The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Derbyshire ArchiveBlogview
Why Educrats Can’t Handle Black Affirmative Action Babies
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_126952082
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

A few days ago, I had the honor of sitting at a dinner gathering across the table from James Watson, the world’s greatest living geneticist, joint winner of the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of the DNA molecule. It was a private gathering so I’m not offering any specifics. But I can report that Dr. Watson is still vexed about his public shaming eight years ago after he told a newspaper interviewer that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospects for Africa because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.” [Fury at DNA pioneer’s theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, By Cahal Milmo, Independent, September 18, 2011]

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in his 2012 book The Righteous Mind, argued that the human moral faculty is built around five axes. He gave them names like “Care/Harm”—that is, caring about others is at one end of this axis, harming them at the other. Another axis is “Fairness/Cheating” with fairness at the positive end and cheating at the negative. Later Haidt added a sixth axis. Haidt and his colleagues worked up a Moral Foundations Questionnaire they could give to test subjects, to see where they placed on each axis.

Well, one of these basic axes—Haidt actually calls them “foundations”—is “Sanctity/Degradation.” Haidt argues from the case of the German guy who advertised on the internet for someone willing to be killed, cooked, and eaten by him. [German cannibal tells of fantasy, BBC, December 3, 2003] He got hundreds of responses, interviewed likely applicants, made a selection, then killed and ate the guy—all on video, to prove the thing was totally consensual.

So, Haidt asks, did anyone do anything wrong there? Your answer tells us where you are on the Sanctity/Degradation axis.

And while you can of course rationalize your position—the human mind is a wonderful rationalization machine!—your place on that axis owes much more to intuition than to reason.

Similarly with cognitive scientist Bruce Hood’s experiments, asking a roomful of people whether they’d like to wear a sweater he’s waving in front of them—a sweater that once belonged to a serial killer. Very few people would. Furthermore “in large lecture halls, members of the audience will physically recoil from the few people who say they are willing to wear the sweater.” [Would You Wear a Serial Killer’s Sweater? by Katherine Mangu-Ward, Reason.com, June 12, 2009]

It doesn’t make sense. The sweater’s been dry cleaned. You’re not going to catch serial killing from wearing it.

Reason is not in play. That’s the power of moral intuition.

Jonathan Haidt discovered from his questionnaires that people who are politically liberal register big positive scores on the Care/Harm axis and the Fairness/Cheating axis—that is, they are very keen on Care and Fairness—but not so much on the others. Conservatives had much better balance, with positive scores on all the axes, on things like Authority/Subversion and, yes, Sanctity/Degradation.

It happens that I read Haidt’s book shortly after my own public shaming in April, 2012. Reading about those questionnaire scores, I was shaking my head at the book. It seemed to me that liberals are not so much light on regard for Sanctity, they just attach it to different objects.

To blacks, for example. The late Larry Auster said that blacks are sacred objects in the modern West. He was right. To say negative things about blacks, or to be thought to have negative thoughts about them, is a blasphemy.

It’s like someone in 13th-century Europe speaking ill of the Virgin Mary. The reaction is just the same. You have violated a sacred object.

That’s what James Watson and I did.

This sacralization of blacks is lurking behind a lot of the campus shenanigans we’ve been reading about the past few weeks. A mulatto girl at Yale shrieks foul abuse at the master of her residential hall, a white guy. Another harpy, this one blacker, dishes the same treatment to the President of Princeton University.

Instead of saying, “Shut up, you obnoxious little brat,” and having the students suspended, the white authority figures whine and grovel.

When black students went on a rampage at the Dartmouth college library, yelling foul-mouthed racial and sexual abuse at white students trying to study, the President of Dartmouth, Philip J. Hanlon [email him] wrote that the library ruckus was “a powerful expression of unity in support of social justice.”
[Dartmouth President Announces Investigation of Black-on-White Intimidation, By Lee Stranahan, Breitbart.com, November 25, 2015]

These white college bureaucrats are all far-Left Liberals, of course, with moral intuitions over on the negative side of the Authority/Subversion axis. They can’t help admiring subversion. Their moral intuitions tell them to.

I beg leave to doubt, though, that they would have groveled so low if the shriekers and rampagers had been white.

And let’s face it: Much, probably most, of these recent disturbances are a consequence of Affirmative Action. Most black students, to adapt Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s admiring description of herself, are “Affirmative Action Babies.”

Before I spoke to the Black Law Students’ Association of the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2010, by way of preparation I did some quantitative analysis on the LSAT statistics, that’s the Law School Admission Test. On the basis of a simple LSAT cut-off score, I found that the expected number of blacks in the law school would be four. The actual number was 57. And that’s ignoring the phenomenon of the highest-prestige law schools sucking up all the brightest black applicants.

From a misguided altruism, we admit to our universities big numbers of blacks who can’t do university-level work. Disappointed and frustrated, they act out.

ORDER IT NOW

And the moral intuitions of the universities’ Left-Liberal white administrators leave them poorly equipped to cope. Favoring subversion over authority, they rather admire the shriekers and library-trashers. Regarding blacks as sacred objects, they dare not criticize them for fear their peers will turn on them for blasphemy.

That’s our current campus ructions in a nutshell. And it is, of course, blasphemy to say so.

Back in the early 20th century, when China was still reeling from its failure to compete with the West, the Chinese writer Lu Xun remarked that his countrymen could not look on Westerners as equals. “We Chinese are always,” he said, “either looking down on Westerners as uncouth barbarians, or else looking up to them as superman masters of science and democracy. We can’t look them straight in the eye.”

It’s the same with white attitudes to blacks. They are either dimwitted coons or sacred objects.

Whatever happened to the idea of treating people on their individual merits and faults? What happened to that? Why can’t we look each other straight in the eye, citizen to citizen?

Well, personally, I believe some of us can; but why can’t liberals? Because their moral intuitions won’t let them.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjectsfor all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
    []
  1. “Before I spoke to the Black Law Students’ Association of the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2010, by way of preparation I did some quantitative analysis on the LSAT statistics, that’s the Law School Admission Test. On the basis of a simple LSAT cut-off score, I found that the expected number of blacks in the law school would be four. The actual number was 57. And that’s ignoring the phenomenon of the highest-prestige law schools sucking up all the brightest black applicants.”

    So it’s pretty clear that there is discrimination in favor of blacks in law school admissions, before they arrive at law school.

    But what happens after they get to law school?

    The answer is that most of them do abysmally with respect to first-year grades. An amazingly consistent pattern at American law schools is that half of black law students rank in the bottom 10%, with most of the rest still down there towards the bottom. At least that was the case in 1992, and I doubt that the situation now is much different. See Table 5.1, page 427, (for “elite” law schools) and Table 5.3 , page 431, (for lower-ranked law schools) here:

    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/final/SanderFINAL.pdf

    Of course this pattern is not possible at HBCU law schools, by the pigeon-hole principle of mathematics.

    So most blacks, always touchy about “stereotypes” concerning their intelligence, arrive at law school and discover that they are village idiots in their law school “village”. It can’t be fun being a village idiot. No wonder so many are angry and resentful.

    And what is the effect of this situation on the other law students? When they see that the black students around them are mostly village idiots, many of them constantly whining about being “oppressed” and making preposterous excuses for why they can’t compete, the other students can’t help but feel contempt for these dim bulbs. Of course those other students also know enough to STFU about what they see, but it’s natural for them to develop a negative attitude towards blacks.

    So, the way our law schools admit students seems taylor-made to produce hostility among the blacks and contempt for blacks among the whites and Asians.

    There are huge racial test-score gaps among undergraduates at most universities, but there’s not as much direct competition between smart undergraduates and dumb undergraduates at a particular university as there is between smart law students and dumb law students at a particular law school. Just about all big universities have “College for Dummies” majors that give their dim bulbs a path to a degree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Patrick in SC

    And what is the effect of this situation on the other law students?
     
    They keep their mouths shut, of course, but they don't really mind having these people around. It's less competition. They're already accepted into the school, so it's all the better affirmative action keeps potential competition away.
    , @currahee
    Yes, but "tailor-made", please.
    , @WhatEvvs
    Bingo.

    Just for the hell of it, I've been looking around to see whether or not there has ever been one, just one, black student who completed Harvard's famous and notorious Math 55. I can't find him. Can someone help me? (There have been a few women - but not one black man, to my knowledge.)

    Black physicists...

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/04/do-black-intellectuals-need-to-talk-about-race/black-academics-have-a-responsibility-to-the-next-generation

    This guy admits he was admitted to a Ph.D. program because a black professor forced the issue. Then he was promoted by a "white cosmologist" (disgusting phrase) who was a fan of Malcolm X.

    I don't think he's stupid, but he's taking the place of a white (or more likely, Asian?) guy who had better credentials. Fair?

    More:

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/we-know-physics-largely-white-and-male-exactly-how-white-and-male-still-striking-180952021/?no-ist

    Guys, we are in the middle of a vast cultural meltdown.
    , @Astuteobservor II

    So, the way our law schools admit students seems taylor-made to produce hostility among the blacks and contempt for blacks among the whites and Asians.
     
    damn. this pretty much sum up everything pretty neatly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/why-educrats-cant-handle-black-affirmative-action-babies/#comment-1243792
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. JEC says:

    John Derbyshire argues that college bureaucrats cave in when faced with crazy demands from their ‘students’, because their moral intuition tells them to.

    The problem with moral intuitionism, from every point on the political spectrum, is that in the inevitable event of conflicting intuitions there’s no criterion for deciding between them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    "The problem with moral intuitionism, from every point on the political spectrum, is that in the inevitable event of conflicting intuitions there’s no criterion for deciding between them."

    They are moral intuitions. They decide for you by how they interact and their weight.

    Liberty is the sixth (I think property should be the seventh) moral foundation and for me, a panarchist, it trumps the other foundations. It is my "moralization switch".

    The Moral Instinct

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    The Moralization Switch

    The starting point for appreciating that there is a distinctive part of our psychology for morality is seeing how moral judgments differ from other kinds of opinions we have on how people ought to behave. Moralization is a psychological state that can be turned on and off like a switch, and when it is on, a distinctive mind-set commandeers our thinking. This is the mind-set that makes us deem actions immoral (“killing is wrong”), rather than merely disagreeable (“I hate brussels sprouts”), unfashionable (“bell-bottoms are out”) or imprudent (“don’t scratch mosquito bites”).

    The first hallmark of moralization is that the rules it invokes are felt to be universal. Prohibitions of rape and murder, for example, are felt not to be matters of local custom but to be universally and objectively warranted. One can easily say, “I don’t like brussels sprouts, but I don’t care if you eat them,” but no one would say, “I don’t like killing, but I don’t care if you murder someone.”

    The other hallmark is that people feel that those who commit immoral acts deserve to be punished. Not only is it allowable to inflict pain on a person who has broken a moral rule; it is wrong not to, to “let them get away with it.” People are thus untroubled in inviting divine retribution or the power of the state to harm other people they deem immoral. Bertrand Russell wrote, “The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell.”

    We all know what it feels like when the moralization switch flips inside us — the righteous glow, the burning dudgeon, the drive to recruit others to the cause. The psychologist Paul Rozin has studied the toggle switch by comparing two kinds of people who engage in the same behavior but with different switch settings. Health vegetarians avoid meat for practical reasons, like lowering cholesterol and avoiding toxins. Moral vegetarians avoid meat for ethical reasons: to avoid complicity in the suffering of animals. By investigating their feelings about meat-eating, Rozin showed that the moral motive sets off a cascade of opinions. Moral vegetarians are more likely to treat meat as a contaminant — they refuse, for example, to eat a bowl of soup into which a drop of beef broth has fallen. They are more likely to think that other people ought to be vegetarians, and are more likely to imbue their dietary habits with other virtues, like believing that meat avoidance makes people less aggressive and bestial.
    , @philhellenic
    JEC said:

    "The problem with moral intuitionism, from every point on the political spectrum, is that in the inevitable event of conflicting intuitions there’s no criterion for deciding between them."

    Isn't that what reason, thought, and judgement are for?
  3. JEGG says:

    I think that there is an underlying sexual attraction issue going on in many of the recent outbursts by black women. For whatever reasons, some of which are perhaps biologically-based, black women in general are not found as sexually attractive as non-black women. This can help fuel the deep-seated resentment exhibited in particular by black women toward white male administrators. Unfortunately, I don’t see any solution to this, because I assume that diversity training isn’t ever going to be able to change what someone finds sexually attractive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    All "black" women that are even remotely palatable as sexual partners to any remotely sane white male are, in fact, mulattas with substantial white genetics which dominate in key areas. Even then the allure is largely because of propaganda.

    White men who have relations with underclass ghetto black women are really defective from my own personal observations.

    In my own case, I was never in the slightest aroused by black women, including several of the black musical figures I was around in an earlier occupation, many of whom I regarded highly as musicians and some of whom I thought were very decent human beings. Not that I ever thought I "had a chance with them" anyway, but for instance I thought Donna Summer was a very likable and decent person, but I didn't look at her that way. (Diana Ross, a better vocalist, was also a complete c***, by contrast. Neither could have aroused me had she wanted to.) Chrissie Hynde, only slightly less so in personality, I'd have gotten with in a minute, save for her well known refusal to be intimate with carnivores.

    On the other hand, for example, Japanese and Chinese women were frequently very attractive to me before I became racially conscious and I must admit to having been with several, along with a couple of Koreans, a couple of Iranians and a smattering of "light mestizas". I'm not proud of it, but I was quite promiscuous in my salad days.
    , @TheJester
    Who (desires) whom!

    Months ago I ran across a statistical study that assessed whom the different sexes and races ... White, Black, Asian, Latino (sic) ... prefer the most and least as partners. Given the aggregate scores in Men Rating Women, Asian and White women scored near the top. Black women were at the bottom.

    It is no wonder that Black women tend to be "in your face" and angry. Yes, they get the message. I wonder if this has something to do with the phenomenon of "shrieking Black females" in the recent ruckus on campuses. They don't FEEL "inclusive" and are desperate to have someone do something about it.

    , @Erik Sieven
    I doubt that this plays a big role. As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women. Similar to the partner market of other mammals competition is amongst males. On average women with subsaharan African ancestry are surely perceived as less attractive than other women. But still the majority of women with subsaharan African ancestry could persuade males of any ancestry to have sex with them any time. Thats just how the partner market works. Maybe they have less chances than other women with the 1 % of most attractive males, but that cannot make them feel unwanted or something like that.
    Racial differences play of course a big role for the male side of partner market. That means asian males have problems on the partner market, black males have a natural advantage.
  4. unit472 says:

    I was recently in hospital and each day a doctor came by. His tag said ‘hospitalist’ and he was black. He used his stethoscope on me, asked me how I doing and then went on his way. I needed a catheter installed and got another Nigerian ‘doctor’. This was, apparently, all she did at this hospital. When I couldn’t lay flat on my back for the procedure it was postponed until a white female doctor was found who told me to lay on my side while she performed the procedure.

    The horrible reality is, as a patient, you cannot give voice to your misgivings as to the professional competence of black doctors even when you have reasonable doubts. Your life is held hostage to a political/professional credentialing system that prevents you from doing what you could easily do with doctors of any other race. Refuse treatment by then.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jeff77450
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    My father had the same experience with a black female hospitalist. She did a fair impersonation of a nurse with her stethoscope and pulse-taking but she had no useful medical expertise to offer. And she had a huge bundle of filthy dreadlocks.

    My mother was in the hospital with a gallbladder attack and the black gastroenterologists reviewed whatever scans were done on her and wrote in her chart "The patient says she still has her gallbladder." but he never told her what was wrong, he just said come see him in a few weeks. A nurse (white) whispered to her that her gallbladder needed to come out very soon and go see a surgeon. The nurse was very right. The doctor, a specialist, was stupid.

    In a medical emergency, I would take a smart but drunk doctor any day over that those two.
    , @artichoke
    When you're in a hospital you are at the mercy of their staff. When you're not you can go to whatever doctor your insurance will pay for and thus avoid those who very likely would not have been in medical school at all, but for years of consecutive affirmative action boosts.

    Maybe there are good black doctors I am avoiding for this reason, but I have to look out for myself and my family above that concern.

    Anyway isn't this the reason you didn't talk back to those black hospitalists -- because you were flat on your back and under the regime in the hospital?
  5. People use the word intution excessively. Everything you ”can’t” supposedly to be explain will be ”intuitive”. I have higher intuition and i can to say without problem that the moral default is not the same than genuine intuition.

    Racism card or other post-modern moral card are not based on intuition of people but by their contextual/comparative stupidity. People seems just react based on own personal perceptual-specific (in this case, moral) ceilling, what the best they can do/understand. If a white woman internalize all or most part of anti-white post-modern narrative it is not the result of ”intuition” but how your body-mind system (ceilling) react with this environmental circumstances.

    Intuitive is not even a subconscious, is unconscious. But this decisions will not be ”subconscious” for people who internalize it, just for us that can see your analytical defects. Of course, there are answers that will be much better than others, no doubt about it, but most part of the time, all beings are just trying to do their best and to a lot of people think that to be anti-racist and virulent anti-white IS to do their best as reaction to this specific but globally important/crucial circumstance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    Say whut?? Ya think you cut some of that down into two syllable words?
    , @guest
    What is the difference between "subconscious" and "unconscious?"
  6. Jim says:

    It’s interesting that so many white liberals seem to care a lot more about blacks than about whites. White liberals are often indifferent if not downright hostile to the white working class or to poor whites living in Appalachia.

    A somewhat similar phenomenon is seen on the right. Many American conservatives seem to be far more concerned with the interests of Israel than with the interests of the US.

    Both cases are examples of pathological altruism.

    Read More
    • Agree: Max Payne
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    It's not ''pathological altruism''. Both are cases of pathological/extremistic dualistic thinking, induced by race masters.

    Altruism as a essential positive word seems quasi-impossible to be pathological.

    And liberal whites tend to look for working class whites as ''self-subsistent'' while they look for blacks as ''own responsibility'', you know, ''the slavery stuff''.

    Extreme sacrifice, when we have a very good person who decide sacrifice own life to help other people is a real case of ''pathological' altruism, but again, seems impossible that altruism to be pathological.

    ''pathological altruism'' (ignorance/apathy)
    , @AnAnon
    An alternative explanation is that they are just status seeking virtue signalers.
    , @William Badwhite
    "A somewhat similar phenomenon is seen on the right. Many American conservatives seem to be far more concerned with the interests of Israel than with the interests of the US."

    American neo-cons are more concerned with the interests of Israel than those of the U.S. However I wouldn't call neo-cons conservatives but simply a different variety of leftist.

    It is unfortunate however that many Americans that are conservative by instinct don't seem to understand that the neo-cons among them are their enemies and thus defer to the "foreign policy experts" that spend their days thinking of wars we can start on behalf of Israel.
  7. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    You forgot to mention the Fear Factor.

    Negroes be loud, wild, strong, nasty, and mean.

    They be natural thugs with the Maomao genes.

    So when blacks begin to howl, white folks get all scared and shit.

    But they don’t want to admit fear and cowardice. So, the invoke ‘social justice’ as crutch to rationalize their craven surrender to the blugs or black thugs.

    Blacks know the honkey be scared.

    Combination of black thuggery and holy slave narrative paralyzes whites. Negroes be thugtims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Partially true. Whites could easily take out blacks if we were allowed to use our advantages - intelligence, organization, discipline, use of technology, etc. - but we're not. This allows blacks to run roughshod over whites on the streets.

    Whites use mostly white cops - who can employ our advantages - as a surrogate for controlling blacks. However, it is true that most white cower when confronted by blacks. But I'd say that for many whites, it's not just cowardice that causes them to back off, but an understanding that 1) the vast majority of blacks really are stupid and aren't smart enough to consider the consequences of getting a serious fight (broken bones, lost teeth, etc.) while we are and 2) the government and media will persecute us regardless of whose fault it is.

    Basically, it's not worth getting into a fight with these dumb animals.

    Someday that equation may change.
    , @conatus
    best line in a long time

    "They be natural thugs with the Maomao genes."

    Mao-mao-ing the flak catchers
  8. @Jim
    It's interesting that so many white liberals seem to care a lot more about blacks than about whites. White liberals are often indifferent if not downright hostile to the white working class or to poor whites living in Appalachia.

    A somewhat similar phenomenon is seen on the right. Many American conservatives seem to be far more concerned with the interests of Israel than with the interests of the US.

    Both cases are examples of pathological altruism.

    It’s not ”pathological altruism”. Both are cases of pathological/extremistic dualistic thinking, induced by race masters.

    Altruism as a essential positive word seems quasi-impossible to be pathological.

    And liberal whites tend to look for working class whites as ”self-subsistent” while they look for blacks as ”own responsibility”, you know, ”the slavery stuff”.

    Extreme sacrifice, when we have a very good person who decide sacrifice own life to help other people is a real case of ”pathological’ altruism, but again, seems impossible that altruism to be pathological.

    ”pathological altruism” (ignorance/apathy)

    Read More
  9. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @unit472
    I was recently in hospital and each day a doctor came by. His tag said 'hospitalist' and he was black. He used his stethoscope on me, asked me how I doing and then went on his way. I needed a catheter installed and got another Nigerian 'doctor'. This was, apparently, all she did at this hospital. When I couldn't lay flat on my back for the procedure it was postponed until a white female doctor was found who told me to lay on my side while she performed the procedure.

    The horrible reality is, as a patient, you cannot give voice to your misgivings as to the professional competence of black doctors even when you have reasonable doubts. Your life is held hostage to a political/professional credentialing system that prevents you from doing what you could easily do with doctors of any other race. Refuse treatment by then.

    My father had the same experience with a black female hospitalist. She did a fair impersonation of a nurse with her stethoscope and pulse-taking but she had no useful medical expertise to offer. And she had a huge bundle of filthy dreadlocks.

    My mother was in the hospital with a gallbladder attack and the black gastroenterologists reviewed whatever scans were done on her and wrote in her chart “The patient says she still has her gallbladder.” but he never told her what was wrong, he just said come see him in a few weeks. A nurse (white) whispered to her that her gallbladder needed to come out very soon and go see a surgeon. The nurse was very right. The doctor, a specialist, was stupid.

    In a medical emergency, I would take a smart but drunk doctor any day over that those two.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnAnon
    Nothing wrong with second opinions, yet.
    , @Jeff Albertson
    "In a medical emergency, I would take a smart but drunk doctor any day over that those two."

    I believe there were at least two recent TV series based on that very premise. I don't know for sure because they were both unwatchable. Hugh Laurie was great as Bertie Wooster, but afterwards, not so much. Same for Carmen Soprano, whatever her real name is.
  10. AnAnon says:
    @Jim
    It's interesting that so many white liberals seem to care a lot more about blacks than about whites. White liberals are often indifferent if not downright hostile to the white working class or to poor whites living in Appalachia.

