its ‘Calm’ scheme last June.

Singa co-director Alice Barbe said: “We match people according to where they live, their job, their hobbies, and the languages they speak.

“If things work out, the migrant will remain in the person’s home for a minimum of two weeks, and for up to nine months.”

How much do you want to bet that neither Cosse nor Barbe has any migrants living with them?


A prescription for Africa

Peter Grant provides his thoughts on aiding Africa:

Based on my extensive experience of Africa, I suggest there are two – and only two – ways in which Western aid should be focused in the short term.  The first is education.  Teach people the basics of how to think, how to use their brains – and do so in a way that is tailored to their current levels of intelligence.  Don’t expect a teenager with an IQ of 70 to function at the same level as someone with an IQ of 100.  He must be taught things he can do – and at which he can succeed – that are commensurate with where he’s at right now.  That way, he won’t get discouraged and abandon his studies.  He can be set tasks that grow progressively more complex and more difficult, but not at a level he can’t master.  His children will go further, and his children’s children further still . . . but he won’t.  He can’t.  That’s the brutal reality of the situation.

The second way in which aid can be useful is in providing basic infrastructure that is operable, and maintainable, and sustainable, by people in the IQ range we’ve discussed.  Examples:

  • It’s pointless giving them a complex engine-powered pump to bring up water from a well if they aren’t capable of maintaining it.  Rather give them a hand-operated pump, one they can understand, and which they can repair themselves if it breaks down.  It’s more and harder work to use it, but it’s also more practicable for them.  When it comes to health care, providing mosquito nets and clean water and hygiene education is far more important than providing anti-AIDS drug cocktails.  Sure, without the latter, people will die;  but without the former, many more people will die. Invest limited resources where they’ll do the most good for the greatest number.  Yes, that means some people will be condemned to die.  That’s economic and cultural reality in Africa.  Live with it.
  • I’ve seen several entrepreneurs in Africa take discarded Western high technology, ‘dumb it down’, and use it with great success.  Example:  pedal-powered washing machines (which we’ve discussed here before).  Old, broken-down automatic washing machines are connected to good old-fashioned bicycles mounted on frames, using drive belts made from locally-produced leather or cloth.  Result;  the pedalers earn a living, local women can wash their clothes much faster and more conveniently than taking them down to the local river (where they’re frequently preyed on by crocodiles), and the entrepreneur who put the whole idea together becomes a Big Man in the local economy – and is able to use his profits for other useful economic ideas.  Moral of the story:  find individuals with that sort of entrepreneurial drive, and help them.  That aid will ‘trickle down’ into the local community and benefit everyone.
  • The corollary to the above is that aid must not – repeat, must not – be given to government officials and bureaucrats who’ll siphon it off into their own pockets.  Corruption, nepotism and dishonesty are not just rife in Africa – they’re a way of life.  Tragically, too many agencies and large aid organizations (all of which should know better) are willing to let dishonest governments and bureaucrats handle aid money, so as not to offend local sensibilities or be seen as ‘neo-colonial’ in their attitudes.  Worse, some of them openly bribe governments and bureaucrats, figuring that it’s better to do that in order to ensure that at least some of the aid they provide reaches those for whom it’s intended.  Often that proportion is ten per cent or less – the rest lines venal pockets further up the food chain.
  • Finally, aid must be distributed in a way that is accountable.  Money and supplies must be accounted for when they arrive, while being sent to their final destination, and upon delivery.  The way they’re used must be monitored, and any discrepancy must result in disciplinary action – i.e. the withholding of further aid from the miscreant(s) involved.  There can be no blind acceptance of someone’s bona fides unless their actions match their words.  There can be no resigned, shoulder-shrugging acceptance of ‘shrinkage’ without a major effort to minimize losses.  If that isn’t done, the venality of Africa will soon ensure that most (if not all) of the aid sent is diverted into fat-cat pockets.  (How do you think Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire, managed to embezzle between $4 billion and $15 billion during his time in power?  It sure wasn’t his salary!)

There is a third way in which aid might be profitably spent – but it’ll never fly, because it’s 100% politically incorrect.  That way would be to hire mercenaries – probably former servicemen from Western armies and their allies – to pacify an area, ensuring that aid workers can operate safely and without coercion.  They can raise and train a local militia if responsible individuals can be found, but that’s unlikely at first.  It’ll be more important for them to proactively attack local thugs and gangs.  That’ll be an object lesson to everybody – “Get with the program, or get dead!”  In an environment where life is so cheap, and atrocities are everyday occurrences, that’s probably the only way in which this could work.  However, the reaction to that by liberals and progressives would be so outraged that, as I said, this idea will never fly.