    A somewhat similar phenomenon is seen on the right. Many American conservatives seem to be far more concerned with the interests of Israel than with the interests of the US.

    Both cases are examples of pathological altruism.

    An alternative explanation is that they are just status seeking virtue signalers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Perhaps this is so for liberals who worship blacks or at least pretend to, but on the other side there is no question that there are conservatives who would readily betray their country if they thought it would serve the interests of Israel. For the latter group we are dealing with something way beyond virtue signaling.
  11. AnAnon says:
    @Anonymous
    My father had the same experience with a black female hospitalist. She did a fair impersonation of a nurse with her stethoscope and pulse-taking but she had no useful medical expertise to offer. And she had a huge bundle of filthy dreadlocks.

    My mother was in the hospital with a gallbladder attack and the black gastroenterologists reviewed whatever scans were done on her and wrote in her chart "The patient says she still has her gallbladder." but he never told her what was wrong, he just said come see him in a few weeks. A nurse (white) whispered to her that her gallbladder needed to come out very soon and go see a surgeon. The nurse was very right. The doctor, a specialist, was stupid.

    In a medical emergency, I would take a smart but drunk doctor any day over that those two.

    Nothing wrong with second opinions, yet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Second opinion requests are fodder for claims of disrespect, and may need to have trigger warnings. Doctors will need to band together to protest further assaults on their profession so that they avoid the societal decline experienced by dentists.
  12. @Priss Factor
    You forgot to mention the Fear Factor.

    Negroes be loud, wild, strong, nasty, and mean.

    They be natural thugs with the Maomao genes.

    So when blacks begin to howl, white folks get all scared and shit.

    But they don't want to admit fear and cowardice. So, the invoke 'social justice' as crutch to rationalize their craven surrender to the blugs or black thugs.

    Blacks know the honkey be scared.

    Combination of black thuggery and holy slave narrative paralyzes whites. Negroes be thugtims.

    Partially true. Whites could easily take out blacks if we were allowed to use our advantages – intelligence, organization, discipline, use of technology, etc. – but we’re not. This allows blacks to run roughshod over whites on the streets.

    Whites use mostly white cops – who can employ our advantages – as a surrogate for controlling blacks. However, it is true that most white cower when confronted by blacks. But I’d say that for many whites, it’s not just cowardice that causes them to back off, but an understanding that 1) the vast majority of blacks really are stupid and aren’t smart enough to consider the consequences of getting a serious fight (broken bones, lost teeth, etc.) while we are and 2) the government and media will persecute us regardless of whose fault it is.

    Basically, it’s not worth getting into a fight with these dumb animals.

    Someday that equation may change.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    But I’d say that for many whites, it’s not just cowardice that causes them to back off, but an understanding that
     
    Not in you're case, you're just a chickenshit.
    , @Dwayne
    When I was a teenager my friends would meet on Sunday afternoon to play tackle football. One Sunday I arrived early and began to play with a few white teenager with which I had no previous contact.

    Shortly thereafter several black teenagers arrived on the scene and asked to participate. The white boys reluctantly agreed. In the huddle it was obvious that these guys were afraid of the blacks. I explained that they weren't supermen and to give me the ball and I would prove it to them. I lined up as halfback and ran right through the middle of them for a touchdown.
    I don't understand today's fear of blacks. I don't go strolling through black neighborhoods, I'm 63, but I not intimidated either.
  13. @Anonymous
    My father had the same experience with a black female hospitalist. She did a fair impersonation of a nurse with her stethoscope and pulse-taking but she had no useful medical expertise to offer. And she had a huge bundle of filthy dreadlocks.

    My mother was in the hospital with a gallbladder attack and the black gastroenterologists reviewed whatever scans were done on her and wrote in her chart "The patient says she still has her gallbladder." but he never told her what was wrong, he just said come see him in a few weeks. A nurse (white) whispered to her that her gallbladder needed to come out very soon and go see a surgeon. The nurse was very right. The doctor, a specialist, was stupid.

    In a medical emergency, I would take a smart but drunk doctor any day over that those two.

    “In a medical emergency, I would take a smart but drunk doctor any day over that those two.”

    I believe there were at least two recent TV series based on that very premise. I don’t know for sure because they were both unwatchable. Hugh Laurie was great as Bertie Wooster, but afterwards, not so much. Same for Carmen Soprano, whatever her real name is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Hugh Laurie was great as Bertie Wooster, but afterwards, not so much."

    I thought he was terrific in "House," and I generally don't watch a lot of TV.
  14. @Calvin Hobbes
    "Before I spoke to the Black Law Students’ Association of the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2010, by way of preparation I did some quantitative analysis on the LSAT statistics, that’s the Law School Admission Test. On the basis of a simple LSAT cut-off score, I found that the expected number of blacks in the law school would be four. The actual number was 57. And that’s ignoring the phenomenon of the highest-prestige law schools sucking up all the brightest black applicants."

    So it's pretty clear that there is discrimination in favor of blacks in law school admissions, before they arrive at law school.

    But what happens after they get to law school?

    The answer is that most of them do abysmally with respect to first-year grades. An amazingly consistent pattern at American law schools is that half of black law students rank in the bottom 10%, with most of the rest still down there towards the bottom. At least that was the case in 1992, and I doubt that the situation now is much different. See Table 5.1, page 427, (for "elite" law schools) and Table 5.3 , page 431, (for lower-ranked law schools) here:

    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/final/SanderFINAL.pdf

    Of course this pattern is not possible at HBCU law schools, by the pigeon-hole principle of mathematics.

    So most blacks, always touchy about "stereotypes" concerning their intelligence, arrive at law school and discover that they are village idiots in their law school "village". It can't be fun being a village idiot. No wonder so many are angry and resentful.

    And what is the effect of this situation on the other law students? When they see that the black students around them are mostly village idiots, many of them constantly whining about being "oppressed" and making preposterous excuses for why they can't compete, the other students can't help but feel contempt for these dim bulbs. Of course those other students also know enough to STFU about what they see, but it's natural for them to develop a negative attitude towards blacks.

    So, the way our law schools admit students seems taylor-made to produce hostility among the blacks and contempt for blacks among the whites and Asians.

    There are huge racial test-score gaps among undergraduates at most universities, but there's not as much direct competition between smart undergraduates and dumb undergraduates at a particular university as there is between smart law students and dumb law students at a particular law school. Just about all big universities have "College for Dummies" majors that give their dim bulbs a path to a degree.

    And what is the effect of this situation on the other law students?

    They keep their mouths shut, of course, but they don’t really mind having these people around. It’s less competition. They’re already accepted into the school, so it’s all the better affirmative action keeps potential competition away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    Yes, but they won't like it when the blacks who manage to scrape through law school (some do) get plum jobs with Big Law with lesser grades and get ahead in Big Law with less work. Will they?
    , @Karl
    >>> They keep their mouths shut, of course, but they don’t really mind having these people around. It’s less competition.


    The really smart kids are not dreaming of becoming SocialJustice attorneys, or of opening storefronts in the ghetto to legal odd jobs (your house closings, your uncontested DUI pleas, your LastWills&Terstaments).

    The really smart kids dream of becoming - , e.g., patent litigators,

    The EEO admits are not in the latter league.
  15. Jim says:
    @AnAnon
    An alternative explanation is that they are just status seeking virtue signalers.

    Perhaps this is so for liberals who worship blacks or at least pretend to, but on the other side there is no question that there are conservatives who would readily betray their country if they thought it would serve the interests of Israel. For the latter group we are dealing with something way beyond virtue signaling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnAnon
    that is beginning to dissipate as per http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/21/evangelicals-have-been-overwhelmingly-loyal-to-isr/?page=all, and when couched in such terms of betraying America for Israel I'd imagine you'd get a lot fewer takers.
  16. AnAnon says:
    @Jim
    Perhaps this is so for liberals who worship blacks or at least pretend to, but on the other side there is no question that there are conservatives who would readily betray their country if they thought it would serve the interests of Israel. For the latter group we are dealing with something way beyond virtue signaling.

    that is beginning to dissipate as per http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/21/evangelicals-have-been-overwhelmingly-loyal-to-isr/?page=all, and when couched in such terms of betraying America for Israel I’d imagine you’d get a lot fewer takers.

    Read More
  17. Ivy says:
    @AnAnon
    Nothing wrong with second opinions, yet.

    Second opinion requests are fodder for claims of disrespect, and may need to have trigger warnings. Doctors will need to band together to protest further assaults on their profession so that they avoid the societal decline experienced by dentists.

    Read More
  18. currahee says:
    @Calvin Hobbes
    "Before I spoke to the Black Law Students’ Association of the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2010, by way of preparation I did some quantitative analysis on the LSAT statistics, that’s the Law School Admission Test. On the basis of a simple LSAT cut-off score, I found that the expected number of blacks in the law school would be four. The actual number was 57. And that’s ignoring the phenomenon of the highest-prestige law schools sucking up all the brightest black applicants."

    So it's pretty clear that there is discrimination in favor of blacks in law school admissions, before they arrive at law school.

    But what happens after they get to law school?

    The answer is that most of them do abysmally with respect to first-year grades. An amazingly consistent pattern at American law schools is that half of black law students rank in the bottom 10%, with most of the rest still down there towards the bottom. At least that was the case in 1992, and I doubt that the situation now is much different. See Table 5.1, page 427, (for "elite" law schools) and Table 5.3 , page 431, (for lower-ranked law schools) here:

    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/final/SanderFINAL.pdf

    Of course this pattern is not possible at HBCU law schools, by the pigeon-hole principle of mathematics.

    So most blacks, always touchy about "stereotypes" concerning their intelligence, arrive at law school and discover that they are village idiots in their law school "village". It can't be fun being a village idiot. No wonder so many are angry and resentful.

    And what is the effect of this situation on the other law students? When they see that the black students around them are mostly village idiots, many of them constantly whining about being "oppressed" and making preposterous excuses for why they can't compete, the other students can't help but feel contempt for these dim bulbs. Of course those other students also know enough to STFU about what they see, but it's natural for them to develop a negative attitude towards blacks.

    So, the way our law schools admit students seems taylor-made to produce hostility among the blacks and contempt for blacks among the whites and Asians.

    There are huge racial test-score gaps among undergraduates at most universities, but there's not as much direct competition between smart undergraduates and dumb undergraduates at a particular university as there is between smart law students and dumb law students at a particular law school. Just about all big universities have "College for Dummies" majors that give their dim bulbs a path to a degree.

    Yes, but “tailor-made”, please.

    Read More
  19. “Conservatives had much better balance, with positive scores on all the axes, on things like Authority/Subversion ”

    What is the positive end of the scale here?

    Read More
  20. @Santoculto
    People use the word intution excessively. Everything you ''can't'' supposedly to be explain will be ''intuitive''. I have higher intuition and i can to say without problem that the moral default is not the same than genuine intuition.

    Racism card or other post-modern moral card are not based on intuition of people but by their contextual/comparative stupidity. People seems just react based on own personal perceptual-specific (in this case, moral) ceilling, what the best they can do/understand. If a white woman internalize all or most part of anti-white post-modern narrative it is not the result of ''intuition'' but how your body-mind system (ceilling) react with this environmental circumstances.

    Intuitive is not even a subconscious, is unconscious. But this decisions will not be ''subconscious'' for people who internalize it, just for us that can see your analytical defects. Of course, there are answers that will be much better than others, no doubt about it, but most part of the time, all beings are just trying to do their best and to a lot of people think that to be anti-racist and virulent anti-white IS to do their best as reaction to this specific but globally important/crucial circumstance.

    Say whut?? Ya think you cut some of that down into two syllable words?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Sua língua é um lixo globalista.

    Your ''tongue'' is a globalist trash.


    Para melhor compreendermos quanto à ''relevância'' anglo-saxônica, basta comparar a beleza arquitetônica das cidades europeias. Mesmo cidades médias como Bolonha olhar muito melhor do que ''grande pepino'', sem graça ''Londres''.

    For us better understand the ''relevance'' of anglosfear we just need compare the architetonic beauty of european cities. Even cities like Bologna look much better than ''great cuke'', boring ''London''.

    Eu prefiro pensar sobre a fenomenologia da vida do que de apreender (aprender) a sua querida língua judaica. Eu sou como um ''meio-savant filosófico'', eu não sou multitarefa, sem chance.

    I prefer to think about life phenomenology than learn (get) your lovely judaic-language. I'm like a half philosophical savant, i'm not multitask, no way.

    Sua língua idiota sem contexto. Neanderthal reina.

    Your idiotic language without contextualizations. Neanderthal reign.

    ;)

    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    Sufficient attention to basic grammar for intelligibility would suffice.
  21. tbraton says:
    @Jeff Albertson
    "In a medical emergency, I would take a smart but drunk doctor any day over that those two."

    I believe there were at least two recent TV series based on that very premise. I don't know for sure because they were both unwatchable. Hugh Laurie was great as Bertie Wooster, but afterwards, not so much. Same for Carmen Soprano, whatever her real name is.

    “Hugh Laurie was great as Bertie Wooster, but afterwards, not so much.”

    I thought he was terrific in “House,” and I generally don’t watch a lot of TV.

    Read More
  22. ES3 says:

    I have always found your writing well-supported, but, in this case, I think you misrepresented the substance of what the Dartmouth president said: he expressed admiration for the peaceful, silent demonstration that took place without incident well before the trouble in the library got started. He then went on to strongly condemn the library ruckus and makes a principled defense of free speech. I was tempted to email him my support!

    Read More
  23. Doug says:

    Good article, Mr. Derbyshire. On one point, however, you could have gone a little farther.

    James Watson may indeed be the greatest living geneticist, and I would not mention his joint Nobel Prize as though it added luster to his name. Watson’s monumental achievement in figuring out the structure of DNA dwarfs the entire Nobel edifice. James Watson adds luster to the Nobel Prize, not the other way around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Rosalind Franklin' research was in a direction they had missed - without her work they would have continued along the wrong path. She was betrayed by her colleague [Wilkins] and conveniently forgotten by Watson and Crick (who knew exactly where the X-Ray photographs had come from). It's one of the most shameful instances of plagiarism in the history of science."
    "...Wilkins went looking for company at "the Cavendish" laboratory in Cambridge where his friend Francis Crick was working with James Watson on building a model of the DNA molecule. Unknown to Franklin, Watson and Crick saw some of her unpublished data, including the beautiful "photo 51," shown to Watson by Wilkins. This X-ray diffraction picture of a DNA molecule was Watson's inspiration (the pattern was clearly a helix). Using Franklin's photograph and their own data, Watson and Crick created their famous DNA model. Franklin's contribution was not acknowledged, but after her death Crick said that her contribution had been critical."
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/rosalind-franklin-a-crucial-contribution-6538012
    You are welcome.
  24. BobN says:

    It must really warm Mr. Derbyshire’s heart to read the comments here…

    Anyway, “From a misguided altruism, we admit to our universities big numbers of blacks who can’t do university-level work. Disappointed and frustrated, they act out.”

    We’ve been admitting those black kids for decades and just now they’ve decided to “act out”?

    Geez, it’s a good thing they’re stupid and patient, no? The argument seems way too stupid for a white guy to have come up with…

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    No they have been acting out for a long time. It was just in things nobody noticed or cared about such as silly protests that people ignored, shouting down speakers they didn't want anybody to hear, or the creation of student groups no white would dare create for themselves. Each year the whining became more shrill until it has reached it's present state of stupidity that cannot be ignored.
  25. @JEC
    John Derbyshire argues that college bureaucrats cave in when faced with crazy demands from their 'students', because their moral intuition tells them to.

    The problem with moral intuitionism, from every point on the political spectrum, is that in the inevitable event of conflicting intuitions there's no criterion for deciding between them.

    “The problem with moral intuitionism, from every point on the political spectrum, is that in the inevitable event of conflicting intuitions there’s no criterion for deciding between them.”

    They are moral intuitions. They decide for you by how they interact and their weight.

    Liberty is the sixth (I think property should be the seventh) moral foundation and for me, a panarchist, it trumps the other foundations. It is my “moralization switch”.

    The Moral Instinct

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    The Moralization Switch

    The starting point for appreciating that there is a distinctive part of our psychology for morality is seeing how moral judgments differ from other kinds of opinions we have on how people ought to behave. Moralization is a psychological state that can be turned on and off like a switch, and when it is on, a distinctive mind-set commandeers our thinking. This is the mind-set that makes us deem actions immoral (“killing is wrong”), rather than merely disagreeable (“I hate brussels sprouts”), unfashionable (“bell-bottoms are out”) or imprudent (“don’t scratch mosquito bites”).

    The first hallmark of moralization is that the rules it invokes are felt to be universal. Prohibitions of rape and murder, for example, are felt not to be matters of local custom but to be universally and objectively warranted. One can easily say, “I don’t like brussels sprouts, but I don’t care if you eat them,” but no one would say, “I don’t like killing, but I don’t care if you murder someone.”

    The other hallmark is that people feel that those who commit immoral acts deserve to be punished. Not only is it allowable to inflict pain on a person who has broken a moral rule; it is wrong not to, to “let them get away with it.” People are thus untroubled in inviting divine retribution or the power of the state to harm other people they deem immoral. Bertrand Russell wrote, “The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell.”

    We all know what it feels like when the moralization switch flips inside us — the righteous glow, the burning dudgeon, the drive to recruit others to the cause. The psychologist Paul Rozin has studied the toggle switch by comparing two kinds of people who engage in the same behavior but with different switch settings. Health vegetarians avoid meat for practical reasons, like lowering cholesterol and avoiding toxins. Moral vegetarians avoid meat for ethical reasons: to avoid complicity in the suffering of animals. By investigating their feelings about meat-eating, Rozin showed that the moral motive sets off a cascade of opinions. Moral vegetarians are more likely to treat meat as a contaminant — they refuse, for example, to eat a bowl of soup into which a drop of beef broth has fallen. They are more likely to think that other people ought to be vegetarians, and are more likely to imbue their dietary habits with other virtues, like believing that meat avoidance makes people less aggressive and bestial.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    Liberals also ranked liberty highly, but in conjunction with their take on harm and fairness. That makes the liberal take on liberty very different than my take.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

    The Psychological Roots of the Libertarian Ideology

    The most obvious psychological characteristic of libertarian ideology is the value placed on negative liberty as an overriding moral principle, as can be seen in this quote concerning a law outlawing online gambling, from U.S. Congressman Ron Paul [20], the most libertarian contender in recent times for the nomination of a major political party:

    The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren't infringing on their rights…. There are those that feel online gambling is morally wrong and financially irresponsible, which I do not argue with, but they also feel that because of this, the government should step in and prevent or punish people for taking part in these activities. This attitude is anathema to the ideas of liberty.

    Libertarians appear to have a coherent moral philosophy, which includes a general opposition to forcing any particular moral code upon others. Note that Paul is not saying that gambling is morally acceptable. Rather, he is saying that (negative) liberty has a moral value that supersedes other moral considerations. Libertarians seem willing to reject both liberal concerns for social justice [21] and conservative concerns for respecting existing social structure [22] when those concerns conflict with their superordinate interest in maintaining individual liberty. The goal of our first study is to confirm these observations by directly surveying a broad range of moral values and concerns, and testing whether self-described libertarians place a higher value on liberty and a lower value on other moral concerns, compared to self-described liberals and conservatives.

    But what might explain the libertarian focus on liberty to the exclusion of other moral concerns? Recent work in moral psychology suggests that moral attitudes arise, at least in part, from low-level “dispositional traits” [23], emotional reactions [8], [24], social function [17], and the moralization of preferences [10]. These moral attitudes have, in turn, been found to be associated with ideological self-identification [3], [9].

    This work suggests that one explanation for the unique moral profile of libertarians is that they feel traditional moral concerns less than do most other people. Tetlock, et al. [25] found that libertarians were less morally outraged by “taboo” moral tradeoffs (e.g., buying and selling body parts for transplantation) than were liberals, conservatives, or socialists. Recent research in moral psychology has emphasized the importance of intuitive and emotional reactions in producing moral judgments that appear, on their face, to be based on principled reasoning [8], [24], [26]. Might libertarians be more tolerant on issues of private consensual behavior than conservatives because they exhibit lower levels of disgust sensitivity [27]? Might libertarians depart from liberals on social justice issues because they have weaker feelings of empathy [15]? Indeed, libertarian writers have historically been proud of the rational — rather than emotional — roots of their ideology [28]. The possible exception to this rule, of course, is the vigorous reaction libertarians often have to violations of personal freedom. Libertarians' characteristic pattern of emotional reactions (and lack thereof) may constrain the types of concerns that they moralize, which in turn affects their attraction to libertarian self-identification. We investigate this possibility in Study 2.

    Finally, emotional reactions, and the moral principles that derive from them, serve interpersonal functions [17], [29], such as navigating the social world [30] and forming groups with others [31]. Libertarians may have a dispositional preference for independence, perhaps even for solitude, and therefore less use for moral principles that bind them to others. In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand [32] writes about the importance of maintaining one's individuality within social relationships. Do libertarians identify less with the people in their lives, with groups, and with their nations? Do they derive less enjoyment from the company of others? This relative preference for individualism may gradually become moralized into a conscious endorsement of liberty as a moral principle [10], predisposing them to a libertarian self-identification. We investigate these possibilities in Study 3.
  26. @Drapetomaniac
    "The problem with moral intuitionism, from every point on the political spectrum, is that in the inevitable event of conflicting intuitions there’s no criterion for deciding between them."

    They are moral intuitions. They decide for you by how they interact and their weight.

    Liberty is the sixth (I think property should be the seventh) moral foundation and for me, a panarchist, it trumps the other foundations. It is my "moralization switch".

    The Moral Instinct

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    The Moralization Switch

    The starting point for appreciating that there is a distinctive part of our psychology for morality is seeing how moral judgments differ from other kinds of opinions we have on how people ought to behave. Moralization is a psychological state that can be turned on and off like a switch, and when it is on, a distinctive mind-set commandeers our thinking. This is the mind-set that makes us deem actions immoral (“killing is wrong”), rather than merely disagreeable (“I hate brussels sprouts”), unfashionable (“bell-bottoms are out”) or imprudent (“don’t scratch mosquito bites”).

    The first hallmark of moralization is that the rules it invokes are felt to be universal. Prohibitions of rape and murder, for example, are felt not to be matters of local custom but to be universally and objectively warranted. One can easily say, “I don’t like brussels sprouts, but I don’t care if you eat them,” but no one would say, “I don’t like killing, but I don’t care if you murder someone.”

    The other hallmark is that people feel that those who commit immoral acts deserve to be punished. Not only is it allowable to inflict pain on a person who has broken a moral rule; it is wrong not to, to “let them get away with it.” People are thus untroubled in inviting divine retribution or the power of the state to harm other people they deem immoral. Bertrand Russell wrote, “The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell.”