While I agree with Peter’s diagnosis, I don’t agree with his prescription. Education will not change one single damn thing in Africa because it cannot. The intelligence gap between Europe and Africa is genetic and only several centuries of ruthless eugenics will raise the average intelligence of the latter continent. In fact, despite more people being more educated than ever before, the dysgenic social structure of both the European nations and the USA has already reduced their average intelligence levels; the gap is being reduced, but by lowering the average intelligence levels in Europe and the USA.

That is why we are seeing the Western countries gradually start resembling the better third-world countries. Over time, they will start to resemble Africa, and similar behavioral patterns will begin to exert themselves. The only good news, if it can be described as that, is that the Western warlords of the future will likely be considerably smarter than their African counterparts, so perhaps there will be the occasional Singapore that can serve as the core of a new high-IQ civilization.

And since  the current population explosion in Africa is almost certainly dysgenic, I expect that the average intelligence will actually decline in Africa and the situation will get even worse there, with widespread cannibalism and other practices even more depraved and demonic than mutu beginning to appear.

The more I look at the global situation, the more I am convinced that those in the 1980s who thought Japan and China would dominate the world were correct, they were simply about 100 years early. The fall of the Soviet Union was not the triumph of Western liberal democracy, it was its last chance, but instead of taking that chance, the liberal democracies slashed their own throats. Yes, Japan and China are both economic disasters, but they are still smart, homogeneous nations and they will bounce right back from the next economic crash. Most of the nations of the West are not, and therefore they will not be able to do so.

That, I think, is why China is biding its time. It has no need to defeat the USA. It need only wait and let the USA finish destroying itself.


The evil of innocents abroad

Sometimes, it doesn’t turn out as well for the do-gooders as it did in the #1 bestselling literary satire, The Missionaries, as Peter Grant, South African military veteran and witness to many an atrocity in Africa, testifies:

I’ve seen this so many times in Africa that the memories are seared into my mind . . . yet the ‘innocents abroad’ keep on going there in the expectation that because they’re aid workers, they’ll be respected by the locals.  “In the event of trouble, the people we’re helping will protect us.  Everything will be fine.”  I was told that, in those specific words, by a medical volunteer in West Africa . . . two weeks before she was raped to death (including being raped vaginally and anally by multiple bayonets, after her assailants had had their fun) by Foday Sankoh’s RUF thugs in Sierra Leone.  She was an attractive woman when I last saw her.  Two weeks later, her torn, burned, sliced-open corpse was a nightmare.  I could not identify her by sight.  It took dental records and a forensic pathologist to do that.

People, if you visit a part of the world – not just Africa, but anywhere – where human life is cheap, where torture and rape are everyday occurrences, where tribal and/or religious and/or ethnic divisions are excuses for savagery and bestiality of the worst kind, then the odds are pretty good that you’re going to experience those realities for yourself.  The locals don’t care that you’re there to help them.  They don’t care about your high-minded ideals, or your purity of vision of the new Utopia you’re trying to build for them.  To them, you’re “other”.

Helping Africa is one of the very worst things any Western individual can do. Possibly the most evil individual of the 20th century is not Hitler, Mao, or Stalin, but Norman Borlaug, the so-called Father of the Green Revolution, who is credited with saving one billion Africans Indians and Pakistanis from dying of starvation.

Guess what the consequence of that particular piece of idiocy is going to be? Borlaugh’s Nobel Peace Prize will eventually come to be seen as far more ironic than Barack Obama’s.

In 1971, the population of Nigeria was 51 million. Thanks to Borlaug’s innovations and Western assistance, it is estimated that the population of Nigeria will be 400 million. The UN estimates that it will be the world’s third-most populous country, behind China and India.


With the highest rate of population growth, Africa is expected to account for more than half of the world’s population growth between 2015 and 2050. During this period, the populations of 28 African countries are projected to more than double, and by 2100, ten African countries are projected to have increased by at least a factor of five: Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Somalia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia.

My expectation is that considerably more than one billion people are going to die as a direct result of the do-gooders interventions in Africa. And not all of them are going to be Africans either.


EEK! the cuckservative squeaked

Docweasel needs to virtue-signal harder. I think there may have been a few Chileans near the Antarctic side of South America who didn’t hear him:

That image posted at the top of post isn’t what I’d call “Christian”- I’m the last one to be over-sensitive or pulling the race card, but that image is flat out racist.