    We all know what it feels like when the moralization switch flips inside us — the righteous glow, the burning dudgeon, the drive to recruit others to the cause. The psychologist Paul Rozin has studied the toggle switch by comparing two kinds of people who engage in the same behavior but with different switch settings. Health vegetarians avoid meat for practical reasons, like lowering cholesterol and avoiding toxins. Moral vegetarians avoid meat for ethical reasons: to avoid complicity in the suffering of animals. By investigating their feelings about meat-eating, Rozin showed that the moral motive sets off a cascade of opinions. Moral vegetarians are more likely to treat meat as a contaminant — they refuse, for example, to eat a bowl of soup into which a drop of beef broth has fallen. They are more likely to think that other people ought to be vegetarians, and are more likely to imbue their dietary habits with other virtues, like believing that meat avoidance makes people less aggressive and bestial.

    Liberals also ranked liberty highly, but in conjunction with their take on harm and fairness. That makes the liberal take on liberty very different than my take.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

    The Psychological Roots of the Libertarian Ideology

    The most obvious psychological characteristic of libertarian ideology is the value placed on negative liberty as an overriding moral principle, as can be seen in this quote concerning a law outlawing online gambling, from U.S. Congressman Ron Paul [20], the most libertarian contender in recent times for the nomination of a major political party:

    The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights…. There are those that feel online gambling is morally wrong and financially irresponsible, which I do not argue with, but they also feel that because of this, the government should step in and prevent or punish people for taking part in these activities. This attitude is anathema to the ideas of liberty.

    Libertarians appear to have a coherent moral philosophy, which includes a general opposition to forcing any particular moral code upon others. Note that Paul is not saying that gambling is morally acceptable. Rather, he is saying that (negative) liberty has a moral value that supersedes other moral considerations. Libertarians seem willing to reject both liberal concerns for social justice [21] and conservative concerns for respecting existing social structure [22] when those concerns conflict with their superordinate interest in maintaining individual liberty. The goal of our first study is to confirm these observations by directly surveying a broad range of moral values and concerns, and testing whether self-described libertarians place a higher value on liberty and a lower value on other moral concerns, compared to self-described liberals and conservatives.

    But what might explain the libertarian focus on liberty to the exclusion of other moral concerns? Recent work in moral psychology suggests that moral attitudes arise, at least in part, from low-level “dispositional traits” [23], emotional reactions [8], [24], social function [17], and the moralization of preferences [10]. These moral attitudes have, in turn, been found to be associated with ideological self-identification [3], [9].

    This work suggests that one explanation for the unique moral profile of libertarians is that they feel traditional moral concerns less than do most other people. Tetlock, et al. [25] found that libertarians were less morally outraged by “taboo” moral tradeoffs (e.g., buying and selling body parts for transplantation) than were liberals, conservatives, or socialists. Recent research in moral psychology has emphasized the importance of intuitive and emotional reactions in producing moral judgments that appear, on their face, to be based on principled reasoning [8], [24], [26]. Might libertarians be more tolerant on issues of private consensual behavior than conservatives because they exhibit lower levels of disgust sensitivity [27]? Might libertarians depart from liberals on social justice issues because they have weaker feelings of empathy [15]? Indeed, libertarian writers have historically been proud of the rational — rather than emotional — roots of their ideology [28]. The possible exception to this rule, of course, is the vigorous reaction libertarians often have to violations of personal freedom. Libertarians’ characteristic pattern of emotional reactions (and lack thereof) may constrain the types of concerns that they moralize, which in turn affects their attraction to libertarian self-identification. We investigate this possibility in Study 2.

    Finally, emotional reactions, and the moral principles that derive from them, serve interpersonal functions [17], [29], such as navigating the social world [30] and forming groups with others [31]. Libertarians may have a dispositional preference for independence, perhaps even for solitude, and therefore less use for moral principles that bind them to others. In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand [32] writes about the importance of maintaining one’s individuality within social relationships. Do libertarians identify less with the people in their lives, with groups, and with their nations? Do they derive less enjoyment from the company of others? This relative preference for individualism may gradually become moralized into a conscious endorsement of liberty as a moral principle [10], predisposing them to a libertarian self-identification. We investigate these possibilities in Study 3.

    Read More
  27. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    Say whut?? Ya think you cut some of that down into two syllable words?

    Sua língua é um lixo globalista.

    Your ”tongue” is a globalist trash.

    Para melhor compreendermos quanto à ”relevância” anglo-saxônica, basta comparar a beleza arquitetônica das cidades europeias. Mesmo cidades médias como Bolonha olhar muito melhor do que ”grande pepino”, sem graça ”Londres”.

    For us better understand the ”relevance” of anglosfear we just need compare the architetonic beauty of european cities. Even cities like Bologna look much better than ”great cuke”, boring ”London”.

    Eu prefiro pensar sobre a fenomenologia da vida do que de apreender (aprender) a sua querida língua judaica. Eu sou como um ”meio-savant filosófico”, eu não sou multitarefa, sem chance.

    I prefer to think about life phenomenology than learn (get) your lovely judaic-language. I’m like a half philosophical savant, i’m not multitask, no way.

    Sua língua idiota sem contexto. Neanderthal reina.

    Your idiotic language without contextualizations. Neanderthal reign.
    ;)

    Read More
  28. My english is minimalistic, i don’t understand why people here still don’t understand that i’m not a multitask, completely otherwise, i’m super-obsessive with a narrow interests and learn other language, specially its grammar, is not one of them, my interests.

    In the end, i think my english is understandable if i write the basic of language, should be understandable, logically speaking. Two possible explanations by now

    - free provocation,

    - alienation of many anglos about the fact that most of human beings don’t know to talk their language.

    Again, is not proposital, i really don’t want learn english by now, any undermost will to learn…. but i like to comment in hbdsphere ( I’m tired because hbd is an ideology, worse than the scientific leftism, a very sofisticated neoconservatism, very very nasty but clever enough to avoid explicit sincerity).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Lund
    No, your English as she is spoke is NOT understandable. Not here, not on West Hunter, not on James Thompson's blog, nor anywhere else.

    Most amazingly, we got you to write a comment in Brazilian Portuguese (on West Hunter, I think) which Google Translate managed to convert into reasonably fluent English. That was the only time I've seen you make sense.

    You repeatedly flunk the Turing test unless assisted by computers.
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    You're right. HBD is an advanced neoconservative ideology. It is the butt-end of the alt-right and thankfully will not be with us forever.
  29. @Santoculto
    My english is minimalistic, i don't understand why people here still don't understand that i'm not a multitask, completely otherwise, i'm super-obsessive with a narrow interests and learn other language, specially its grammar, is not one of them, my interests.

    In the end, i think my english is understandable if i write the basic of language, should be understandable, logically speaking. Two possible explanations by now

    - free provocation,

    - alienation of many anglos about the fact that most of human beings don't know to talk their language.

    Again, is not proposital, i really don't want learn english by now, any undermost will to learn.... but i like to comment in hbdsphere ( I'm tired because hbd is an ideology, worse than the scientific leftism, a very sofisticated neoconservatism, very very nasty but clever enough to avoid explicit sincerity).

    No, your English as she is spoke is NOT understandable. Not here, not on West Hunter, not on James Thompson’s blog, nor anywhere else.

    Most amazingly, we got you to write a comment in Brazilian Portuguese (on West Hunter, I think) which Google Translate managed to convert into reasonably fluent English. That was the only time I’ve seen you make sense.

    You repeatedly flunk the Turing test unless assisted by computers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Your language has no context. I will explain. In Portuguese language, there are many words that can be used for different contexts. The same word may be used for many situations. From there then, is contextualized. Not so with the English language, roughly speaking. Of course in Portuguese also have these problems, but I see that in your language is much worse, there is an exaggeration in this regard.

    I will not propose changes in her beloved language to justify my complete lack of desire to learn it, I do not want to and as incredible as it may seem, I see no reason to do so.

    For the rest, I will continue for now, at last, to defend myself. The way I have written here is quite simple, minimalist. I thought, '' they will contextualize. if it is or Their, they will understand. It is wrong, but logically understandable ''. But no, and that's amazing.

    I have no patience for whims. I know the Anglo-speakers are demanding with others. And that's the least bad, they should not be. But are.

    This is the nail in my coffin here. Since I am not Santoculto blog, I have another, I will not continue to comment and want, and go, stop reading all hbd blogs.

    Hbd is an ego place and highly sophisticated disinformation.

    They are not as liberal idealistic fools who get confused in the middle of the argument. I will raise my white flag, I want no part of this' human history '', the continuity of this delirium of crazy monkeys.
  30. @Peter Lund
    No, your English as she is spoke is NOT understandable. Not here, not on West Hunter, not on James Thompson's blog, nor anywhere else.

    Most amazingly, we got you to write a comment in Brazilian Portuguese (on West Hunter, I think) which Google Translate managed to convert into reasonably fluent English. That was the only time I've seen you make sense.

    You repeatedly flunk the Turing test unless assisted by computers.

    Your language has no context. I will explain. In Portuguese language, there are many words that can be used for different contexts. The same word may be used for many situations. From there then, is contextualized. Not so with the English language, roughly speaking. Of course in Portuguese also have these problems, but I see that in your language is much worse, there is an exaggeration in this regard.

    I will not propose changes in her beloved language to justify my complete lack of desire to learn it, I do not want to and as incredible as it may seem, I see no reason to do so.

    For the rest, I will continue for now, at last, to defend myself. The way I have written here is quite simple, minimalist. I thought, ” they will contextualize. if it is or Their, they will understand. It is wrong, but logically understandable ”. But no, and that’s amazing.

    I have no patience for whims. I know the Anglo-speakers are demanding with others. And that’s the least bad, they should not be. But are.

    This is the nail in my coffin here. Since I am not Santoculto blog, I have another, I will not continue to comment and want, and go, stop reading all hbd blogs.

    Hbd is an ego place and highly sophisticated disinformation.

    They are not as liberal idealistic fools who get confused in the middle of the argument. I will raise my white flag, I want no part of this’ human history ”, the continuity of this delirium of crazy monkeys.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EvolutionistX
    Your posts make sense to me.
    , @Anonymous
    Since you have no desire to speak English, just type your thoughts in Portugese and translate with Google.

    Fairly painless, and you won't need to sully your mind with the language of the Eternal Anglo.
  31. “They are either dimwitted coons or sacred objects.” Absolutely brilliant, Mr. Derbyshire!

    Read More
  32. Does anyone think the reaction would have been any different were it Hispanics or Asians abusing these white students and faculty? It has little to do with blacks being sacred objects and everything to do with manufacturing a genocidal fury against whites.

    Read More
  33. I like the “sacred objects” on the girl on the left, but I still think miscegenation is a bad idea.

    Read More
  34. @Santoculto
    My english is minimalistic, i don't understand why people here still don't understand that i'm not a multitask, completely otherwise, i'm super-obsessive with a narrow interests and learn other language, specially its grammar, is not one of them, my interests.

    In the end, i think my english is understandable if i write the basic of language, should be understandable, logically speaking. Two possible explanations by now

    - free provocation,

    - alienation of many anglos about the fact that most of human beings don't know to talk their language.

    Again, is not proposital, i really don't want learn english by now, any undermost will to learn.... but i like to comment in hbdsphere ( I'm tired because hbd is an ideology, worse than the scientific leftism, a very sofisticated neoconservatism, very very nasty but clever enough to avoid explicit sincerity).

    You’re right. HBD is an advanced neoconservative ideology. It is the butt-end of the alt-right and thankfully will not be with us forever.

    Read More
  35. Pat Casey says:

    The sentiment that sent this one home was eminently graceful. And worth more for being that than the rest of the harping I have not much enjoyed entertaining on this issue, or trend as it seems.

    National Review, eh, well, would the world be better with John writing that ending over there? Actually, Yes. Of course it would. For one, Because National Review, as far as these things go, still matters more than any conservative mag in the nation, this big important nation. If John lived in DC he wouldn’t doubt that, because we get ours for free.

    But, I surely understand his sentiment about that matter–(to hell with them more or less, as I take it): unless I’m remiss, in the history of that important mag, it goes Joe, then John. And no writer would not be honored by that proximity.

    I must say tho, JOHN, Joe was great because he wasn’t a stylist one line and a moralist the next, he wrote in one voice a single sensibility. Shut up you brat you’re suspended. I get the point, but thats what you wouldn’t look a black woman in the eye and say to her, when shes practicing debate at a college.

    Look, this corner of the right does not really seem to know what it is opposing these days. White people, teach black people, to regard slave owners, as serial killers. Well, its mostly actually orchestrated and ok’d by Jewish people, mostly, which I’ll leave to the angels to say is worse or not.

    When obama was elected I think I was a junior and there was something about a little black boy wanting to wear a suit to school or something and I said to B.V., just wait till he gets here, he’ll be up to a CEO’s chauffeur. At least she’s not demanding a chauffeur.

    Read More
  36. @JEGG
    I think that there is an underlying sexual attraction issue going on in many of the recent outbursts by black women. For whatever reasons, some of which are perhaps biologically-based, black women in general are not found as sexually attractive as non-black women. This can help fuel the deep-seated resentment exhibited in particular by black women toward white male administrators. Unfortunately, I don't see any solution to this, because I assume that diversity training isn't ever going to be able to change what someone finds sexually attractive.

    All “black” women that are even remotely palatable as sexual partners to any remotely sane white male are, in fact, mulattas with substantial white genetics which dominate in key areas. Even then the allure is largely because of propaganda.

    White men who have relations with underclass ghetto black women are really defective from my own personal observations.

    In my own case, I was never in the slightest aroused by black women, including several of the black musical figures I was around in an earlier occupation, many of whom I regarded highly as musicians and some of whom I thought were very decent human beings. Not that I ever thought I “had a chance with them” anyway, but for instance I thought Donna Summer was a very likable and decent person, but I didn’t look at her that way. (Diana Ross, a better vocalist, was also a complete c***, by contrast. Neither could have aroused me had she wanted to.) Chrissie Hynde, only slightly less so in personality, I’d have gotten with in a minute, save for her well known refusal to be intimate with carnivores.

    On the other hand, for example, Japanese and Chinese women were frequently very attractive to me before I became racially conscious and I must admit to having been with several, along with a couple of Koreans, a couple of Iranians and a smattering of “light mestizas”. I’m not proud of it, but I was quite promiscuous in my salad days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    Not that I ever thought I “had a chance with them” anyway,
     
    Well there is that.
    , @Jonathan Mason

    All “black” women that are even remotely palatable as sexual partners to any remotely sane white male are, in fact, mulattas with substantial white genetics which dominate in key areas. Even then the allure is largely because of propaganda.
     
    I don't think this is really true. North American men are very prejudiced against African American women, but take Germans, for example, and they tend to subscribe to the belief that the darker the berry, the sweeter the juice.

    Personally I think that black women tend to be MORE sexually attractive than white women, however with the proviso that in North America a very large percentage are obese and/or poor and ugly and therefore unattractive. However that is more due to cultural and dietary factors that any inherent lack of sexiness. A beautiful young black woman who has smooth skin, good teeth, and a slim or athletic body is a good enough sexual partner for anyone, regardless of whether she has a high or low degree of mulatto in her makeup.

    , @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    Meh, I've never understood the need to be racially aware when hitting some tail. The alt-right has this fixation with maintain Caucasian purity and some here fixate that extension to non-reproductive pursuits. You were getting laid, who cares what the nationality was? Same for marriage, too. It's not my fault western women are largely broken, narcissistic shits. I'm sure as hell not going to take on the responsibility of fixing it myself.
  37. @Santoculto
    Your language has no context. I will explain. In Portuguese language, there are many words that can be used for different contexts. The same word may be used for many situations. From there then, is contextualized. Not so with the English language, roughly speaking. Of course in Portuguese also have these problems, but I see that in your language is much worse, there is an exaggeration in this regard.

    I will not propose changes in her beloved language to justify my complete lack of desire to learn it, I do not want to and as incredible as it may seem, I see no reason to do so.

    For the rest, I will continue for now, at last, to defend myself. The way I have written here is quite simple, minimalist. I thought, '' they will contextualize. if it is or Their, they will understand. It is wrong, but logically understandable ''. But no, and that's amazing.

    I have no patience for whims. I know the Anglo-speakers are demanding with others. And that's the least bad, they should not be. But are.

    This is the nail in my coffin here. Since I am not Santoculto blog, I have another, I will not continue to comment and want, and go, stop reading all hbd blogs.

    Hbd is an ego place and highly sophisticated disinformation.

    They are not as liberal idealistic fools who get confused in the middle of the argument. I will raise my white flag, I want no part of this' human history '', the continuity of this delirium of crazy monkeys.

    Your posts make sense to me.

    Read More
  38. the Jew-groomed Entitlement Groups – Blacks, invasive mestizos, sodomites, and feminists – intend to make their “safe space”…every square inch of the planet. Unless Whites/normals exterminate them first

    Read More
  39. TheJester says:
    @JEGG
    I think that there is an underlying sexual attraction issue going on in many of the recent outbursts by black women. For whatever reasons, some of which are perhaps biologically-based, black women in general are not found as sexually attractive as non-black women. This can help fuel the deep-seated resentment exhibited in particular by black women toward white male administrators. Unfortunately, I don't see any solution to this, because I assume that diversity training isn't ever going to be able to change what someone finds sexually attractive.

    Who (desires) whom!

    Months ago I ran across a statistical study that assessed whom the different sexes and races … White, Black, Asian, Latino (sic) … prefer the most and least as partners. Given the aggregate scores in Men Rating Women, Asian and White women scored near the top. Black women were at the bottom.

    It is no wonder that Black women tend to be “in your face” and angry. Yes, they get the message. I wonder if this has something to do with the phenomenon of “shrieking Black females” in the recent ruckus on campuses. They don’t FEEL “inclusive” and are desperate to have someone do something about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Silber
    A study such as the one you describe appeared not long ago on the blog of the online dating website OkCupid.
  40. duderino says:

    Treating the activists like rational, good faith actors was the last thing the administrators should’ve done. The demands, if you read them, have a lot to do with hiring black teachers and administrators. (Never mind that qualified black professors are in high demand) Positions the activists hope to hold after this is said and done. These people are fighting for their self-interest, and won’t be tripped up by guilt. Presenting yourself as a strong authority figure and shaming them is the right course of action. In these particular instances, they are attacking the weak sport of administrators, who can’t stomach the idea of asserting dominance towards a minority.

    Then, there’s the emotional side of things. There have been several fake racist death threats by overzealous black lives matters activists. Going on social media, crusading against white supremacy, and getting lots of retweets is addictive to some. If your life is a mess, you can just blame the white devils and call it a day. Don’t rely on calling for objectivity, if one side is determined to gain advantages at any cost. They’re riled up to the point that they’ll create facts to fit the narrative. Aggressive shaming, with the intent of making activists feel social rejection and loss of future career prospects is the only thing that will work.

    Read More
  41. annamaria says:
    @Doug
    Good article, Mr. Derbyshire. On one point, however, you could have gone a little farther.

    James Watson may indeed be the greatest living geneticist, and I would not mention his joint Nobel Prize as though it added luster to his name. Watson's monumental achievement in figuring out the structure of DNA dwarfs the entire Nobel edifice. James Watson adds luster to the Nobel Prize, not the other way around.

    “Rosalind Franklin’ research was in a direction they had missed – without her work they would have continued along the wrong path. She was betrayed by her colleague [Wilkins] and conveniently forgotten by Watson and Crick (who knew exactly where the X-Ray photographs had come from). It’s one of the most shameful instances of plagiarism in the history of science.”
    “…Wilkins went looking for company at “the Cavendish” laboratory in Cambridge where his friend Francis Crick was working with James Watson on building a model of the DNA molecule. Unknown to Franklin, Watson and Crick saw some of her unpublished data, including the beautiful “photo 51,” shown to Watson by Wilkins. This X-ray diffraction picture of a DNA molecule was Watson’s inspiration (the pattern was clearly a helix). Using Franklin’s photograph and their own data, Watson and Crick created their famous DNA model. Franklin’s contribution was not acknowledged, but after her death Crick said that her contribution had been critical.”

    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/rosalind-franklin-a-crucial-contribution-6538012

    You are welcome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    It’s one of the most shameful instances of plagiarism in the history of science.

    No. Franklin supervised Raymond Gosling who took Photo 51 in May, 1952. Later, Gosling went to work with Wilkins, and showed him the photo. Then Wilkins showed the photo to Watson, and then Watson and Crick used the photo, along with their other data, to construct the DNA model.

    The photo didn't "belong" to Franklin except in some alternative universe where PhD advisors get to keep the work their graduate students do until they can figure out what to do with it. If that kind of attitude prevailed, we'd still be living in caves.

    Watson, Crick, and Wilkins got the Nobel for DNA in 1962. My guess is that if Franklin was still alive (she had died 4 years earlier) she may well have been included in that list.

    , @aeolius
    The simple matter of fact is that Rosalind Franklin was an excellent technician. Yes RF produced the famous photo 51. But she did not see the value of what she had produced. Crick and Watson did.
    It has been years since I have read the Double Helix stuff. But I am sure that there were many other prior studies used in the discovery. Certainly her work gave them an answer. But it was they and not her who were asking the correct questions.
    It was they not Franklin who were able to fit the pieces together to gain their wonderful insight. The Franklin boosters imply that without her work the correct structure would not have been found. This is an unfounded mental masturbation fantasy.
    Why do you not mention some of the other studies s it because they were done by men?
    The whole attempt to boost Franklin as being on a par with Watson and Crick is rather pathetic. It is a perversion of the Scientific Process to further a politic agenda.
    They have been many women who have made exciting scientific discoveries. Franklin just is not one of these. She produced a technically proficient photo.
  42. @JEC
    John Derbyshire argues that college bureaucrats cave in when faced with crazy demands from their 'students', because their moral intuition tells them to.

    The problem with moral intuitionism, from every point on the political spectrum, is that in the inevitable event of conflicting intuitions there's no criterion for deciding between them.

    JEC said:

    “The problem with moral intuitionism, from every point on the political spectrum, is that in the inevitable event of conflicting intuitions there’s no criterion for deciding between them.”

    Isn’t that what reason, thought, and judgement are for?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JEC
    Whar relevant empirical test would reason suggest?
  43. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Getting older and seeing the government get more involved in healthcare with things like Obamacare I have the fear that someday I’ll be assigned a black doctor without being able to jump ship and switch to another one. I’ve had a brush with black medical incompetency. Years back I broke a tendon and went to the emergency room of a large, well-regarded teaching hospital. A black doctor working there told me nothing could be done about it, that it was permanent and that I’d have to adjust to it. This surprised me since everybody knows that doctors perform sports injury surgeries every day including reattachments for broken tendons. The other doctors gave me a referral to an orthopedic surgeon, I saw him, he did the reattachment surgery and everything worked out. He did that sort of surgery routinely as part of his specialty. How could this ‘doctor’ not even know what some layman knows, that this sort of injury is common and gets fixed regularly? How could he be on staff at a major hospital like that? How many people has he gone on to screw up since then?

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    Probably a lot.

    As a rule i refuse to have a black doctor and will not let a foreign born black nurse touch me or for that matter a black nurse in general. Too many of them are at best borderline incompetent. Heck even the black patients don't trust them.

    To be honest I also won't deal with a Muslim doctor as well but that's just due to his view on non-Muslims and in general most have the manners of a a**hole.
  44. MarkinLA says:
    @BobN
    It must really warm Mr. Derbyshire's heart to read the comments here...

    Anyway, "From a misguided altruism, we admit to our universities big numbers of blacks who can’t do university-level work. Disappointed and frustrated, they act out."

    We've been admitting those black kids for decades and just now they've decided to "act out"?

    Geez, it's a good thing they're stupid and patient, no? The argument seems way too stupid for a white guy to have come up with...

    No they have been acting out for a long time. It was just in things nobody noticed or cared about such as silly protests that people ignored, shouting down speakers they didn’t want anybody to hear, or the creation of student groups no white would dare create for themselves. Each year the whining became more shrill until it has reached it’s present state of stupidity that cannot be ignored.

    Read More
  45. @Jim
    It's interesting that so many white liberals seem to care a lot more about blacks than about whites. White liberals are often indifferent if not downright hostile to the white working class or to poor whites living in Appalachia.

    A somewhat similar phenomenon is seen on the right. Many American conservatives seem to be far more concerned with the interests of Israel than with the interests of the US.

    Both cases are examples of pathological altruism.

    “A somewhat similar phenomenon is seen on the right. Many American conservatives seem to be far more concerned with the interests of Israel than with the interests of the US.”

    American neo-cons are more concerned with the interests of Israel than those of the U.S. However I wouldn’t call neo-cons conservatives but simply a different variety of leftist.

    It is unfortunate however that many Americans that are conservative by instinct don’t seem to understand that the neo-cons among them are their enemies and thus defer to the “foreign policy experts” that spend their days thinking of wars we can start on behalf of Israel.

    Read More
  46. WhatEvvs [AKA "Internet Addict"] says:
    @Calvin Hobbes
    "Before I spoke to the Black Law Students’ Association of the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2010, by way of preparation I did some quantitative analysis on the LSAT statistics, that’s the Law School Admission Test. On the basis of a simple LSAT cut-off score, I found that the expected number of blacks in the law school would be four. The actual number was 57. And that’s ignoring the phenomenon of the highest-prestige law schools sucking up all the brightest black applicants."

    So it's pretty clear that there is discrimination in favor of blacks in law school admissions, before they arrive at law school.

    But what happens after they get to law school?

    The answer is that most of them do abysmally with respect to first-year grades. An amazingly consistent pattern at American law schools is that half of black law students rank in the bottom 10%, with most of the rest still down there towards the bottom. At least that was the case in 1992, and I doubt that the situation now is much different. See Table 5.1, page 427, (for "elite" law schools) and Table 5.3 , page 431, (for lower-ranked law schools) here:

    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/final/SanderFINAL.pdf

    Of course this pattern is not possible at HBCU law schools, by the pigeon-hole principle of mathematics.

    So most blacks, always touchy about "stereotypes" concerning their intelligence, arrive at law school and discover that they are village idiots in their law school "village". It can't be fun being a village idiot. No wonder so many are angry and resentful.

    And what is the effect of this situation on the other law students? When they see that the black students around them are mostly village idiots, many of them constantly whining about being "oppressed" and making preposterous excuses for why they can't compete, the other students can't help but feel contempt for these dim bulbs. Of course those other students also know enough to STFU about what they see, but it's natural for them to develop a negative attitude towards blacks.

    So, the way our law schools admit students seems taylor-made to produce hostility among the blacks and contempt for blacks among the whites and Asians.

    There are huge racial test-score gaps among undergraduates at most universities, but there's not as much direct competition between smart undergraduates and dumb undergraduates at a particular university as there is between smart law students and dumb law students at a particular law school. Just about all big universities have "College for Dummies" majors that give their dim bulbs a path to a degree.

    Bingo.

    Just for the hell of it, I’ve been looking around to see whether or not there has ever been one, just one, black student who completed Harvard’s famous and notorious Math 55. I can’t find him. Can someone help me? (There have been a few women – but not one black man, to my knowledge.)

    Black physicists…

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/04/do-black-intellectuals-need-to-talk-about-race/black-academics-have-a-responsibility-to-the-next-generation

    This guy admits he was admitted to a Ph.D. program because a black professor forced the issue. Then he was promoted by a “white cosmologist” (disgusting phrase) who was a fan of Malcolm X.

    I don’t think he’s stupid, but he’s taking the place of a white (or more likely, Asian?) guy who had better credentials. Fair?

    More:

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/we-know-physics-largely-white-and-male-exactly-how-white-and-male-still-striking-180952021/?no-ist

    Guys, we are in the middle of a vast cultural meltdown.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    but he’s taking the place of a white (or more likely, Asian?) guy who had better credentials. Fair?

    If this was something like medical school where the amount of slots is strictly limited, I would say yes. However, for a physics PhD no. So he doesn't get into Brown. If he was any bit of impressive at all there is a PhD program for him somewhere. It may not get him the research opportunities he had at Brown but it won't be that big of a limitation now with the internet and a lot of projects being done by multiple universities in the country and around the world.

    Not that I support AA, the weaker candidate should still be the one not getting into Brown but it isn't the end of the world. By the way, is Brown noted at all in physics - it isn't Harvard, Yale, or Princeton for sure but is it even UC Berkeley?
    , @Calvin Hobbes
    I don't know about the Math 55 question. There was a smart math guy named Jonathan Farley who graduated with an undergrad degree in math from Harvard in 1991. It's remotely possible that this Farley did Math 55, though I doubt it. He did prove one thing in a niche field and has been bragging about it even since. He got very agitated about the Derb's "The Talk, Non-black Version" article here:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/12/black-mathematicians-john-derbyshire-fields-medal

    I don't think any black (of any nationality) has gotten an IMO gold medal. The Derb wrote about it here:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/derbyshire-on-race-and-the-international-math-olympiad

    There was a Nigerian who got 4 IMO bronze medals, twice just barely missing a silver.

    http://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=19734

    This guy is REALLY smart. He's not as smart as the guys who got IMO golds, though.

    I'm pretty sure that no American black has ever been on the US IMO team. The 6-person US IMO team is, more or less, chosen from the 12 "USAMO winners" on the United States of America Mathematical Olympiad. I'm pretty sure that no black has ever been a USAMO winner.

    The only important math contest for US undergraduates is the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, known as the "Putnam Exam". The top 5 (or top 6 last year, because of ties) are deemed Putnam Fellows. I don't believe there has ever been a black Putnam Fellow.

    The premier math contest for middle schoolers is MathCounts. Each state (and another 7 "states" like DC and Guam and Puerto Rico) sends a 4-person team to the national competition. The top 12 on the written part of the contest go on to the "CountDown" round, in which they compete in an insanely nerve-wracking contest in front of a huge audience. I'm pretty sure that no black has ever made the CountDown round. In my experience, there are almost no black competitors at all at the national competition.
  47. WhatEvvs [AKA "Internet Addict"] says:
    @Patrick in SC

    And what is the effect of this situation on the other law students?
     
    They keep their mouths shut, of course, but they don't really mind having these people around. It's less competition. They're already accepted into the school, so it's all the better affirmative action keeps potential competition away.

    Yes, but they won’t like it when the blacks who manage to scrape through law school (some do) get plum jobs with Big Law with lesser grades and get ahead in Big Law with less work. Will they?

    Read More
  48. rod1963 says:
    @anonymous
    Getting older and seeing the government get more involved in healthcare with things like Obamacare I have the fear that someday I'll be assigned a black doctor without being able to jump ship and switch to another one. I've had a brush with black medical incompetency. Years back I broke a tendon and went to the emergency room of a large, well-regarded teaching hospital. A black doctor working there told me nothing could be done about it, that it was permanent and that I'd have to adjust to it. This surprised me since everybody knows that doctors perform sports injury surgeries every day including reattachments for broken tendons. The other doctors gave me a referral to an orthopedic surgeon, I saw him, he did the reattachment surgery and everything worked out. He did that sort of surgery routinely as part of his specialty. How could this 'doctor' not even know what some layman knows, that this sort of injury is common and gets fixed regularly? How could he be on staff at a major hospital like that? How many people has he gone on to screw up since then?

    Probably a lot.

    As a rule i refuse to have a black doctor and will not let a foreign born black nurse touch me or for that matter a black nurse in general. Too many of them are at best borderline incompetent. Heck even the black patients don’t trust them.

    To be honest I also won’t deal with a Muslim doctor as well but that’s just due to his view on non-Muslims and in general most have the manners of a a**hole.

    Read More
  49. SPMoore8 says:
    @annamaria
    "Rosalind Franklin' research was in a direction they had missed - without her work they would have continued along the wrong path. She was betrayed by her colleague [Wilkins] and conveniently forgotten by Watson and Crick (who knew exactly where the X-Ray photographs had come from). It's one of the most shameful instances of plagiarism in the history of science."
    "...Wilkins went looking for company at "the Cavendish" laboratory in Cambridge where his friend Francis Crick was working with James Watson on building a model of the DNA molecule. Unknown to Franklin, Watson and Crick saw some of her unpublished data, including the beautiful "photo 51," shown to Watson by Wilkins. This X-ray diffraction picture of a DNA molecule was Watson's inspiration (the pattern was clearly a helix). Using Franklin's photograph and their own data, Watson and Crick created their famous DNA model. Franklin's contribution was not acknowledged, but after her death Crick said that her contribution had been critical."
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/rosalind-franklin-a-crucial-contribution-6538012
    You are welcome.

    It’s one of the most shameful instances of plagiarism in the history of science.

    No. Franklin supervised Raymond Gosling who took Photo 51 in May, 1952. Later, Gosling went to work with Wilkins, and showed him the photo. Then Wilkins showed the photo to Watson, and then Watson and Crick used the photo, along with their other data, to construct the DNA model.

    The photo didn’t “belong” to Franklin except in some alternative universe where PhD advisors get to keep the work their graduate students do until they can figure out what to do with it. If that kind of attitude prevailed, we’d still be living in caves.

    Watson, Crick, and Wilkins got the Nobel for DNA in 1962. My guess is that if Franklin was still alive (she had died 4 years earlier) she may well have been included in that list.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Nobels are only awarded to living scholars but a handful of researchers and advocates in the past few decades have argued that Franklin deserves more credit than she got for the DNA discovery. Her images of the B-form of the molecule, which revealed DNA as made of two helices (especially the "photograph 51" image), were shared with Wilkins, Watson and Crick without her permission. The data provided key information that allowed Watson and Crick (who worked at Cavendish Laboratory in England) to correctly model DNA as a double helix, a project they had been pursuing aggressively for months in competition with Linus Pauling at Caltech and with John Randall, who headed up the King's laboratory where Wilkins worked with Franklin."

    Then why did Crick recognize the "critical" contribution of Franklin (as did many others) but not of Raymond Gosling? And does not this story takes off some of the "luster" that Watson allegedly added to the Nobel Prize?

    "Gosling was then assigned to Rosalind Franklin when she joined King's College in 1951. They worked under the direction of Sir John Randall. Together they produced the first X-ray diffraction photographs of the "form B" paracrystalline arrays of highly hydrated DNA. She was his academic supervisor. During the next two years, the pair worked closely together to perfect the technique of x-ray diffraction photography of DNA and obtained at the time the sharpest diffraction images of DNA. Gosling made the X-ray diffraction image of DNA known as "Photograph 51." This work led directly to the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine being awarded to Francis Crick, James D. Watson and Maurice Wilkins. Gosling was the co-author with Franklin of one of the three DNA double helix papers published in Nature in April 1953." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Gosling
    Please take note that Franklin was the first author of the paper and Gosling was a co-author.


    "She was studying the process known as x-ray crystallography, a complicated process wherein the structure of proteins is teased out of x-ray photographs. One of the proteins she was working on happened to be DNA. Apparently her advisor, Maurice Wilkins, had a strong dislike for the girl and, without her knowledge or consent, presented the visiting Watson and Crick with her imagery, which happened to be exactly the data they needed to confirm their suspicions. It was, “the data we actually used,” said Crick."
    https://theglyptodon.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/rosalind-franklin/
    Yes, the three gentlemen that had received the Noble Price were then young and ambitious, but what they did was dishonest.
  50. Truth says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Partially true. Whites could easily take out blacks if we were allowed to use our advantages - intelligence, organization, discipline, use of technology, etc. - but we're not. This allows blacks to run roughshod over whites on the streets.

    Whites use mostly white cops - who can employ our advantages - as a surrogate for controlling blacks. However, it is true that most white cower when confronted by blacks. But I'd say that for many whites, it's not just cowardice that causes them to back off, but an understanding that 1) the vast majority of blacks really are stupid and aren't smart enough to consider the consequences of getting a serious fight (broken bones, lost teeth, etc.) while we are and 2) the government and media will persecute us regardless of whose fault it is.

    Basically, it's not worth getting into a fight with these dumb animals.

    Someday that equation may change.

    But I’d say that for many whites, it’s not just cowardice that causes them to back off, but an understanding that

    Not in you’re case, you’re just a chickenshit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @schmenz
    Please explain to a dumbhead like me how your comment advances the discussion? Thank you.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Well, I did have probation (not parole) officer in high school due to fighting problems, so I can't be that much of a chickenshit. Granted, I never got in a fight with black kids because we didn't have any. Just whites and Indians (real Indians, not dot heads). Btw, watch out for Indians. They might be drunk most of the time, but they can fight.
  51. Truth says:
    @Former Darfur
    All "black" women that are even remotely palatable as sexual partners to any remotely sane white male are, in fact, mulattas with substantial white genetics which dominate in key areas. Even then the allure is largely because of propaganda.

    White men who have relations with underclass ghetto black women are really defective from my own personal observations.

    In my own case, I was never in the slightest aroused by black women, including several of the black musical figures I was around in an earlier occupation, many of whom I regarded highly as musicians and some of whom I thought were very decent human beings. Not that I ever thought I "had a chance with them" anyway, but for instance I thought Donna Summer was a very likable and decent person, but I didn't look at her that way. (Diana Ross, a better vocalist, was also a complete c***, by contrast. Neither could have aroused me had she wanted to.) Chrissie Hynde, only slightly less so in personality, I'd have gotten with in a minute, save for her well known refusal to be intimate with carnivores.

    On the other hand, for example, Japanese and Chinese women were frequently very attractive to me before I became racially conscious and I must admit to having been with several, along with a couple of Koreans, a couple of Iranians and a smattering of "light mestizas". I'm not proud of it, but I was quite promiscuous in my salad days.

    Not that I ever thought I “had a chance with them” anyway,

    Well there is that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    At the level of big money touring acts, you don't "have a chance with" the female talent anyway, at least during the tour. Not if you are doing something on the tour and not at the local venue level either. While male rock stars get to, and often do screw local (and carefully vetted, believe me) women on tour, women are either invariably attached to some man in the band or a manager, etc, or her husband/SO is on the tour as deadhead, or she's celibate or lesbian-at least for the tour. Aside from the basic male-female difference in relationships (no attractive woman has to 'pay for it', so to speak), there is the basic economic principle. "They" are not going to allow it. It's not so much they care she might get knocked up or get VD-those things won't stop the tour, unless it's a year long or something. They are worried she will get killed, beaten up, or that a one night stand will lead to an emotional attachment that will go and and cause the performer undue stress. Major tours carry multimillion dollar performance bond and tour cost liabilities and are insured accordingly. I guarantee Taylor Swift couldn't sneak out of her hotel to hook up with some schlub if she wanted to-at that level, they are birds in gilded cages.

    Off tour could some semi-decent guy not famous reasonably ever hope to notch up a bigtime girl rocker? Ehhh, it happens. As with actresses the available ones are usually over the hill or damaged goods, but things happen. I scored with a fortysomething country queen once and turned down the advances of a fairly famous jazz singer (white!), who killed herself a couple of years later, because I was literally too drunk to f***. But a "major rock singer"? No. For one thing, I never lived in a place where the chances of meeting them off tour were more than miniscule.

    Some women have certain fetishes or restrictions that mean if you fit those criteria your chances go up a lot, of course. Chrissie Hynde, famously, is a vegetarian and like many vegetarians was/is only interested in relationships with other vegetarians. (Faking it is pointless-most of them can smell meat eaters and you'd have to go veg for a long time to 'pass'.) I'm not saying she was promiscuous even to veg-boys, but that would narrow it down. Similarly, a couple of now pretty old 80s songbirds were notorious sizequeens, so if you are packing the odds would be better. I didn't say I thought I "had a shot at" Chrissie, only that I found her sexually very attractive. Big difference. A lot of men thought that Joan Jett was hot, I never did but I was always amused by that because I knew she was a lesbian since the Runaways days.

    As far as black women go, in my younger days I would run into what I recognized were to be considered "attractive", that is, white-under-the-skin, black women and I had a few awkward moments when I had to get across that they just weren't my cup of tea. Well meaning, or very devious people tried to set me up with a couple of them, and some of them were very nice, clean, bright seeming girls, but I just wasn't interested, and I managed to avoid them in a polite, respectful fashion. After becoming racially conscious, I finally got the nerve to just let the word out and black women just developed deflector shields magically. Most are adult about it-I've never had any problems with them, only with white or Jewish women who sense my lack of interest and take it upon themselves to criticize my "prejudice". I get along fine with blacks, women or men, in the workplace, but we don't hire ghetto people (white or black) so it isn't an issue. I'd say the black men consider it a positive that I do not mess with their women under any circumstances.
  52. guest says:
    @Santoculto
    People use the word intution excessively. Everything you ''can't'' supposedly to be explain will be ''intuitive''. I have higher intuition and i can to say without problem that the moral default is not the same than genuine intuition.

    Racism card or other post-modern moral card are not based on intuition of people but by their contextual/comparative stupidity. People seems just react based on own personal perceptual-specific (in this case, moral) ceilling, what the best they can do/understand. If a white woman internalize all or most part of anti-white post-modern narrative it is not the result of ''intuition'' but how your body-mind system (ceilling) react with this environmental circumstances.

    Intuitive is not even a subconscious, is unconscious. But this decisions will not be ''subconscious'' for people who internalize it, just for us that can see your analytical defects. Of course, there are answers that will be much better than others, no doubt about it, but most part of the time, all beings are just trying to do their best and to a lot of people think that to be anti-racist and virulent anti-white IS to do their best as reaction to this specific but globally important/crucial circumstance.

    What is the difference between “subconscious” and “unconscious?”

    Read More
  53. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Santoculto
    Your language has no context. I will explain. In Portuguese language, there are many words that can be used for different contexts. The same word may be used for many situations. From there then, is contextualized. Not so with the English language, roughly speaking. Of course in Portuguese also have these problems, but I see that in your language is much worse, there is an exaggeration in this regard.

    I will not propose changes in her beloved language to justify my complete lack of desire to learn it, I do not want to and as incredible as it may seem, I see no reason to do so.

    For the rest, I will continue for now, at last, to defend myself. The way I have written here is quite simple, minimalist. I thought, '' they will contextualize. if it is or Their, they will understand. It is wrong, but logically understandable ''. But no, and that's amazing.

    I have no patience for whims. I know the Anglo-speakers are demanding with others. And that's the least bad, they should not be. But are.

    This is the nail in my coffin here. Since I am not Santoculto blog, I have another, I will not continue to comment and want, and go, stop reading all hbd blogs.

    Hbd is an ego place and highly sophisticated disinformation.

    They are not as liberal idealistic fools who get confused in the middle of the argument. I will raise my white flag, I want no part of this' human history '', the continuity of this delirium of crazy monkeys.

    Since you have no desire to speak English, just type your thoughts in Portugese and translate with Google.

    Fairly painless, and you won’t need to sully your mind with the language of the Eternal Anglo.

    Read More
  54. JEC says:
    @philhellenic
    JEC said:

    "The problem with moral intuitionism, from every point on the political spectrum, is that in the inevitable event of conflicting intuitions there’s no criterion for deciding between them."

    Isn't that what reason, thought, and judgement are for?

    Whar relevant empirical test would reason suggest?

    Read More
  55. annamaria says:
    @SPMoore8
    It’s one of the most shameful instances of plagiarism in the history of science.

    No. Franklin supervised Raymond Gosling who took Photo 51 in May, 1952. Later, Gosling went to work with Wilkins, and showed him the photo. Then Wilkins showed the photo to Watson, and then Watson and Crick used the photo, along with their other data, to construct the DNA model.

    The photo didn't "belong" to Franklin except in some alternative universe where PhD advisors get to keep the work their graduate students do until they can figure out what to do with it. If that kind of attitude prevailed, we'd still be living in caves.

    Watson, Crick, and Wilkins got the Nobel for DNA in 1962. My guess is that if Franklin was still alive (she had died 4 years earlier) she may well have been included in that list.

    “Nobels are only awarded to living scholars but a handful of researchers and advocates in the past few decades have argued that Franklin deserves more credit than she got for the DNA discovery. Her images of the B-form of the molecule, which revealed DNA as made of two helices (especially the “photograph 51″ image), were shared with Wilkins, Watson and Crick without her permission. The data provided key information that allowed Watson and Crick (who worked at Cavendish Laboratory in England) to correctly model DNA as a double helix, a project they had been pursuing aggressively for months in competition with Linus Pauling at Caltech and with John Randall, who headed up the King’s laboratory where Wilkins worked with Franklin.”

    Then why did Crick recognize the “critical” contribution of Franklin (as did many others) but not of Raymond Gosling? And does not this story takes off some of the “luster” that Watson allegedly added to the Nobel Prize?

    “Gosling was then assigned to Rosalind Franklin when she joined King’s College in 1951. They worked under the direction of Sir John Randall. Together they produced the first X-ray diffraction photographs of the “form B” paracrystalline arrays of highly hydrated DNA. She was his academic supervisor. During the next two years, the pair worked closely together to perfect the technique of x-ray diffraction photography of DNA and obtained at the time the sharpest diffraction images of DNA. Gosling made the X-ray diffraction image of DNA known as “Photograph 51.” This work led directly to the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine being awarded to Francis Crick, James D. Watson and Maurice Wilkins. Gosling was the co-author with Franklin of one of the three DNA double helix papers published in Nature in April 1953.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Gosling
    Please take note that Franklin was the first author of the paper and Gosling was a co-author.