No one who calls themselves Christian or bemoans the loss of Christian ethics has any business posting something like that, or else they have a thin grasp of exactly what Christianity is in the first place.

I only started reading this site regularly a few months ago when a link from somewhere else brought me here. If this is the tone I don’t guess this is the place for me.

Cucks are always liars. In 87 comments, he is, quite literally, the very first one to be oversensitive and to pull out the race card.

Docweasel is a good programmed little cuck who believes “thou shalt not criticize minorities or portray them in any unflattering manner” is the 11th Commandment. And he just knows that the avoidance of being called racist is the true Christian’s highest priority. He would call Jesus Christ himself racist for comparing Samaritans to dogs.

This definitely isn’t the place for you, Docweasel. The Hell on Earth that is being made is the place for you. You would do well to leave. You and your Churchian kind are not welcome here. Go signal your virtue somewhere else.

As I once wrote on Twitter, I don’t hate blacks, I just don’t expect them to be white. What I hate is white virtue-signalers. And more from Twitter:

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the god now worshipped by Churchians is Equality. To them, Jesus Christ is the way to Equality.

Ming the Merciless ‏@_Emperor_Ming_
It’s like the Left subverted the Church and turned it into a vehicle to advance their agenda, or something!

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
If only someone had warned Christians about false teachers infiltrating the Church in order to mislead them!

Consider the following train of logic:

  1. Christians are warned that false teachers would infiltrate the Church.
  2. What many Church leaders are teaching today is observably different from historical Christian teachings and contradicts the Bible itself.
  3. Who, then, are the false teachers? 

Debunking Snopes

A number of people have referred to the Snopes “debunking” of the Hiroshima-Detroit comparison, failing to realize that a) it doesn’t address blacks at all, and, b) I wrote my post in the first place because the supposed debunking was so feeble.

Here is an accurate summary of the Snopes argument.

1. The picture is not of modern-day Hiroshima.


the next image in the set supposedly depicts modern-day Hiroshima — except that it doesn’t. It’s actually a snapshot taken from the Landmark Tower Sky Garden in Yokohama, Japan

That’s true of the pictures to which Snopes was referring. It’s not true of the pictures I used, which one can see is clearly of past and present Hiroshima. Furthermore, Hiroshima is in very good shape today, as Snopes itself admits. One down.


2. The picture of modern Detroit is only of one building.

the thing to note about the use of this image to portray Detroit as a locus of Hiroshima-like devastation is that all we actually see is one long-abandoned, crumbling building. It doesn’t make the case.

That one picture doesn’t conclusively prove the case, but it correctly demonstrates the actual case intended. Detroit’s population is now 36.7 percent of its 1950s peak and is now 83 percent black. 95 percent of the whites who resided there in 1950 have left. The city filed for bankruptcy in 2013. “aerial photos reveal the tiny urban island that is left – a clutter of high-rises surrounded by empty housing plots now covered in grass.” Two down.

3. The picture of Navin Field is from the 1930s, not the 1940s.

Lastly, we’re shown a photo supposedly depicting Detroit in its mid-1940s heyday — except that it was taken in the mid-1930s

So what? That only makes it that much more clear how advanced Detroit was, and how far Detroit has fallen since. This is petty pedantry, as the relevant point is still demonstrated. Three down.

4. It was the Democrats fault, but it wasn’t only their fault.

Did Democrats and Democratic policies play some role in the fall of Detroit? Surely they did. Every Detroit mayor since 1962 has been a Democrat, after all. But Republicans held the seat for the 12 years prior to that, from 1950 through 1961. The Packard plant whose hollowed-out remains were displayed above closed its doors during that time. Whatever blame is to be allotted to politicians must be shared by both Democrats and Republicans on the national level, as well.


Here is a tip: when you admit that the case being made is correct, even in part, it is not a debunking. Four down. There is not one single effective point that was made in this so-called “debunking”.

The ironic thing about those responding to my modified Detroit-Hiroshima comparison with “Snopes says” is that I rebutted the cuckservative “Democrat policies” explanation for the difference between the two cities more effectively than Snopes did by pointing out that if Democrats are responsible for the decline of Detroit, Hiroshima should be even worse, because it was ruled by Socialists for most of the latter half of the 20th century.

Are there other factors that have contributed to the decline of Detroit beyond the fact that 478,112 blacks moved into the city between 1900 and 1960? Certainly. But that doesn’t change the fact that if a city has a choice between being hit by an atomic bomb or acquiring 774,485 new black residents, the available evidence strongly indicates that the former will prove vastly preferable to the latter in the long term.


Are blacks worse than atomic bombs?