    “She was studying the process known as x-ray crystallography, a complicated process wherein the structure of proteins is teased out of x-ray photographs. One of the proteins she was working on happened to be DNA. Apparently her advisor, Maurice Wilkins, had a strong dislike for the girl and, without her knowledge or consent, presented the visiting Watson and Crick with her imagery, which happened to be exactly the data they needed to confirm their suspicions. It was, “the data we actually used,” said Crick.”

    https://theglyptodon.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/rosalind-franklin/

    Yes, the three gentlemen that had received the Noble Price were then young and ambitious, but what they did was dishonest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Please take note that Franklin was the first author of the paper": did that carry any significance in Britain in '53?
  56. For proof of the low intelligence of these black fools and tools at Yale and Dartmouth and Mo-U and really, everywhere, just look at what they’re doing. They terrorize and hassle and heap indignity on the very White students who will go on to be the prosecutors, judges and politicians of the future ruling class. The kids of today suffering at the hands of these monsters will not forget when they are the ruling class of tomorrow. There will be a heavy price to be paid by Blacks, thousands upon thousands in the courts, millions nationwide for the savagery visited upon the White kids sitting there just trying to get through school. They aren’t going to hire Blacks, be around Blacks or tolerate Blacks on any level when they are in positions of power because they will remember. Blacks are just idiots, their stupidity is breathtaking.

    Read More
  57. @JEGG
    I think that there is an underlying sexual attraction issue going on in many of the recent outbursts by black women. For whatever reasons, some of which are perhaps biologically-based, black women in general are not found as sexually attractive as non-black women. This can help fuel the deep-seated resentment exhibited in particular by black women toward white male administrators. Unfortunately, I don't see any solution to this, because I assume that diversity training isn't ever going to be able to change what someone finds sexually attractive.

    I doubt that this plays a big role. As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women. Similar to the partner market of other mammals competition is amongst males. On average women with subsaharan African ancestry are surely perceived as less attractive than other women. But still the majority of women with subsaharan African ancestry could persuade males of any ancestry to have sex with them any time. Thats just how the partner market works. Maybe they have less chances than other women with the 1 % of most attractive males, but that cannot make them feel unwanted or something like that.
    Racial differences play of course a big role for the male side of partner market. That means asian males have problems on the partner market, black males have a natural advantage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    I dunno, Erik, the true "Ghetto Mamas", they just don't throw up the Open For Business sign and get guys. I agree with JEGG, who I believe said the white men that would even have sex (forget any notion of a relationship as these women are unloveable at BEST) are seriously defective. There aren't that many that would venture into the zone where you would get to one of these women.

    Not only would the Black women not get the top 1% as you mention, they couldn't get the bottom 5% and I believe that would be the bottom 5% of their own race. And for sex, not for marriage or romance, these women aren't getting flowers on Valentines for Gawd's sake. And yeah, I think they're probably pissed off. Their daughters graduate high school, get a pass into college and look just like their mothers, they're pissed off they can't find a man and on top of it, they get to watch the black men on campus dating the White chicks. That pisses the sistahs off and may be some underlying motivation for their animosity. Lots of ramifications and side issues, but all I know is, the White kids from Dartmouth and Yale that are the victims of Black rage, those White kids are the real deal. They'll be ruling class one day, judges, prosecutors, politicians and they'll remember in great detail the abuse they suffer today at the hands of these worthless Black minions, tools and fools of #blacklivesmatter.

    Whether the obese ghetto mamas get men or not matters not one wit other than their unsupported, low-IQ children that dilute and even pollute the gene pool and perpetuate the cycle. Hell, we have enough refugees as it is, they're called African Americans and their care and feeding (all kinds of care and feeding and the sheer, utter waste) is nearly the ruination of the country.

    , @Anthony
    But still the majority of women with subsaharan African ancestry could persuade males of any ancestry to have sex with them any time.

    The issue isn't specifically sex, it's sexual commitment. Most white, hispanic, or asian guys would have sex with a reasonably attractive black woman (even one much less attractive than the one in the picture on this post), but not nearly so many could be persuaded to stick around, or to marry them. Fat women have the same problem.

    Black women also have the problem of a man shortage. While very few non-black men will marry black women, very few non-black women will marry black men, so black men who want to marry are pretty much looking at black women. However, since so many black men are in jail or so broke that no woman would marry them, black men have very little incentive to offer commitment - at least the sort of commitment that white or hispanic men will offer - because there's always another woman who won't be quite so demanding.
    , @guest
    "there is no real competition among women"

    Not in merely finding sexual partners, but there's more than one game. Women compete for the best partners to commit to them, and not just the top 1%. Competition is stiff. Losing can make you feel unwanted despite the availability of lesser men. Consolation prizes don't make you forget why you need to be consoled.

    The fact that they're not as bad off as losers in the men's game is irrelevant. Disgruntled males kill and rape people. Female losers get more bitchy.
    , @MarkinLA
    As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women.

    Not true. Maybe you just aren't one of the obvious top 10%. Neither am I, but you can sure see the difference in women when they are around a guy like that.
    , @AnotherDad

    I doubt that this plays a big role. As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women.
     
    That explains why women never spend any time\effort on their appearance. I always wondered about that.
    , @Former Darfur
    Women of most any description can find some male who will service them no matter what, but if they want a clean, pleasant, attractive man who isn't damaged goods, isn't likely to be diseased or a potential killer, torturer or beater, and so forth, the pickings get somewhat slimmer. There are an awful lot of white women I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole and wouldn't have on my worst day, let alone the others.

    Since there are plenty of white women and various others who will take on, even who are aggressively looking for, black men, the lower grade of ghetto black women obviously are going to be subject to short prospects, so to speak. Remember Rachel Jeantel, the obese and profoundly stupid witness shown in the Trayvon Martin trial? Why would any black man above her level-which is more than half of them-even consider her? As sexually charged as they are, she probably gets very little sex. Indeed, the better class of black women are famously unable to find a black man at or even just somewhat below their own level. Hence their justifiable resentment of white women who fool with their men.
  58. IA says:

    I really don’t think liberals view blacks as sacred at all.

    Firstly, sacred means an object or place associated with divine or supernatural forces. Relics in the Middle Ages were required to perform miracles. It didn’t matter if the splinter was a fake or an actual part of the cross, as long it had caused some miracle. Most, though not all, liberals are atheists who can not imagine or believe in miracles.

    The only “miracle” performed is to be able to establish superiority, via the media, in these high profile cases. By proving his “tolerance” towards the “rights” of people’s crushed by the European tribe the white person is gesturing to other tribe members that he is so far above blacks, and Muslims, that he can pretend to “care.” This is a vicious cat-and-mouse game meant to humiliate whites lower down who cannot easily escape to high security or good schools. Whites lower down mimic the behavior of high status whites in a desperate attempt to maintain status in a disintegrating culture.

    So, these things are a product of “human rights” and the overwhelming superiority (still) of the white man’s tribe.

    Read More
  59. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    Say whut?? Ya think you cut some of that down into two syllable words?

    Sufficient attention to basic grammar for intelligibility would suffice.

    Read More
  60. From a misguided altruism, we admit to our universities big numbers of blacks who can’t do university-level work.

    Why would anyone seriously believe “misguided altruism” is the cause? The author has bought into half the fairy tale.

    Read More
  61. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    I wonder about the overall economic cost of black or other incompetent minority hires. Many third world counties have business and governments that run ineffectively because they’re loaded with nepotistic hires who lacks skills, cost extra to employ, and who make the entire organization run badly. The more the US adopts affirmative action hiring in business and government, the less effectively our own organizations will run. How much money are black hires costing us?

    It’s been said that third-world bribery sucks up an incredible amount of capital that could be better used to help support your own family or used to found small-family run businesses, and that bribery is a major cause of the endemic poverty in these locations. I’m beginning to suspect the US is throwing away huge amounts of capital on a population of affirmative action hires in a manner that does a lot more damage to our economy and efficiency than anyone realizes (akin to the damage that bribery causes), and that we’re gradually approaching levels of second- and third-world incompetency in a manner that’s being partially disguised for now, though it may become more apparent in the future.

    Has anyone ever calculated the total economic cost of black hires and other unproductive minorities?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    The cost of affirmative action for Blacks and forced hiring of women is incalculable. It is, in totality, why the United States is bogged down, inefficient and slothful, our once-mighty cities are ruined and crime-ridden, our infrastructure, public education and government institutions reduced to third-world quality. As if that isn't enough, there are so many affirmative action hires into the military half our ships can no longer sail because after all, what would the single mothers do with their children if the poor military feminist tough-chicks had to deploy? Out greatest ships, reduced to pier side office buildings to support slutty single mothers and their bastard children. And how do you put a cost on THAT?

    To calculate the cost in accurate terms, you would first have to get the truth from the very people that run things now for they are ALL affirmative action hires in one form or another. Ain't gonna happen. All this is why the United States is finished. All done but the collapse.
    , @TangoMan
    I wonder about the overall economic cost of black or other incompetent minority hires.

    Here you go: Is Diversity Bad for Economic Growth: Evidence from State-Level Data in the US.


    The paper examines the macroeconomic effects of social diversity within the United States. Employing a cross-sectional dataset for 48 contiguous states with the US, we find empirical evidence for a negative impact of diversity on Gross State Product (GSP) per capita growth. The findings indicate that racial diversity has a negative economic impact in the absence of offsetting factors that would help to overcome barriers to communication across social groups. After controlling for low levels of English fluency, or the inability to communicate effectively, the estimated negative economic impact of racial diversity is even more pronounced.
     
  62. @Erik Sieven
    I doubt that this plays a big role. As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women. Similar to the partner market of other mammals competition is amongst males. On average women with subsaharan African ancestry are surely perceived as less attractive than other women. But still the majority of women with subsaharan African ancestry could persuade males of any ancestry to have sex with them any time. Thats just how the partner market works. Maybe they have less chances than other women with the 1 % of most attractive males, but that cannot make them feel unwanted or something like that.
    Racial differences play of course a big role for the male side of partner market. That means asian males have problems on the partner market, black males have a natural advantage.

    I dunno, Erik, the true “Ghetto Mamas”, they just don’t throw up the Open For Business sign and get guys. I agree with JEGG, who I believe said the white men that would even have sex (forget any notion of a relationship as these women are unloveable at BEST) are seriously defective. There aren’t that many that would venture into the zone where you would get to one of these women.

    Not only would the Black women not get the top 1% as you mention, they couldn’t get the bottom 5% and I believe that would be the bottom 5% of their own race. And for sex, not for marriage or romance, these women aren’t getting flowers on Valentines for Gawd’s sake. And yeah, I think they’re probably pissed off. Their daughters graduate high school, get a pass into college and look just like their mothers, they’re pissed off they can’t find a man and on top of it, they get to watch the black men on campus dating the White chicks. That pisses the sistahs off and may be some underlying motivation for their animosity. Lots of ramifications and side issues, but all I know is, the White kids from Dartmouth and Yale that are the victims of Black rage, those White kids are the real deal. They’ll be ruling class one day, judges, prosecutors, politicians and they’ll remember in great detail the abuse they suffer today at the hands of these worthless Black minions, tools and fools of #blacklivesmatter.

    Whether the obese ghetto mamas get men or not matters not one wit other than their unsupported, low-IQ children that dilute and even pollute the gene pool and perpetuate the cycle. Hell, we have enough refugees as it is, they’re called African Americans and their care and feeding (all kinds of care and feeding and the sheer, utter waste) is nearly the ruination of the country.

    Read More
  63. schmenz says:
    @Truth

    But I’d say that for many whites, it’s not just cowardice that causes them to back off, but an understanding that
     
    Not in you're case, you're just a chickenshit.

    Please explain to a dumbhead like me how your comment advances the discussion? Thank you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Truth closed down a coward that explains away why he knuckles under to Blacks. That has great value. Besides, are you the traffic cop-of-good-and-bad-comments? Rebut if you may, but the judgment of whether comments contribute according to your standards is one best kept to yourself, all due respect.

    Truth happens to be correct, by the way. Just sayin'.
    , @Truth
    Sure, I'll explain it to you as if you weren't a dumbhead; and hope for the best.

    etymology of "discussion":

    from discussus, past participle of discutere "strike asunder, break up," from dis- "apart" (see dis-) + quatere "to shake" (see quash). Meaning "a talking over, debating" in English first recorded mid-15c. Sense evolution in Latin appears to have been from "smash apart" to "scatter, disperse," then in post-classical times (via the mental process involved) to "investigate, examine," then to "debate."

    Well there it is.
  64. @Anon
    I wonder about the overall economic cost of black or other incompetent minority hires. Many third world counties have business and governments that run ineffectively because they're loaded with nepotistic hires who lacks skills, cost extra to employ, and who make the entire organization run badly. The more the US adopts affirmative action hiring in business and government, the less effectively our own organizations will run. How much money are black hires costing us?

    It's been said that third-world bribery sucks up an incredible amount of capital that could be better used to help support your own family or used to found small-family run businesses, and that bribery is a major cause of the endemic poverty in these locations. I'm beginning to suspect the US is throwing away huge amounts of capital on a population of affirmative action hires in a manner that does a lot more damage to our economy and efficiency than anyone realizes (akin to the damage that bribery causes), and that we're gradually approaching levels of second- and third-world incompetency in a manner that's being partially disguised for now, though it may become more apparent in the future.

    Has anyone ever calculated the total economic cost of black hires and other unproductive minorities?

    The cost of affirmative action for Blacks and forced hiring of women is incalculable. It is, in totality, why the United States is bogged down, inefficient and slothful, our once-mighty cities are ruined and crime-ridden, our infrastructure, public education and government institutions reduced to third-world quality. As if that isn’t enough, there are so many affirmative action hires into the military half our ships can no longer sail because after all, what would the single mothers do with their children if the poor military feminist tough-chicks had to deploy? Out greatest ships, reduced to pier side office buildings to support slutty single mothers and their bastard children. And how do you put a cost on THAT?

    To calculate the cost in accurate terms, you would first have to get the truth from the very people that run things now for they are ALL affirmative action hires in one form or another. Ain’t gonna happen. All this is why the United States is finished. All done but the collapse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan D Mute

    All this is why the United States is finished. All done but the collapse.
     
    Given our $20 Trillion debt and $100+ Trillion unfunded liabilities, that collapse is long overdue. The burden of tens of million of counter-productive (not just non-productive) parasites is more than the nation can bear. Combine with our various expeditions into Muslim killing to please domestic Jews and Christians, and with export of manufacturing to Asia and Latin America, and America is a walking corpse.
  65. @schmenz
    Please explain to a dumbhead like me how your comment advances the discussion? Thank you.

    Truth closed down a coward that explains away why he knuckles under to Blacks. That has great value. Besides, are you the traffic cop-of-good-and-bad-comments? Rebut if you may, but the judgment of whether comments contribute according to your standards is one best kept to yourself, all due respect.

    Truth happens to be correct, by the way. Just sayin’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Avoiding a confrontation where the government will always cast you as the villain and run you through the legal gauntlet and "knucking under" are not the same thing.
    , @IA

    . . . he knuckles under to Blacks.
     
    He is black, you fool.
    , @Truth
    Well thank you, Sir.
    , @schmenz
    My question to "truth" was to explain to me how this edifying comment of his:

    "Not in you’re case, you’re just a chickenshit."

    advances the discussion. I was unaware that Junior High-level name calling is now a substitute for intelligent back-and-forth discussion. Obviously I am naive.
  66. dearieme says:
    @annamaria
    "Nobels are only awarded to living scholars but a handful of researchers and advocates in the past few decades have argued that Franklin deserves more credit than she got for the DNA discovery. Her images of the B-form of the molecule, which revealed DNA as made of two helices (especially the "photograph 51" image), were shared with Wilkins, Watson and Crick without her permission. The data provided key information that allowed Watson and Crick (who worked at Cavendish Laboratory in England) to correctly model DNA as a double helix, a project they had been pursuing aggressively for months in competition with Linus Pauling at Caltech and with John Randall, who headed up the King's laboratory where Wilkins worked with Franklin."

    Then why did Crick recognize the "critical" contribution of Franklin (as did many others) but not of Raymond Gosling? And does not this story takes off some of the "luster" that Watson allegedly added to the Nobel Prize?

    "Gosling was then assigned to Rosalind Franklin when she joined King's College in 1951. They worked under the direction of Sir John Randall. Together they produced the first X-ray diffraction photographs of the "form B" paracrystalline arrays of highly hydrated DNA. She was his academic supervisor. During the next two years, the pair worked closely together to perfect the technique of x-ray diffraction photography of DNA and obtained at the time the sharpest diffraction images of DNA. Gosling made the X-ray diffraction image of DNA known as "Photograph 51." This work led directly to the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine being awarded to Francis Crick, James D. Watson and Maurice Wilkins. Gosling was the co-author with Franklin of one of the three DNA double helix papers published in Nature in April 1953." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Gosling
    Please take note that Franklin was the first author of the paper and Gosling was a co-author.


    "She was studying the process known as x-ray crystallography, a complicated process wherein the structure of proteins is teased out of x-ray photographs. One of the proteins she was working on happened to be DNA. Apparently her advisor, Maurice Wilkins, had a strong dislike for the girl and, without her knowledge or consent, presented the visiting Watson and Crick with her imagery, which happened to be exactly the data they needed to confirm their suspicions. It was, “the data we actually used,” said Crick."
    https://theglyptodon.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/rosalind-franklin/
    Yes, the three gentlemen that had received the Noble Price were then young and ambitious, but what they did was dishonest.

    “Please take note that Franklin was the first author of the paper”: did that carry any significance in Britain in ’53?

    Read More
  67. Anthony says:
    @Erik Sieven
    I doubt that this plays a big role. As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women. Similar to the partner market of other mammals competition is amongst males. On average women with subsaharan African ancestry are surely perceived as less attractive than other women. But still the majority of women with subsaharan African ancestry could persuade males of any ancestry to have sex with them any time. Thats just how the partner market works. Maybe they have less chances than other women with the 1 % of most attractive males, but that cannot make them feel unwanted or something like that.
    Racial differences play of course a big role for the male side of partner market. That means asian males have problems on the partner market, black males have a natural advantage.

    But still the majority of women with subsaharan African ancestry could persuade males of any ancestry to have sex with them any time.

    The issue isn’t specifically sex, it’s sexual commitment. Most white, hispanic, or asian guys would have sex with a reasonably attractive black woman (even one much less attractive than the one in the picture on this post), but not nearly so many could be persuaded to stick around, or to marry them. Fat women have the same problem.

    Black women also have the problem of a man shortage. While very few non-black men will marry black women, very few non-black women will marry black men, so black men who want to marry are pretty much looking at black women. However, since so many black men are in jail or so broke that no woman would marry them, black men have very little incentive to offer commitment – at least the sort of commitment that white or hispanic men will offer – because there’s always another woman who won’t be quite so demanding.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Concur with most. A point missed in these discussions is the sheer rage of Black women in the "educated" classes, that is, the Black women that got a degree printed up and framed and went on to an affirmative action job in government. Already supremely entitled and full of attitude and empowerment, they look at the landscape of African American romance and for them, unwilling ever to marry down, look around at a barren wasteland of opportunity. The Black men are mostly in jail, dead or not of sufficient stature for their entitled liking, even the massively obese Black women and truthfully, White women are bringing up there rear, so to speak in the angry-entitlement department.

    The rage of this class of Black female is trebled by the fact that the few Black men of education and opportunity and wealth (mostly the athletes) immediately bypass the Black women of heavy attitude and entitlement because the demeanor of Black women is so manly, so nagging and so prone to abuse, Black men of class and distinction and wealth see Black women as not worth the trouble and who could blame them? So they marry White, Asian and Hispanic women. White men are following this strategy because of the same circumstance with White women, but I digress. Full-on Black women are the absolute bottom of SMV and this will not change. There are the half and half types and I suspect they're more marketable, more intelligent and consequently, less mindlessly angry and so find mates, or at least, the occasional bang. But they are another class altogether from where I sit.
  68. guest says:
    @Erik Sieven
    I doubt that this plays a big role. As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women. Similar to the partner market of other mammals competition is amongst males. On average women with subsaharan African ancestry are surely perceived as less attractive than other women. But still the majority of women with subsaharan African ancestry could persuade males of any ancestry to have sex with them any time. Thats just how the partner market works. Maybe they have less chances than other women with the 1 % of most attractive males, but that cannot make them feel unwanted or something like that.
    Racial differences play of course a big role for the male side of partner market. That means asian males have problems on the partner market, black males have a natural advantage.

    “there is no real competition among women”

    Not in merely finding sexual partners, but there’s more than one game. Women compete for the best partners to commit to them, and not just the top 1%. Competition is stiff. Losing can make you feel unwanted despite the availability of lesser men. Consolation prizes don’t make you forget why you need to be consoled.

    The fact that they’re not as bad off as losers in the men’s game is irrelevant. Disgruntled males kill and rape people. Female losers get more bitchy.

    Read More
  69. I’d not be surprised to learn that most people the world over think poorly of blacks—including many blacks themselves—and, if they had their druthers, would prefer to have little or nothing to do with them.

    Read More
  70. @TheJester
    Who (desires) whom!

    Months ago I ran across a statistical study that assessed whom the different sexes and races ... White, Black, Asian, Latino (sic) ... prefer the most and least as partners. Given the aggregate scores in Men Rating Women, Asian and White women scored near the top. Black women were at the bottom.

    It is no wonder that Black women tend to be "in your face" and angry. Yes, they get the message. I wonder if this has something to do with the phenomenon of "shrieking Black females" in the recent ruckus on campuses. They don't FEEL "inclusive" and are desperate to have someone do something about it.

    A study such as the one you describe appeared not long ago on the blog of the online dating website OkCupid.

    Read More
  71. MarkinLA says:
    @WhatEvvs
    Bingo.

    Just for the hell of it, I've been looking around to see whether or not there has ever been one, just one, black student who completed Harvard's famous and notorious Math 55. I can't find him. Can someone help me? (There have been a few women - but not one black man, to my knowledge.)

    Black physicists...

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/04/do-black-intellectuals-need-to-talk-about-race/black-academics-have-a-responsibility-to-the-next-generation

    This guy admits he was admitted to a Ph.D. program because a black professor forced the issue. Then he was promoted by a "white cosmologist" (disgusting phrase) who was a fan of Malcolm X.

    I don't think he's stupid, but he's taking the place of a white (or more likely, Asian?) guy who had better credentials. Fair?

    More:

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/we-know-physics-largely-white-and-male-exactly-how-white-and-male-still-striking-180952021/?no-ist

    Guys, we are in the middle of a vast cultural meltdown.

    but he’s taking the place of a white (or more likely, Asian?) guy who had better credentials. Fair?

    If this was something like medical school where the amount of slots is strictly limited, I would say yes. However, for a physics PhD no. So he doesn’t get into Brown. If he was any bit of impressive at all there is a PhD program for him somewhere. It may not get him the research opportunities he had at Brown but it won’t be that big of a limitation now with the internet and a lot of projects being done by multiple universities in the country and around the world.

    Not that I support AA, the weaker candidate should still be the one not getting into Brown but it isn’t the end of the world. By the way, is Brown noted at all in physics – it isn’t Harvard, Yale, or Princeton for sure but is it even UC Berkeley?

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    I was referring to the professorship, but point taken.

    And perhaps smart young white guys who get an undergrad degree in physics are better off out of academia, anyway.
  72. MarkinLA says:
    @Erik Sieven
    I doubt that this plays a big role. As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women. Similar to the partner market of other mammals competition is amongst males. On average women with subsaharan African ancestry are surely perceived as less attractive than other women. But still the majority of women with subsaharan African ancestry could persuade males of any ancestry to have sex with them any time. Thats just how the partner market works. Maybe they have less chances than other women with the 1 % of most attractive males, but that cannot make them feel unwanted or something like that.
    Racial differences play of course a big role for the male side of partner market. That means asian males have problems on the partner market, black males have a natural advantage.

    As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women.

    Not true. Maybe you just aren’t one of the obvious top 10%. Neither am I, but you can sure see the difference in women when they are around a guy like that.

    Read More
  73. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Race colors so much stuff in the US.

    For example, take the nature/nurture controversy. If not for race, it would have been over long ago.

    Suppose there is only the white race and no other race. The nature/nurture debate would have ended ages ago in favor of nature. Everyone knows some white kids are born smart, some are born middling, some are born dumb. No controversy there.

    Nurture can make the naturally smart into a smart person, but it cannot turn a naturally dumb person into a smart person.

    So, why does the nature/nurture debate continue? It’s because of race.
    It’s not controversial to say some white kids are naturally smarter than other white kids.
    But it’s problematic to say white kids generally are smarter than black kids.
    In our world where ‘racism’ be the worstest kind of sin and evil in the world, we can’t ever say that.
    So, nature/nurture controversy goes on in the PC conviction that blacks can be made just as smart as whites.
    But that’d be like saying whites could be made just as fast as blacks. Not gonna happen except for odd white exceptions.

    It just so happens that black brains are wired to black butts. Black lips are connected to their lips. Blacks evolved with the culture of bongo-drumming and butt-shaking. So, black thought patterns be all ass-bumpity-grindy-twerky-and-shit.
    Even smart black folks feel this way. It’s the way their brains are wired.
    Black mind is more into rhythm than reason. If blacks ruled the world, we would be living in the Age of Rhythm, not Reason.

    This is why blacks are so stuck on rap. Its oogity-boogity beat done make them feel like they is back in the steppes and jungles beating bongo drums, shaking booties, and chucking spears at hippos and buffaloes.

    In the end, nature wins. The only way nature can be changed in the long run is through selective pressures of evolution. Culture can achieve this.
    Suppose we create a harsh social order where all the wild-ass Negroes are either imprisoned, executed, exiled, or forbidden from mating. Suppose we have a culture that favors mild-mannered folks and hates on wild-ass mofos.
    Then we would allow mild-mannered Negroes to mate while preventing wildass mofos to mate. So, Emmanuel Lewis can have a harem while Mike Tyson is locked up for good. Over time, Negroes will become cuddly and wuvable, and they might not be so bad.

    But absent such evolutionary pressure of tough culture that favors mild folks over wild folks, nature will win.
    While culture can try to shape nature, nature also shapes culture.
    It’s like Christianity is a pacifist culture that emphasizes prayer, quietude, meditative-ness, patience, and calmness. Such fit the natural personalities of certain European folks.
    When Christianity was used to tame the Negroes, it worked somewhat. Negroes began to sing the spiritual and say lawdy lawdy and worship Jesus who stood for love and peace. But over time, as Negroes got more freedom, the Negro spiritual gave way to the wilder Negro gospel. And then Negro gospel singers began to feel, “I aint singing all this wildass music for God. I’s singing it cuz I wanna bang a lot of ho’s”, and they turned to rhythm and blues.

    So, even as Christianity sought to tame the Negroes, Negroes ended up barbarizing Christianity by turning into a wildass celebration of hollering, hooting, ass-shaking, fancy footwork, twisting and twirling, and acting like baboons.

    Nature wins, especially when society becomes more permissive and libertarian and allows individuals to do as they like.

    Just look at our society. We can learn so much as to why things are the way they are just by considering the NATURE OF certain folks.

    The NATURE OF Negroes is to be wildass, jive-ass, and ugabuga. So, with more permissiveness, Negroes decided to go crazy cuz acting wild and crazy comes naturally to them.

    The NATURE OF Jews is to be pushy, feisty, cunning, abrasive, arrogant, and relentless. It’s the nature of Jewish personality. We see it in so many Jews.
    So, even as Anglo culture sought to make Jews straighter and dignified, the nature of the Jew makes them do all sorts of pushy and nasty stuff.
    Just like Christian culture was made wild by Negro nature, Anglo culture was made slippery and shadier by Jewish nature.

    The NATURE OF homos is to be vain, hissy, haughty, fancy-pants, narcissistic, self-centered, oh-tho-thenthitive, and ooh-lala. And we can see this aspect of homos.

    This is why all those who thought that homos would be satisfied with tolerance were wrong. Given their nature, homos want to be the queens of the world. They look in the mirror and ask, ‘mirror mirror on the wall, who’s the prettiest of them all, and it better be me, and everyone better agree or else he or she should be destroyed as a homophobe, transphobe, or whateverphobe’.

    If you know the NATURE OF Negroes, Jews, and homos, it’s obvious why they are so problematic. It’s in their nature to be a big pain in the arse.

    Black nature is wild and wants to be loud and proud. It shows others no respeck but demands respeck from everyone else. Take BLM. It be so dumb. Blacks be killing other blacks as well as non-blacks, but they play like they is the main victim.
    How do you explain such behavior? By understanding the NATURE OF blacks.
    Black nature is like that.
    Trying to reason with blacks is like trying to reason with the terminator. It can’t be reasoned with. Black nature programmed blacks to be a bunch of punkass lowlifes.

    Jews are very smart, and some Jews are conscientious, but so many Jews have this Jewish nature that makes them so difficult to reason with. Jews have the power of reason, but the combination of their natural arrogance and natural neurosis makes it impossible to have an honest argument with many of them. They will always try to pull some shit.

    As for homos, their nature is pretty obvious. Just look at Chris Crocker and Perez Hilton. Or Elton John. The idea that we can reason with these fruiter-tooters is nuts.
    It’s not that they are low in IQ or dumb. It’s just that the NATURE OF their personality makes them feel like they are natural aristocracy whose ass should be licked.

    As for why so many white gentiles have become such spineless toadies of Jews, Negroes, and homos, one needs to consider their NATURE too. It is too straight and earnest. Too bland.
    When bland mixes with strong, the strong wins. This is so even when the strong is just a fraction of the bland.
    Take water. It is bland. Take black ink. It is strong. If we mix 50/50 with clear water and black ink, we don’t get something in between. We have black water. Indeed, if we were to mix 90/10 with clear water with black ink, the 10% that is ink could dominate the end result mixture.

    Anglo and Jew is like bread and pepper. Suppose there is a big loaf of bread and one hot pepper. Suppose you eat the bread and the pepper. Since the bread is bigger, you’d think you’d taste more of the bread than the pepper. Wrong. Even as you eat the whole bread, the taste of pepper will be felt much stronger in your mouth and make your tongue go ‘hot!!!!’

    The nature of bread is bland. The nature of pepper is hot.

    So, if we know the NATURE OF stuff, we know why certain things are happening.

    White folks are too bland. Blacks are wild, Jews are feisty, and homos are tooty.

    Bland nature loses out to strong nature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bach
    I had a big laugh with this. You write some funny stuff. But you didn't mention Asians. How do Asians fit into all this?
    , @Priss Factor
    "I had a big laugh with this. You write some funny stuff. But you didn't mention Asians. How do Asians fit into all this?"

    With yellow, it very simple.

    Look at Chinee. So many people but no big on innovation.

    They grinds. They drones. Their nature is follow and imitate.

    Hawaii have big yellow population but yellows not assert much.

    But Asian Indians, aka dotters, different. They have nature sort of like they are smarter version of gypsies, at least their elites.

    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    Bland nature loses out to strong nature.
     
    And the solution? Would you want to segregate and have a bland society?
  74. MarkinLA says:
    @Jim Christian
    Truth closed down a coward that explains away why he knuckles under to Blacks. That has great value. Besides, are you the traffic cop-of-good-and-bad-comments? Rebut if you may, but the judgment of whether comments contribute according to your standards is one best kept to yourself, all due respect.

    Truth happens to be correct, by the way. Just sayin'.

    Avoiding a confrontation where the government will always cast you as the villain and run you through the legal gauntlet and “knucking under” are not the same thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    "Avoiding a confrontation where the government will always cast you as the villain and run you through the legal gauntlet and “knucking under” are not the same thing."

    All due respect, I'd rather fight back against the "knockout game", answer back to an assault in kind, save my life and be the villain and walk the gauntlet of a jury of my peers than spend my life being trampled, being always afraid. This is why I am armed, this is why I carry concealed, this is why I work out and is why I'm always situationally aware on the street and in the city. And I live in a very safe city, Boston, which is quite Lilllie-White and friendly, mind you. Quite a difference from the Washington DC region, my old hometown, where you never knew what was next. It doesn't have to stay that way, however. Part of my stance is self preservation, part is the desire to hold my head up and save my pride. And frankly, I'm not sure which is the greater. Either works in any case.

    If another man wishes to walk his path unarmed, unprepared, always stepping away, never standing his own ground, always cowering, always wavering, always yielding and always with the hope of mercy from a savage, or even a group, that is his choice. But be not confused. The path of the yielding is knuckling under and it empowers the savages. And at the end of the day, that man has to look in the mirror. And he'll be ashamed of himself. If not, he should.

  75. Karl says:
    @Patrick in SC

    And what is the effect of this situation on the other law students?
     
    They keep their mouths shut, of course, but they don't really mind having these people around. It's less competition. They're already accepted into the school, so it's all the better affirmative action keeps potential competition away.

    >>> They keep their mouths shut, of course, but they don’t really mind having these people around. It’s less competition.

    The really smart kids are not dreaming of becoming SocialJustice attorneys, or of opening storefronts in the ghetto to legal odd jobs (your house closings, your uncontested DUI pleas, your LastWills&Terstaments).

    The really smart kids dream of becoming – , e.g., patent litigators,

    The EEO admits are not in the latter league.

    Read More
  76. @Erik Sieven
    I doubt that this plays a big role. As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women. Similar to the partner market of other mammals competition is amongst males. On average women with subsaharan African ancestry are surely perceived as less attractive than other women. But still the majority of women with subsaharan African ancestry could persuade males of any ancestry to have sex with them any time. Thats just how the partner market works. Maybe they have less chances than other women with the 1 % of most attractive males, but that cannot make them feel unwanted or something like that.
    Racial differences play of course a big role for the male side of partner market. That means asian males have problems on the partner market, black males have a natural advantage.

    I doubt that this plays a big role. As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women.

    That explains why women never spend any time\effort on their appearance. I always wondered about that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Nah, not much vanity there. Not to mention the dozens of side-profile, "duck-face" selfies women take to hide the fattie-rolls under the chin and upper body to post on Tinder and the rest. On Tinder and Facebook, there is tremendous competition for the top ten percent of men because for American women, no matter how repulsive the woman, no other man will do.
  77. @WhatEvvs
    Bingo.

    Just for the hell of it, I've been looking around to see whether or not there has ever been one, just one, black student who completed Harvard's famous and notorious Math 55. I can't find him. Can someone help me? (There have been a few women - but not one black man, to my knowledge.)

    Black physicists...

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/04/do-black-intellectuals-need-to-talk-about-race/black-academics-have-a-responsibility-to-the-next-generation

    This guy admits he was admitted to a Ph.D. program because a black professor forced the issue. Then he was promoted by a "white cosmologist" (disgusting phrase) who was a fan of Malcolm X.

    I don't think he's stupid, but he's taking the place of a white (or more likely, Asian?) guy who had better credentials. Fair?

    More:

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/we-know-physics-largely-white-and-male-exactly-how-white-and-male-still-striking-180952021/?no-ist

    Guys, we are in the middle of a vast cultural meltdown.

    I don’t know about the Math 55 question. There was a smart math guy named Jonathan Farley who graduated with an undergrad degree in math from Harvard in 1991. It’s remotely possible that this Farley did Math 55, though I doubt it. He did prove one thing in a niche field and has been bragging about it even since. He got very agitated about the Derb’s “The Talk, Non-black Version” article here:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/12/black-mathematicians-john-derbyshire-fields-medal

    I don’t think any black (of any nationality) has gotten an IMO gold medal. The Derb wrote about it here:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/derbyshire-on-race-and-the-international-math-olympiad

    There was a Nigerian who got 4 IMO bronze medals, twice just barely missing a silver.

    http://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=19734

    This guy is REALLY smart. He’s not as smart as the guys who got IMO golds, though.

    I’m pretty sure that no American black has ever been on the US IMO team. The 6-person US IMO team is, more or less, chosen from the 12 “USAMO winners” on the United States of America Mathematical Olympiad. I’m pretty sure that no black has ever been a USAMO winner.

    The only important math contest for US undergraduates is the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, known as the “Putnam Exam”. The top 5 (or top 6 last year, because of ties) are deemed Putnam Fellows. I don’t believe there has ever been a black Putnam Fellow.

    The premier math contest for middle schoolers is MathCounts. Each state (and another 7 “states” like DC and Guam and Puerto Rico) sends a 4-person team to the national competition. The top 12 on the written part of the contest go on to the “CountDown” round, in which they compete in an insanely nerve-wracking contest in front of a huge audience. I’m pretty sure that no black has ever made the CountDown round. In my experience, there are almost no black competitors at all at the national competition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    All you need to know about that Guardian article is that the caption for the picture infers Euclid was black because he was from Africa. Afrocentric make-believe at its finest. How sad is it that an article in defense of black mathematicians refers to Euclid and Eratosthenes as black?
    , @Triumph104
    Jonathan Farley's three brothers graduated from Harvard. Their parents were immigrants from Guyana and Jamaica and both have PhDs. Buddy Fletcher was a math major at Harvard and both of his brothers also graduated from the college. Their mother has a PhD from Columbia in education. Soledad Obrien and her five siblings all graduated from Harvard. Their parents are from Australia and Cuba and their father has a PhD in mechanical engineering. Notice a pattern?

    Soledad Obrien's niece recently graduated from Harvard with the highest GPA (sociology). Jonathan Farley brags (or complains) about graduating with the second highest GPA.

    Chigozie Henry Aniobi is majoring in computer science at the University of Waterloo. He is probably as smart as the gold medalists. I assume he was educated in Nigeria and had limited resources/opportunities.

    Two of the 12 USAMO winners competed for Canada, Alex Song and Kevin Sun. They attended Phillips Exeter. Most of the Canadian team goes to school in the US.

    There could be a black USAMO winner every five years or so, but black parents rarely pay for the type of enrichment activities needed to reach that level. Besides, if a black kid gets 1400/1600 on the SAT he is guaranteed admission into almost every college except Caltech and will receive free-ride offers from public universities. Why bother with math competitions?
  78. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Calvin Hobbes
    I don't know about the Math 55 question. There was a smart math guy named Jonathan Farley who graduated with an undergrad degree in math from Harvard in 1991. It's remotely possible that this Farley did Math 55, though I doubt it. He did prove one thing in a niche field and has been bragging about it even since. He got very agitated about the Derb's "The Talk, Non-black Version" article here:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/12/black-mathematicians-john-derbyshire-fields-medal

    I don't think any black (of any nationality) has gotten an IMO gold medal. The Derb wrote about it here:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/derbyshire-on-race-and-the-international-math-olympiad

    There was a Nigerian who got 4 IMO bronze medals, twice just barely missing a silver.

    http://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=19734

    This guy is REALLY smart. He's not as smart as the guys who got IMO golds, though.

    I'm pretty sure that no American black has ever been on the US IMO team. The 6-person US IMO team is, more or less, chosen from the 12 "USAMO winners" on the United States of America Mathematical Olympiad. I'm pretty sure that no black has ever been a USAMO winner.

    The only important math contest for US undergraduates is the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, known as the "Putnam Exam". The top 5 (or top 6 last year, because of ties) are deemed Putnam Fellows. I don't believe there has ever been a black Putnam Fellow.

    The premier math contest for middle schoolers is MathCounts. Each state (and another 7 "states" like DC and Guam and Puerto Rico) sends a 4-person team to the national competition. The top 12 on the written part of the contest go on to the "CountDown" round, in which they compete in an insanely nerve-wracking contest in front of a huge audience. I'm pretty sure that no black has ever made the CountDown round. In my experience, there are almost no black competitors at all at the national competition.

    All you need to know about that Guardian article is that the caption for the picture infers Euclid was black because he was from Africa. Afrocentric make-believe at its finest. How sad is it that an article in defense of black mathematicians refers to Euclid and Eratosthenes as black?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan D Mute

    How sad is it that an article in defense of black mathematicians refers to Euclid and Eratosthenes as black?
     
    Well, the guy spent an entire page whining then concludes that "I'm not complaining" because he "wasn't shot for a bag of skittles." That's a pretty conclusive summation of his ability to process logic.
  79. IA says:
    @Jim Christian
    Truth closed down a coward that explains away why he knuckles under to Blacks. That has great value. Besides, are you the traffic cop-of-good-and-bad-comments? Rebut if you may, but the judgment of whether comments contribute according to your standards is one best kept to yourself, all due respect.

    Truth happens to be correct, by the way. Just sayin'.

    . . . he knuckles under to Blacks.

    He is black, you fool.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Ah, name calling, the last refuge of the unknowing. I don't much care if he's a little green man from Mars. Knuckling under and catering and cowardice and enabling these monsters, same same.
  80. aeolius says:
    @annamaria
    "Rosalind Franklin' research was in a direction they had missed - without her work they would have continued along the wrong path. She was betrayed by her colleague [Wilkins] and conveniently forgotten by Watson and Crick (who knew exactly where the X-Ray photographs had come from). It's one of the most shameful instances of plagiarism in the history of science."
    "...Wilkins went looking for company at "the Cavendish" laboratory in Cambridge where his friend Francis Crick was working with James Watson on building a model of the DNA molecule. Unknown to Franklin, Watson and Crick saw some of her unpublished data, including the beautiful "photo 51," shown to Watson by Wilkins. This X-ray diffraction picture of a DNA molecule was Watson's inspiration (the pattern was clearly a helix). Using Franklin's photograph and their own data, Watson and Crick created their famous DNA model. Franklin's contribution was not acknowledged, but after her death Crick said that her contribution had been critical."
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/rosalind-franklin-a-crucial-contribution-6538012
    You are welcome.

    The simple matter of fact is that Rosalind Franklin was an excellent technician. Yes RF produced the famous photo 51. But she did not see the value of what she had produced. Crick and Watson did.
    It has been years since I have read the Double Helix stuff. But I am sure that there were many other prior studies used in the discovery. Certainly her work gave them an answer. But it was they and not her who were asking the correct questions.
    It was they not Franklin who were able to fit the pieces together to gain their wonderful insight. The Franklin boosters imply that without her work the correct structure would not have been found. This is an unfounded mental masturbation fantasy.
    Why do you not mention some of the other studies s it because they were done by men?
    The whole attempt to boost Franklin as being on a par with Watson and Crick is rather pathetic. It is a perversion of the Scientific Process to further a politic agenda.
    They have been many women who have made exciting scientific discoveries. Franklin just is not one of these. She produced a technically proficient photo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "The simple matter of fact is that Rosalind Franklin was an excellent technician. Yes RF produced the famous photo 51. But she did not see the value of what she had produced. Crick and Watson did."

    But the factual data and the opinion of the experts is not in agreement with your statement: "Working with a student, Raymond Gosling, Franklin was able to get two sets of high-resolution photos of crystallized DNA fibers...From this she deduced the basic dimensions of DNA strands, and that the phosphates were on the outside of what was probably a helical structure. She presented her data at a lecture in King's College at which James Watson was in attendance" 15 months before the latter and two other gentlemen made their conclusions on the helical structure of the DNA. ... Franklin was responsible for much of the research and discovery work that led to the understanding of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA. ... Of the four DNA researchers, only Rosalind Franklin had any degrees in chemistry. "

    My response was specifically on the "luster "that Watson had supposedly added to the Nobel Prize, not on the specifics of the research in the DNA structure. As for your condescending statement on "pathetic perversion of Scientific Process," I firmly believe that some people are born smarter than others; this believe is based on empirical research and, as you can read, it is gender-blind.

    [Franklin] "and Wilkins led separate research groups and had separate projects, although both were concerned with DNA. When Randall gave Franklin responsibility for her DNA project, no one had worked on it for months. Wilkins was away at the time, and when he returned he misunderstood her role, behaving as though she were a technical assistant. Both scientists were actually peers. His mistake, acknowledged but never overcome, was not surprising given the climate for women at the university then. Only males were allowed in the university dining rooms, and after hours Franklin's colleagues went to men-only pubs."

    "According to Watson [and Crick], photo 51 provided the vital clue to the double helix... What Watson and Crick needed was far more than the idea of a helix – they needed precise observations from X-ray crystallography. Those numbers were unwittingly provided by Franklin herself, included in a brief informal report that was given to Max Perutz of Cambridge University. Ironically, the data provided by Franklin to the MRC were virtually identical to those she presented at a small seminar in King’s in autumn 1951, when Jim Watson was in the audience."
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/23/sexism-in-science-did-watson-and-crick-really-steal-rosalind-franklins-data
    , @Rdm
    Really? Jesus Fking Christ.

    Aside from Jim Watson rather controversial comment on Africa, what major contribution Watson made to the scientific discovery?

    Double Helix DNA structure?

    The guy is just a pure luck, didn't get along with his previous lab, and for the love of god, happened to come across a bright Francis Crick in England. Otherwise, Watson will be smoking weed after booted out from tenure track with his track record of trashing all of his colleagues.

    Watson was held in high regard just solely for his Nobel Prize. The rest of his scientific contributions are just a mere reflection of his Nobel Prize halo.

    Franklin just is not one of these. She produced a technically proficient photo.
     
    It's like saying, I'm just producing genetically competent sperms, but I'm not responsible for any progeny that might have come from my sperms.
  81. TangoMan says:
    @Anon
    I wonder about the overall economic cost of black or other incompetent minority hires. Many third world counties have business and governments that run ineffectively because they're loaded with nepotistic hires who lacks skills, cost extra to employ, and who make the entire organization run badly. The more the US adopts affirmative action hiring in business and government, the less effectively our own organizations will run. How much money are black hires costing us?