I was drawn to look into this for myself after Snopes tried to dismiss a meme that was going around comparing Hiroshima to Detroit on the basis of some rather spurious grounds, so I thought I’d have a look at the evidence myself.

Now, some have argued that because Detroit’s core downtown is still intact, this proves that the decay of the city surrounding it is irrelevant. But a city is more than its downtown, as the comparative population figures demonstrate the same contrast that the pictures do.

Detroit population 
1950: 1.8 million
2016: 680,000


Hiroshima population
1945: 260,000
2015: 1.2 million

Note that this is the most favorable possible comparison for Detroit, as the 1945 Hiroshima population is post-bombing and is based upon the smallest reported casualty count. Moreover, Detroit filed for bankruptcy in 2013, which was the largest municipal bankruptcy filing in US history.

The claim that the pictures are misleading is a dishonest and knowingly deceitful response. The fact that the downtown still exists merely indicates the destructive process is not yet entirely complete, as that downtown is now “a tiny urban island” in a grass-covered, depopulated sea.

In 1950, Detroit was America’s fifth largest city and one of the most prosperous on the back of its booming motor industry. It prompted the construction of skyscrapers on the banks of the river and the development of vast suburban housing projects in the surrounding areas.

But almost 55 years on, a dwindling motor industry and a dramatic fall in blue collar jobs has caused people to leave the Michigan city, abandoning their homes and businesses. These aerial photos reveal the tiny urban island that is left – a clutter of high-rises surrounded by empty housing plots now covered in grass. There are vast areas of open spaces dotted with crumbling industrial buildings and barely-standing Victorian homes until you reach the upmarket suburbs.

The fact that these facts may be uncomfortable or make you feel bad is irrelevant. The evidence is very clear that a black population in excess of an as-yet-undetermined percentage of the overall population renders the continuation of Western civilization impossible. This has been observed everywhere from Capetown to Detroit, and the comparison with Hiroshima only underlines the cultural, economic, and physical devastation that an excessively black population is likely to wreak on a society.

The cuckservative response is that it is Democrat rule, or socialist governing principles, not blacks, who are responsible. This omits two important facts. One, blacks vote for Democrats more solidly than any other group. Two, for most of the post-war years for which I’ve been able to find the relevant data, Hiroshima has been governed by members of the Japan Social Democratic Party, “a political party that advocates the establishment of a socialist Japan.”

What should be done about it? I don’t know. But since my people were forcibly put on reservations, I’m not terribly inclined to pay much attention to any appeals to equality or the rhetorical hysterics of dyscivilizationists protesting that nothing can, or should, be done to avert the collapse of civilization throughout the West.


The decline of white America

Is the decline of America because America is, by definition, white:

Surveys by the Public Religion Research institute show that nearly 40 percent of Americans say that newcomers from other countries threaten traditional American customs and values. Thirty one percent of white people say that “the idea of America where most people are not white bothers me.”

This discomfort with growing diversity is generally most evident among Americans who are older and more conservative. To understand it, it helps to understand where they’re coming from. The census data show that roughly half of white Americans lived in a county where 9 out of 10 people were white in 1980. Today, just over a quarter do. Raising our threshold to 98 percent white, as in the maps above, shows that 15 percent of white Americans lived in these near-exclusively white areas in 1980, while less than one percent do today.

Of course, these thresholds are somewhat arbitrary. A county that goes from 98.1 percent white in 1980 to 97.6 percent white in 2010 is not necessarily experiencing a demographic revolution. But the sharp drop in the aggregate number of these nearly all-white counties makes for a useful marker of demographic change.

This 30-year timespan is within living memory for many of the people expressing unease with racial changes. They can look back on a time when literally everyone around them looked like them, and compare it to the present day, where people are becoming more and more different from each other — at least at the level of skin color.

What is so brutally dishonest about this coverage by the mainstream media is that it completely ignores all the other reasons Americans might not be enthusiastic about seeing their country invaded and their nation destroyed, for one or more of the following reasons:

  • Reduced average intelligence
  • Fewer jobs
  • Lower wages
  • Less political representation
  • Reduced political influence
  • Less community engagement
  • Increased pollution and environmental damage
  • More expensive housing
  • More crowded roads
  • Uglier people
  • Differing standards of home and yard maintenance
  • Increased difficulty in communicating
  • More support for government intervention in their lives
  • The increased likelihood of war and ethnic cleansing
To boil all that down to racism and a desire to see people who look like you is not merely disingenuous, it is completely dishonest.
Never forget that homogeneous nations come out of heterogeneous empires.