    It's been said that third-world bribery sucks up an incredible amount of capital that could be better used to help support your own family or used to found small-family run businesses, and that bribery is a major cause of the endemic poverty in these locations. I'm beginning to suspect the US is throwing away huge amounts of capital on a population of affirmative action hires in a manner that does a lot more damage to our economy and efficiency than anyone realizes (akin to the damage that bribery causes), and that we're gradually approaching levels of second- and third-world incompetency in a manner that's being partially disguised for now, though it may become more apparent in the future.

    Has anyone ever calculated the total economic cost of black hires and other unproductive minorities?

    I wonder about the overall economic cost of black or other incompetent minority hires.

    Here you go: Is Diversity Bad for Economic Growth: Evidence from State-Level Data in the US.

    The paper examines the macroeconomic effects of social diversity within the United States. Employing a cross-sectional dataset for 48 contiguous states with the US, we find empirical evidence for a negative impact of diversity on Gross State Product (GSP) per capita growth. The findings indicate that racial diversity has a negative economic impact in the absence of offsetting factors that would help to overcome barriers to communication across social groups. After controlling for low levels of English fluency, or the inability to communicate effectively, the estimated negative economic impact of racial diversity is even more pronounced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan D Mute
    Having spent a lifetime in thousands of US manufacturing plants, I'll also observe the cost of Diversity is higher than the cost of closing down a functioning factory, finding a site thousands of miles or Pacific Ocean away, translating everything to a new language, finding competent architects, engineers, and builders to build a new factory, paying off a corrupt political regime, training a new foreign labor force, constant travel costs to the new site, freight costs along with import/export tariffs, the enormous risk of operating in a nation without protection of American law (i.e. Venezuela), and loss of goodwill for no longer being American made. The idea that America lost her factories solely for a marginally lower cost of production is naive.

    I've seen Diverse factories with 30-40% reject rates on parts. I've seen auto assembly plants forced to rework 25% of production because Diverse workers (Union protected) simply refused to do their jobs. I've seen unions threaten to strike to protect Diverse workers who weren't just unproductive, but actively counter-productive, and faced with replacement with automation. Ive seen countless lawyers grow fat by gorging themselves on the carcass of manufacturers who foolishly tried to make their Diversities productive. I've seen thousands of such workers moved to a "jobs bank" where they sat at home drinking malt liquor all day while collecting 90% of their salary. Manufacturers could not improve productivity with automation, couldn't build new factories due to leftists' cries about endangered tree moss, and couldn't fire or even discipline counter-productive Diversities. Moving offshore was their only viable option.
  82. @IA

    . . . he knuckles under to Blacks.
     
    He is black, you fool.

    Ah, name calling, the last refuge of the unknowing. I don’t much care if he’s a little green man from Mars. Knuckling under and catering and cowardice and enabling these monsters, same same.

    Read More
  83. @AnotherDad

    I doubt that this plays a big role. As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women.
     
    That explains why women never spend any time\effort on their appearance. I always wondered about that.

    Nah, not much vanity there. Not to mention the dozens of side-profile, “duck-face” selfies women take to hide the fattie-rolls under the chin and upper body to post on Tinder and the rest. On Tinder and Facebook, there is tremendous competition for the top ten percent of men because for American women, no matter how repulsive the woman, no other man will do.

    Read More
  84. It seemed to me that liberals are not so much light on regard for Sanctity, they just attach it to different objects.

    To say negative things about blacks, or to be thought to have negative thoughts about them, is a blasphemy.

    Yes, this is true. Everyone holds some things sacred. The modern English-speaking world has given a wide range of opinions the status of blasphemy.

    The problem is that religion never really goes away. People believe what they are told they must believe. David Cameron gave a speech this year in which he said that people who come to live in Britain must sign up to “our creed”. He did not mean the Church of England.

    In the absence of organised religion or other types of inculcation, we tend to drift towards “natural religion”, which is often little more than worship of the female form.

    Read More
  85. @Anthony
    But still the majority of women with subsaharan African ancestry could persuade males of any ancestry to have sex with them any time.

    The issue isn't specifically sex, it's sexual commitment. Most white, hispanic, or asian guys would have sex with a reasonably attractive black woman (even one much less attractive than the one in the picture on this post), but not nearly so many could be persuaded to stick around, or to marry them. Fat women have the same problem.

    Black women also have the problem of a man shortage. While very few non-black men will marry black women, very few non-black women will marry black men, so black men who want to marry are pretty much looking at black women. However, since so many black men are in jail or so broke that no woman would marry them, black men have very little incentive to offer commitment - at least the sort of commitment that white or hispanic men will offer - because there's always another woman who won't be quite so demanding.

    Concur with most. A point missed in these discussions is the sheer rage of Black women in the “educated” classes, that is, the Black women that got a degree printed up and framed and went on to an affirmative action job in government. Already supremely entitled and full of attitude and empowerment, they look at the landscape of African American romance and for them, unwilling ever to marry down, look around at a barren wasteland of opportunity. The Black men are mostly in jail, dead or not of sufficient stature for their entitled liking, even the massively obese Black women and truthfully, White women are bringing up there rear, so to speak in the angry-entitlement department.

    The rage of this class of Black female is trebled by the fact that the few Black men of education and opportunity and wealth (mostly the athletes) immediately bypass the Black women of heavy attitude and entitlement because the demeanor of Black women is so manly, so nagging and so prone to abuse, Black men of class and distinction and wealth see Black women as not worth the trouble and who could blame them? So they marry White, Asian and Hispanic women. White men are following this strategy because of the same circumstance with White women, but I digress. Full-on Black women are the absolute bottom of SMV and this will not change. There are the half and half types and I suspect they’re more marketable, more intelligent and consequently, less mindlessly angry and so find mates, or at least, the occasional bang. But they are another class altogether from where I sit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Michelle Obama fits your description perfectly, except she somehow got Obama to marry her. Which I think was because of his obsessive fear of not appearing black enough, but it could be that his white girlfriend(s) wouldn't go the distance with him.
  86. bach says:
    @Priss Factor
    Race colors so much stuff in the US.

    For example, take the nature/nurture controversy. If not for race, it would have been over long ago.

    Suppose there is only the white race and no other race. The nature/nurture debate would have ended ages ago in favor of nature. Everyone knows some white kids are born smart, some are born middling, some are born dumb. No controversy there.

    Nurture can make the naturally smart into a smart person, but it cannot turn a naturally dumb person into a smart person.

    So, why does the nature/nurture debate continue? It's because of race.
    It's not controversial to say some white kids are naturally smarter than other white kids.
    But it's problematic to say white kids generally are smarter than black kids.
    In our world where 'racism' be the worstest kind of sin and evil in the world, we can't ever say that.
    So, nature/nurture controversy goes on in the PC conviction that blacks can be made just as smart as whites.
    But that'd be like saying whites could be made just as fast as blacks. Not gonna happen except for odd white exceptions.

    It just so happens that black brains are wired to black butts. Black lips are connected to their lips. Blacks evolved with the culture of bongo-drumming and butt-shaking. So, black thought patterns be all ass-bumpity-grindy-twerky-and-shit.
    Even smart black folks feel this way. It's the way their brains are wired.
    Black mind is more into rhythm than reason. If blacks ruled the world, we would be living in the Age of Rhythm, not Reason.

    This is why blacks are so stuck on rap. Its oogity-boogity beat done make them feel like they is back in the steppes and jungles beating bongo drums, shaking booties, and chucking spears at hippos and buffaloes.

    In the end, nature wins. The only way nature can be changed in the long run is through selective pressures of evolution. Culture can achieve this.
    Suppose we create a harsh social order where all the wild-ass Negroes are either imprisoned, executed, exiled, or forbidden from mating. Suppose we have a culture that favors mild-mannered folks and hates on wild-ass mofos.
    Then we would allow mild-mannered Negroes to mate while preventing wildass mofos to mate. So, Emmanuel Lewis can have a harem while Mike Tyson is locked up for good. Over time, Negroes will become cuddly and wuvable, and they might not be so bad.

    But absent such evolutionary pressure of tough culture that favors mild folks over wild folks, nature will win.
    While culture can try to shape nature, nature also shapes culture.
    It's like Christianity is a pacifist culture that emphasizes prayer, quietude, meditative-ness, patience, and calmness. Such fit the natural personalities of certain European folks.
    When Christianity was used to tame the Negroes, it worked somewhat. Negroes began to sing the spiritual and say lawdy lawdy and worship Jesus who stood for love and peace. But over time, as Negroes got more freedom, the Negro spiritual gave way to the wilder Negro gospel. And then Negro gospel singers began to feel, "I aint singing all this wildass music for God. I's singing it cuz I wanna bang a lot of ho's", and they turned to rhythm and blues.

    So, even as Christianity sought to tame the Negroes, Negroes ended up barbarizing Christianity by turning into a wildass celebration of hollering, hooting, ass-shaking, fancy footwork, twisting and twirling, and acting like baboons.

    Nature wins, especially when society becomes more permissive and libertarian and allows individuals to do as they like.

    Just look at our society. We can learn so much as to why things are the way they are just by considering the NATURE OF certain folks.

    The NATURE OF Negroes is to be wildass, jive-ass, and ugabuga. So, with more permissiveness, Negroes decided to go crazy cuz acting wild and crazy comes naturally to them.

    The NATURE OF Jews is to be pushy, feisty, cunning, abrasive, arrogant, and relentless. It's the nature of Jewish personality. We see it in so many Jews.
    So, even as Anglo culture sought to make Jews straighter and dignified, the nature of the Jew makes them do all sorts of pushy and nasty stuff.
    Just like Christian culture was made wild by Negro nature, Anglo culture was made slippery and shadier by Jewish nature.

    The NATURE OF homos is to be vain, hissy, haughty, fancy-pants, narcissistic, self-centered, oh-tho-thenthitive, and ooh-lala. And we can see this aspect of homos.

    This is why all those who thought that homos would be satisfied with tolerance were wrong. Given their nature, homos want to be the queens of the world. They look in the mirror and ask, 'mirror mirror on the wall, who's the prettiest of them all, and it better be me, and everyone better agree or else he or she should be destroyed as a homophobe, transphobe, or whateverphobe'.

    If you know the NATURE OF Negroes, Jews, and homos, it's obvious why they are so problematic. It's in their nature to be a big pain in the arse.

    Black nature is wild and wants to be loud and proud. It shows others no respeck but demands respeck from everyone else. Take BLM. It be so dumb. Blacks be killing other blacks as well as non-blacks, but they play like they is the main victim.
    How do you explain such behavior? By understanding the NATURE OF blacks.
    Black nature is like that.
    Trying to reason with blacks is like trying to reason with the terminator. It can't be reasoned with. Black nature programmed blacks to be a bunch of punkass lowlifes.

    Jews are very smart, and some Jews are conscientious, but so many Jews have this Jewish nature that makes them so difficult to reason with. Jews have the power of reason, but the combination of their natural arrogance and natural neurosis makes it impossible to have an honest argument with many of them. They will always try to pull some shit.

    As for homos, their nature is pretty obvious. Just look at Chris Crocker and Perez Hilton. Or Elton John. The idea that we can reason with these fruiter-tooters is nuts.
    It's not that they are low in IQ or dumb. It's just that the NATURE OF their personality makes them feel like they are natural aristocracy whose ass should be licked.

    As for why so many white gentiles have become such spineless toadies of Jews, Negroes, and homos, one needs to consider their NATURE too. It is too straight and earnest. Too bland.
    When bland mixes with strong, the strong wins. This is so even when the strong is just a fraction of the bland.
    Take water. It is bland. Take black ink. It is strong. If we mix 50/50 with clear water and black ink, we don't get something in between. We have black water. Indeed, if we were to mix 90/10 with clear water with black ink, the 10% that is ink could dominate the end result mixture.

    Anglo and Jew is like bread and pepper. Suppose there is a big loaf of bread and one hot pepper. Suppose you eat the bread and the pepper. Since the bread is bigger, you'd think you'd taste more of the bread than the pepper. Wrong. Even as you eat the whole bread, the taste of pepper will be felt much stronger in your mouth and make your tongue go 'hot!!!!'

    The nature of bread is bland. The nature of pepper is hot.

    So, if we know the NATURE OF stuff, we know why certain things are happening.

    White folks are too bland. Blacks are wild, Jews are feisty, and homos are tooty.

    Bland nature loses out to strong nature.

    I had a big laugh with this. You write some funny stuff. But you didn’t mention Asians. How do Asians fit into all this?

    Read More
  87. @Truth

    Not that I ever thought I “had a chance with them” anyway,
     
    Well there is that.

    At the level of big money touring acts, you don’t “have a chance with” the female talent anyway, at least during the tour. Not if you are doing something on the tour and not at the local venue level either. While male rock stars get to, and often do screw local (and carefully vetted, believe me) women on tour, women are either invariably attached to some man in the band or a manager, etc, or her husband/SO is on the tour as deadhead, or she’s celibate or lesbian-at least for the tour. Aside from the basic male-female difference in relationships (no attractive woman has to ‘pay for it’, so to speak), there is the basic economic principle. “They” are not going to allow it. It’s not so much they care she might get knocked up or get VD-those things won’t stop the tour, unless it’s a year long or something. They are worried she will get killed, beaten up, or that a one night stand will lead to an emotional attachment that will go and and cause the performer undue stress. Major tours carry multimillion dollar performance bond and tour cost liabilities and are insured accordingly. I guarantee Taylor Swift couldn’t sneak out of her hotel to hook up with some schlub if she wanted to-at that level, they are birds in gilded cages.

    Off tour could some semi-decent guy not famous reasonably ever hope to notch up a bigtime girl rocker? Ehhh, it happens. As with actresses the available ones are usually over the hill or damaged goods, but things happen. I scored with a fortysomething country queen once and turned down the advances of a fairly famous jazz singer (white!), who killed herself a couple of years later, because I was literally too drunk to f***. But a “major rock singer”? No. For one thing, I never lived in a place where the chances of meeting them off tour were more than miniscule.

    Some women have certain fetishes or restrictions that mean if you fit those criteria your chances go up a lot, of course. Chrissie Hynde, famously, is a vegetarian and like many vegetarians was/is only interested in relationships with other vegetarians. (Faking it is pointless-most of them can smell meat eaters and you’d have to go veg for a long time to ‘pass’.) I’m not saying she was promiscuous even to veg-boys, but that would narrow it down. Similarly, a couple of now pretty old 80s songbirds were notorious sizequeens, so if you are packing the odds would be better. I didn’t say I thought I “had a shot at” Chrissie, only that I found her sexually very attractive. Big difference. A lot of men thought that Joan Jett was hot, I never did but I was always amused by that because I knew she was a lesbian since the Runaways days.

    As far as black women go, in my younger days I would run into what I recognized were to be considered “attractive”, that is, white-under-the-skin, black women and I had a few awkward moments when I had to get across that they just weren’t my cup of tea. Well meaning, or very devious people tried to set me up with a couple of them, and some of them were very nice, clean, bright seeming girls, but I just wasn’t interested, and I managed to avoid them in a polite, respectful fashion. After becoming racially conscious, I finally got the nerve to just let the word out and black women just developed deflector shields magically. Most are adult about it-I’ve never had any problems with them, only with white or Jewish women who sense my lack of interest and take it upon themselves to criticize my “prejudice”. I get along fine with blacks, women or men, in the workplace, but we don’t hire ghetto people (white or black) so it isn’t an issue. I’d say the black men consider it a positive that I do not mess with their women under any circumstances.

    Read More
  88. guest says:
    @Jim Christian
    Concur with most. A point missed in these discussions is the sheer rage of Black women in the "educated" classes, that is, the Black women that got a degree printed up and framed and went on to an affirmative action job in government. Already supremely entitled and full of attitude and empowerment, they look at the landscape of African American romance and for them, unwilling ever to marry down, look around at a barren wasteland of opportunity. The Black men are mostly in jail, dead or not of sufficient stature for their entitled liking, even the massively obese Black women and truthfully, White women are bringing up there rear, so to speak in the angry-entitlement department.

    The rage of this class of Black female is trebled by the fact that the few Black men of education and opportunity and wealth (mostly the athletes) immediately bypass the Black women of heavy attitude and entitlement because the demeanor of Black women is so manly, so nagging and so prone to abuse, Black men of class and distinction and wealth see Black women as not worth the trouble and who could blame them? So they marry White, Asian and Hispanic women. White men are following this strategy because of the same circumstance with White women, but I digress. Full-on Black women are the absolute bottom of SMV and this will not change. There are the half and half types and I suspect they're more marketable, more intelligent and consequently, less mindlessly angry and so find mates, or at least, the occasional bang. But they are another class altogether from where I sit.

    Michelle Obama fits your description perfectly, except she somehow got Obama to marry her. Which I think was because of his obsessive fear of not appearing black enough, but it could be that his white girlfriend(s) wouldn’t go the distance with him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hugo
    Correction. Not his girlfriends but, his down low boyfriend's.

    You're welcome.

    , @Truth

    Which I think was because of his obsessive fear of not appearing black enough, but it could be that his white girlfriend(s) wouldn’t go the distance with him.
     
    ...Or...he liked her.

    Every now and then that happens in marriage.
    , @Jim Christian
    Concur, Guest, but there is more, as always with these cretins. See, Michelle Obama, old Cow-arms and her sleeveless dresses, that face full of bad attitude, she is a gross and hypergamous witch. She HAS to have higher testosterone than Baraq. She simply MUST. Meanwhile, Michelle O! was on the verge of leaving Baraq. His book a failure, position at Princeton ended, broke, she was warning him. It's part of his history. When he finally got his state legislator position and it looked up for his going higher, her natural hypergamy kicked in and she stayed. She was ensconced in a handout position on the board of the University of Chicago Hospital making $300,000 dollars for a no-show job, she didn't need Baraq. She guessed well too, because in very short order, he gave his "clean and articulate" speech at the 2004 convention and it was on from there. And she got to attention-whore herself out for the last 7 years and she took maximum advantage of every perk, too. Can you imagine the entitlement of the daughters? Already one of them has been filmed drinking shots and twerking her big fat ass around the dorm room of a college she doesn't even go to (still in High School). Ha! Most unseemly and Baraq blames her for the way his little girls have been raised. Big fights those two. Marriage of convenience, I'm sure.

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  89. @Erik Sieven
    I doubt that this plays a big role. As far as I understand the partner market there is no real competition among women. Similar to the partner market of other mammals competition is amongst males. On average women with subsaharan African ancestry are surely perceived as less attractive than other women. But still the majority of women with subsaharan African ancestry could persuade males of any ancestry to have sex with them any time. Thats just how the partner market works. Maybe they have less chances than other women with the 1 % of most attractive males, but that cannot make them feel unwanted or something like that.
    Racial differences play of course a big role for the male side of partner market. That means asian males have problems on the partner market, black males have a natural advantage.

    Women of most any description can find some male who will service them no matter what, but if they want a clean, pleasant, attractive man who isn’t damaged goods, isn’t likely to be diseased or a potential killer, torturer or beater, and so forth, the pickings get somewhat slimmer. There are an awful lot of white women I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole and wouldn’t have on my worst day, let alone the others.

    Since there are plenty of white women and various others who will take on, even who are aggressively looking for, black men, the lower grade of ghetto black women obviously are going to be subject to short prospects, so to speak. Remember Rachel Jeantel, the obese and profoundly stupid witness shown in the Trayvon Martin trial? Why would any black man above her level-which is more than half of them-even consider her? As sexually charged as they are, she probably gets very little sex. Indeed, the better class of black women are famously unable to find a black man at or even just somewhat below their own level. Hence their justifiable resentment of white women who fool with their men.

    Read More
  90. @MarkinLA
    Avoiding a confrontation where the government will always cast you as the villain and run you through the legal gauntlet and "knucking under" are not the same thing.

    “Avoiding a confrontation where the government will always cast you as the villain and run you through the legal gauntlet and “knucking under” are not the same thing.”

    All due respect, I’d rather fight back against the “knockout game”, answer back to an assault in kind, save my life and be the villain and walk the gauntlet of a jury of my peers than spend my life being trampled, being always afraid. This is why I am armed, this is why I carry concealed, this is why I work out and is why I’m always situationally aware on the street and in the city. And I live in a very safe city, Boston, which is quite Lilllie-White and friendly, mind you. Quite a difference from the Washington DC region, my old hometown, where you never knew what was next. It doesn’t have to stay that way, however. Part of my stance is self preservation, part is the desire to hold my head up and save my pride. And frankly, I’m not sure which is the greater. Either works in any case.

    If another man wishes to walk his path unarmed, unprepared, always stepping away, never standing his own ground, always cowering, always wavering, always yielding and always with the hope of mercy from a savage, or even a group, that is his choice. But be not confused. The path of the yielding is knuckling under and it empowers the savages. And at the end of the day, that man has to look in the mirror. And he’ll be ashamed of himself. If not, he should.

    Read More
  91. @Jim Christian
    The cost of affirmative action for Blacks and forced hiring of women is incalculable. It is, in totality, why the United States is bogged down, inefficient and slothful, our once-mighty cities are ruined and crime-ridden, our infrastructure, public education and government institutions reduced to third-world quality. As if that isn't enough, there are so many affirmative action hires into the military half our ships can no longer sail because after all, what would the single mothers do with their children if the poor military feminist tough-chicks had to deploy? Out greatest ships, reduced to pier side office buildings to support slutty single mothers and their bastard children. And how do you put a cost on THAT?

    To calculate the cost in accurate terms, you would first have to get the truth from the very people that run things now for they are ALL affirmative action hires in one form or another. Ain't gonna happen. All this is why the United States is finished. All done but the collapse.

    All this is why the United States is finished. All done but the collapse.

    Given our $20 Trillion debt and $100+ Trillion unfunded liabilities, that collapse is long overdue. The burden of tens of million of counter-productive (not just non-productive) parasites is more than the nation can bear. Combine with our various expeditions into Muslim killing to please domestic Jews and Christians, and with export of manufacturing to Asia and Latin America, and America is a walking corpse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Concur all. And, not one more bomb need be dropped anywhere in the world. As if we need confirmation, the threat is within our borders. The threat is employed here, it festers here, it is because we allowed it to come here. Our President insists on even more. It will be generations to clear the threat even if we go medieval. It's over, we will resign ourselves to this, as has France.

    But the core of the rot is feminism at the end of the day. The men and policies soft, we are now ripe for the taking and now we find out that the women are not strong, that it was not wise to be soft, that it was unwise to allow the monsters in. With the threat here, at home in our midst, the idiots bomb sand 7000 miles away.

  92. Hugo says:
    @guest
    Michelle Obama fits your description perfectly, except she somehow got Obama to marry her. Which I think was because of his obsessive fear of not appearing black enough, but it could be that his white girlfriend(s) wouldn't go the distance with him.

    Correction. Not his girlfriends but, his down low boyfriend’s.

    You’re welcome.

    Read More
  93. Truth says:
    @schmenz
    Please explain to a dumbhead like me how your comment advances the discussion? Thank you.

    Sure, I’ll explain it to you as if you weren’t a dumbhead; and hope for the best.

    etymology of “discussion”:

    from discussus, past participle of discutere “strike asunder, break up,” from dis- “apart” (see dis-) + quatere “to shake” (see quash). Meaning “a talking over, debating” in English first recorded mid-15c. Sense evolution in Latin appears to have been from “smash apart” to “scatter, disperse,” then in post-classical times (via the mental process involved) to “investigate, examine,” then to “debate.”

    Well there it is.

    Read More
  94. @Stan D Mute

    All this is why the United States is finished. All done but the collapse.
     
    Given our $20 Trillion debt and $100+ Trillion unfunded liabilities, that collapse is long overdue. The burden of tens of million of counter-productive (not just non-productive) parasites is more than the nation can bear. Combine with our various expeditions into Muslim killing to please domestic Jews and Christians, and with export of manufacturing to Asia and Latin America, and America is a walking corpse.

    Concur all. And, not one more bomb need be dropped anywhere in the world. As if we need confirmation, the threat is within our borders. The threat is employed here, it festers here, it is because we allowed it to come here. Our President insists on even more. It will be generations to clear the threat even if we go medieval. It’s over, we will resign ourselves to this, as has France.

    But the core of the rot is feminism at the end of the day. The men and policies soft, we are now ripe for the taking and now we find out that the women are not strong, that it was not wise to be soft, that it was unwise to allow the monsters in. With the threat here, at home in our midst, the idiots bomb sand 7000 miles away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan D Mute

    But the core of the rot is feminism at the end of the day. The men and policies soft, we are now ripe for the taking and now we find out that the women are not strong, that it was not wise to be soft, that it was unwise to allow the monsters in.
     
    This is why I get so angry with the Jew-haters. They'd have us expel all the Jews and we would still have the exact same problem only with half the doctors left. We shunned the wisdom of our Founders at our peril. The vote was given white men who owned property for very good reason. Those without property are only too happy to vote themselves some of your property. And government is a necessary evil at best - it is no place for emotionalism inherent to the fairer sex. Women already control the home and children, the very wellspring from whence our civilization comes. Negroes and Indians, people who never managed to build anything approaching Western Civilization, certainly have no business directing its affairs. By abandoning the wisdom of our fathers, we have brought complete and utter ruin to what they bequeathed us. The price for this stupidity will be borne in misery for many many generations to come.
  95. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    Race colors so much stuff in the US.

    For example, take the nature/nurture controversy. If not for race, it would have been over long ago.

    Suppose there is only the white race and no other race. The nature/nurture debate would have ended ages ago in favor of nature. Everyone knows some white kids are born smart, some are born middling, some are born dumb. No controversy there.

    Nurture can make the naturally smart into a smart person, but it cannot turn a naturally dumb person into a smart person.

    So, why does the nature/nurture debate continue? It's because of race.
    It's not controversial to say some white kids are naturally smarter than other white kids.
    But it's problematic to say white kids generally are smarter than black kids.
    In our world where 'racism' be the worstest kind of sin and evil in the world, we can't ever say that.
    So, nature/nurture controversy goes on in the PC conviction that blacks can be made just as smart as whites.
    But that'd be like saying whites could be made just as fast as blacks. Not gonna happen except for odd white exceptions.

    It just so happens that black brains are wired to black butts. Black lips are connected to their lips. Blacks evolved with the culture of bongo-drumming and butt-shaking. So, black thought patterns be all ass-bumpity-grindy-twerky-and-shit.
    Even smart black folks feel this way. It's the way their brains are wired.
    Black mind is more into rhythm than reason. If blacks ruled the world, we would be living in the Age of Rhythm, not Reason.

    This is why blacks are so stuck on rap. Its oogity-boogity beat done make them feel like they is back in the steppes and jungles beating bongo drums, shaking booties, and chucking spears at hippos and buffaloes.

    In the end, nature wins. The only way nature can be changed in the long run is through selective pressures of evolution. Culture can achieve this.
    Suppose we create a harsh social order where all the wild-ass Negroes are either imprisoned, executed, exiled, or forbidden from mating. Suppose we have a culture that favors mild-mannered folks and hates on wild-ass mofos.
    Then we would allow mild-mannered Negroes to mate while preventing wildass mofos to mate. So, Emmanuel Lewis can have a harem while Mike Tyson is locked up for good. Over time, Negroes will become cuddly and wuvable, and they might not be so bad.

    But absent such evolutionary pressure of tough culture that favors mild folks over wild folks, nature will win.
    While culture can try to shape nature, nature also shapes culture.
    It's like Christianity is a pacifist culture that emphasizes prayer, quietude, meditative-ness, patience, and calmness. Such fit the natural personalities of certain European folks.
    When Christianity was used to tame the Negroes, it worked somewhat. Negroes began to sing the spiritual and say lawdy lawdy and worship Jesus who stood for love and peace. But over time, as Negroes got more freedom, the Negro spiritual gave way to the wilder Negro gospel. And then Negro gospel singers began to feel, "I aint singing all this wildass music for God. I's singing it cuz I wanna bang a lot of ho's", and they turned to rhythm and blues.

    So, even as Christianity sought to tame the Negroes, Negroes ended up barbarizing Christianity by turning into a wildass celebration of hollering, hooting, ass-shaking, fancy footwork, twisting and twirling, and acting like baboons.

    Nature wins, especially when society becomes more permissive and libertarian and allows individuals to do as they like.

    Just look at our society. We can learn so much as to why things are the way they are just by considering the NATURE OF certain folks.

    The NATURE OF Negroes is to be wildass, jive-ass, and ugabuga. So, with more permissiveness, Negroes decided to go crazy cuz acting wild and crazy comes naturally to them.

    The NATURE OF Jews is to be pushy, feisty, cunning, abrasive, arrogant, and relentless. It's the nature of Jewish personality. We see it in so many Jews.
    So, even as Anglo culture sought to make Jews straighter and dignified, the nature of the Jew makes them do all sorts of pushy and nasty stuff.
    Just like Christian culture was made wild by Negro nature, Anglo culture was made slippery and shadier by Jewish nature.

    The NATURE OF homos is to be vain, hissy, haughty, fancy-pants, narcissistic, self-centered, oh-tho-thenthitive, and ooh-lala. And we can see this aspect of homos.

    This is why all those who thought that homos would be satisfied with tolerance were wrong. Given their nature, homos want to be the queens of the world. They look in the mirror and ask, 'mirror mirror on the wall, who's the prettiest of them all, and it better be me, and everyone better agree or else he or she should be destroyed as a homophobe, transphobe, or whateverphobe'.

    If you know the NATURE OF Negroes, Jews, and homos, it's obvious why they are so problematic. It's in their nature to be a big pain in the arse.

    Black nature is wild and wants to be loud and proud. It shows others no respeck but demands respeck from everyone else. Take BLM. It be so dumb. Blacks be killing other blacks as well as non-blacks, but they play like they is the main victim.
    How do you explain such behavior? By understanding the NATURE OF blacks.
    Black nature is like that.
    Trying to reason with blacks is like trying to reason with the terminator. It can't be reasoned with. Black nature programmed blacks to be a bunch of punkass lowlifes.

    Jews are very smart, and some Jews are conscientious, but so many Jews have this Jewish nature that makes them so difficult to reason with. Jews have the power of reason, but the combination of their natural arrogance and natural neurosis makes it impossible to have an honest argument with many of them. They will always try to pull some shit.

    As for homos, their nature is pretty obvious. Just look at Chris Crocker and Perez Hilton. Or Elton John. The idea that we can reason with these fruiter-tooters is nuts.
    It's not that they are low in IQ or dumb. It's just that the NATURE OF their personality makes them feel like they are natural aristocracy whose ass should be licked.

    As for why so many white gentiles have become such spineless toadies of Jews, Negroes, and homos, one needs to consider their NATURE too. It is too straight and earnest. Too bland.
    When bland mixes with strong, the strong wins. This is so even when the strong is just a fraction of the bland.
    Take water. It is bland. Take black ink. It is strong. If we mix 50/50 with clear water and black ink, we don't get something in between. We have black water. Indeed, if we were to mix 90/10 with clear water with black ink, the 10% that is ink could dominate the end result mixture.

    Anglo and Jew is like bread and pepper. Suppose there is a big loaf of bread and one hot pepper. Suppose you eat the bread and the pepper. Since the bread is bigger, you'd think you'd taste more of the bread than the pepper. Wrong. Even as you eat the whole bread, the taste of pepper will be felt much stronger in your mouth and make your tongue go 'hot!!!!'

    The nature of bread is bland. The nature of pepper is hot.

    So, if we know the NATURE OF stuff, we know why certain things are happening.

    White folks are too bland. Blacks are wild, Jews are feisty, and homos are tooty.

    Bland nature loses out to strong nature.

    “I had a big laugh with this. You write some funny stuff. But you didn’t mention Asians. How do Asians fit into all this?”

    With yellow, it very simple.

    Look at Chinee. So many people but no big on innovation.

    They grinds. They drones. Their nature is follow and imitate.

    Hawaii have big yellow population but yellows not assert much.

    But Asian Indians, aka dotters, different. They have nature sort of like they are smarter version of gypsies, at least their elites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bach

    Look at Chinee. So many people but no big on innovation. They grinds. They drones. Their nature is follow and imitate.
     
    But what better strategy than imitation when you're a developing economy trying to catch up?
  96. Truth says:
    @Jim Christian
    Truth closed down a coward that explains away why he knuckles under to Blacks. That has great value. Besides, are you the traffic cop-of-good-and-bad-comments? Rebut if you may, but the judgment of whether comments contribute according to your standards is one best kept to yourself, all due respect.

    Truth happens to be correct, by the way. Just sayin'.

    Well thank you, Sir.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Not to worry. Of course, I got porked for it, but one thing liberals don't understand about rasslin' the pig in the mud--the pig likes it!

    Good day, Truth. See ya round the salt mine.
  97. Truth says:
    @Former Darfur
    At the level of big money touring acts, you don't "have a chance with" the female talent anyway, at least during the tour. Not if you are doing something on the tour and not at the local venue level either. While male rock stars get to, and often do screw local (and carefully vetted, believe me) women on tour, women are either invariably attached to some man in the band or a manager, etc, or her husband/SO is on the tour as deadhead, or she's celibate or lesbian-at least for the tour. Aside from the basic male-female difference in relationships (no attractive woman has to 'pay for it', so to speak), there is the basic economic principle. "They" are not going to allow it. It's not so much they care she might get knocked up or get VD-those things won't stop the tour, unless it's a year long or something. They are worried she will get killed, beaten up, or that a one night stand will lead to an emotional attachment that will go and and cause the performer undue stress. Major tours carry multimillion dollar performance bond and tour cost liabilities and are insured accordingly. I guarantee Taylor Swift couldn't sneak out of her hotel to hook up with some schlub if she wanted to-at that level, they are birds in gilded cages.

    Off tour could some semi-decent guy not famous reasonably ever hope to notch up a bigtime girl rocker? Ehhh, it happens. As with actresses the available ones are usually over the hill or damaged goods, but things happen. I scored with a fortysomething country queen once and turned down the advances of a fairly famous jazz singer (white!), who killed herself a couple of years later, because I was literally too drunk to f***. But a "major rock singer"? No. For one thing, I never lived in a place where the chances of meeting them off tour were more than miniscule.

    Some women have certain fetishes or restrictions that mean if you fit those criteria your chances go up a lot, of course. Chrissie Hynde, famously, is a vegetarian and like many vegetarians was/is only interested in relationships with other vegetarians. (Faking it is pointless-most of them can smell meat eaters and you'd have to go veg for a long time to 'pass'.) I'm not saying she was promiscuous even to veg-boys, but that would narrow it down. Similarly, a couple of now pretty old 80s songbirds were notorious sizequeens, so if you are packing the odds would be better. I didn't say I thought I "had a shot at" Chrissie, only that I found her sexually very attractive. Big difference. A lot of men thought that Joan Jett was hot, I never did but I was always amused by that because I knew she was a lesbian since the Runaways days.

    As far as black women go, in my younger days I would run into what I recognized were to be considered "attractive", that is, white-under-the-skin, black women and I had a few awkward moments when I had to get across that they just weren't my cup of tea. Well meaning, or very devious people tried to set me up with a couple of them, and some of them were very nice, clean, bright seeming girls, but I just wasn't interested, and I managed to avoid them in a polite, respectful fashion. After becoming racially conscious, I finally got the nerve to just let the word out and black women just developed deflector shields magically. Most are adult about it-I've never had any problems with them, only with white or Jewish women who sense my lack of interest and take it upon themselves to criticize my "prejudice". I get along fine with blacks, women or men, in the workplace, but we don't hire ghetto people (white or black) so it isn't an issue. I'd say the black men consider it a positive that I do not mess with their women under any circumstances.

    Well that sounds fine.

    Read More
  98. Truth says:
    @guest
    Michelle Obama fits your description perfectly, except she somehow got Obama to marry her. Which I think was because of his obsessive fear of not appearing black enough, but it could be that his white girlfriend(s) wouldn't go the distance with him.

    Which I think was because of his obsessive fear of not appearing black enough, but it could be that his white girlfriend(s) wouldn’t go the distance with him.

    …Or…he liked her.

    Every now and then that happens in marriage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I don't discount the possibility that he genuinely likes her. Heck, it could be true love. But that doesn't necessarily have much to do with why he married her, considering life isn't a romantic comedy. Take into consideration also how calculated was his every move. Can you imagine what type of person you'd have to be to want to be president (without being born into it, so to speak), let alone actually go the distance? To write a memoir before you've actually done anything, to go from middle class Hawaii to Harvard and end up in Southside Chicago, of all places?

    What kind of person choses to be a politician there? One that wants or at least thinks they can get black votes, at the very least. Busting the odds and marrying a Michelle type is a good way to get them.

  99. @Truth
    Well thank you, Sir.

    Not to worry. Of course, I got porked for it, but one thing liberals don’t understand about rasslin’ the pig in the mud–the pig likes it!

    Good day, Truth. See ya round the salt mine.

    Read More
  100. @guest
    Michelle Obama fits your description perfectly, except she somehow got Obama to marry her. Which I think was because of his obsessive fear of not appearing black enough, but it could be that his white girlfriend(s) wouldn't go the distance with him.

    Concur, Guest, but there is more, as always with these cretins. See, Michelle Obama, old Cow-arms and her sleeveless dresses, that face full of bad attitude, she is a gross and hypergamous witch. She HAS to have higher testosterone than Baraq. She simply MUST. Meanwhile, Michelle O! was on the verge of leaving Baraq. His book a failure, position at Princeton ended, broke, she was warning him. It’s part of his history. When he finally got his state legislator position and it looked up for his going higher, her natural hypergamy kicked in and she stayed. She was ensconced in a handout position on the board of the University of Chicago Hospital making $300,000 dollars for a no-show job, she didn’t need Baraq. She guessed well too, because in very short order, he gave his “clean and articulate” speech at the 2004 convention and it was on from there. And she got to attention-whore herself out for the last 7 years and she took maximum advantage of every perk, too. Can you imagine the entitlement of the daughters? Already one of them has been filmed drinking shots and twerking her big fat ass around the dorm room of a college she doesn’t even go to (still in High School). Ha! Most unseemly and Baraq blames her for the way his little girls have been raised. Big fights those two. Marriage of convenience, I’m sure.

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    Read More
  101. WhatEvvs [AKA "Internet Addict"] says:
    @MarkinLA
    but he’s taking the place of a white (or more likely, Asian?) guy who had better credentials. Fair?

    If this was something like medical school where the amount of slots is strictly limited, I would say yes. However, for a physics PhD no. So he doesn't get into Brown. If he was any bit of impressive at all there is a PhD program for him somewhere. It may not get him the research opportunities he had at Brown but it won't be that big of a limitation now with the internet and a lot of projects being done by multiple universities in the country and around the world.

    Not that I support AA, the weaker candidate should still be the one not getting into Brown but it isn't the end of the world. By the way, is Brown noted at all in physics - it isn't Harvard, Yale, or Princeton for sure but is it even UC Berkeley?

    I was referring to the professorship, but point taken.

    And perhaps smart young white guys who get an undergrad degree in physics are better off out of academia, anyway.

    Read More
  102. schmenz says:
    @Jim Christian
    Truth closed down a coward that explains away why he knuckles under to Blacks. That has great value. Besides, are you the traffic cop-of-good-and-bad-comments? Rebut if you may, but the judgment of whether comments contribute according to your standards is one best kept to yourself, all due respect.

    Truth happens to be correct, by the way. Just sayin'.

    My question to “truth” was to explain to me how this edifying comment of his:

    “Not in you’re case, you’re just a chickenshit.”

    advances the discussion. I was unaware that Junior High-level name calling is now a substitute for intelligent back-and-forth discussion. Obviously I am naive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Well, now you're in the sandbox. I was called a "fool" or some such. Perhaps I am. As for chickenshit, your topic of the day, you'll have to take that up with the party to whom your were speaking, as Lilly Tomlin would say.

    Cheers.
  103. guest says:
    @Truth

    Which I think was because of his obsessive fear of not appearing black enough, but it could be that his white girlfriend(s) wouldn’t go the distance with him.
     
    ...Or...he liked her.

    Every now and then that happens in marriage.

    I don’t discount the possibility that he genuinely likes her. Heck, it could be true love. But that doesn’t necessarily have much to do with why he married her, considering life isn’t a romantic comedy. Take into consideration also how calculated was his every move. Can you imagine what type of person you’d have to be to want to be president (without being born into it, so to speak), let alone actually go the distance? To write a memoir before you’ve actually done anything, to go from middle class Hawaii to Harvard and end up in Southside Chicago, of all places?

    What kind of person choses to be a politician there? One that wants or at least thinks they can get black votes, at the very least. Busting the odds and marrying a Michelle type is a good way to get them.

    Read More
  104. @schmenz
    My question to "truth" was to explain to me how this edifying comment of his:

    "Not in you’re case, you’re just a chickenshit."

    advances the discussion. I was unaware that Junior High-level name calling is now a substitute for intelligent back-and-forth discussion. Obviously I am naive.

    Well, now you’re in the sandbox. I was called a “fool” or some such. Perhaps I am. As for chickenshit, your topic of the day, you’ll have to take that up with the party to whom your were speaking, as Lilly Tomlin would say.

    Cheers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @schmenz
    Jim, your taking this too personal. I only answered you because I sensed, perhaps wrongly, that you were missing the point I was trying to make to "truth" when you offered you reply comment to me.

    I could have replied directly to "truth" but his incoherent reply to me was unworthy of an answer.

    Cheers to you as well.
  105. schmenz says:
    @Jim Christian
    Well, now you're in the sandbox. I was called a "fool" or some such. Perhaps I am. As for chickenshit, your topic of the day, you'll have to take that up with the party to whom your were speaking, as Lilly Tomlin would say.

    Cheers.

    Jim, your taking this too personal. I only answered you because I sensed, perhaps wrongly, that you were missing the point I was trying to make to “truth” when you offered you reply comment to me.

    I could have replied directly to “truth” but his incoherent reply to me was unworthy of an answer.

    Cheers to you as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    "I could have replied directly to “truth” but his incoherent reply to me was unworthy of an answer."

    It's the old make-a-passive-response-to-someone's-post-by-proxy-using-someone-else-in-an-attempt-to-imply-he-is-beneath-your-level, trick!

    Only, I can't tell if you're a Kaos agent*, or my grandmother (she used to do something similar when I was 10).






    *It's an old man's reference, Sport. Send Sailer or Fred Reed a private message and they'll explain it to you, Son. Don't bother Derb; he's an Ivy League Fop with a Chinese wife, all he knows is Masterpiece TheatRE and Beowulf and shite like that.
  106. conatus says:
    @Priss Factor
    You forgot to mention the Fear Factor.

    Negroes be loud, wild, strong, nasty, and mean.

    They be natural thugs with the Maomao genes.

    So when blacks begin to howl, white folks get all scared and shit.

    But they don't want to admit fear and cowardice. So, the invoke 'social justice' as crutch to rationalize their craven surrender to the blugs or black thugs.

    Blacks know the honkey be scared.

    Combination of black thuggery and holy slave narrative paralyzes whites. Negroes be thugtims.

    best line in a long time

    “They be natural thugs with the Maomao genes.”

    Mao-mao-ing the flak catchers

    Read More
  107. @Anonymous
    All you need to know about that Guardian article is that the caption for the picture infers Euclid was black because he was from Africa. Afrocentric make-believe at its finest. How sad is it that an article in defense of black mathematicians refers to Euclid and Eratosthenes as black?

    How sad is it that an article in defense of black mathematicians refers to Euclid and Eratosthenes as black?

    Well, the guy spent an entire page whining then concludes that “I’m not complaining” because he “wasn’t shot for a bag of skittles.” That’s a pretty conclusive summation of his ability to process logic.

    Read More
  108. @TangoMan
    I wonder about the overall economic cost of black or other incompetent minority hires.

    Here you go: Is Diversity Bad for Economic Growth: Evidence from State-Level Data in the US.


    The paper examines the macroeconomic effects of social diversity within the United States. Employing a cross-sectional dataset for 48 contiguous states with the US, we find empirical evidence for a negative impact of diversity on Gross State Product (GSP) per capita growth. The findings indicate that racial diversity has a negative economic impact in the absence of offsetting factors that would help to overcome barriers to communication across social groups. After controlling for low levels of English fluency, or the inability to communicate effectively, the estimated negative economic impact of racial diversity is even more pronounced.
     

    Having spent a lifetime in thousands of US manufacturing plants, I’ll also observe the cost of Diversity is higher than the cost of closing down a functioning factory, finding a site thousands of miles or Pacific Ocean away, translating everything to a new language, finding competent architects, engineers, and builders to build a new factory, paying off a corrupt political regime, training a new foreign labor force, constant travel costs to the new site, freight costs along with import/export tariffs, the enormous risk of operating in a nation without protection of American law (i.e. Venezuela), and loss of goodwill for no longer being American made. The idea that America lost her factories solely for a marginally lower cost of production is naive.

    I’ve seen Diverse factories with 30-40% reject rates on parts. I’ve seen auto assembly plants forced to rework 25% of production because Diverse workers (Union protected) simply refused to do their jobs. I’ve seen unions threaten to strike to protect Diverse workers who weren’t just unproductive, but actively counter-productive, and faced with replacement with automation. Ive seen countless lawyers grow fat by gorging themselves on the carcass of manufacturers who foolishly tried to make their Diversities productive. I’ve seen thousands of such workers moved to a “jobs bank” where they sat at home drinking malt liquor all day while collecting 90% of their salary. Manufacturers could not improve productivity with automation, couldn’t build new factories due to leftists’ cries about endangered tree moss, and couldn’t fire or even discipline counter-productive Diversities. Moving offshore was their only viable option.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    I have a sneaking suspicion that if those companies had faced stiff tariffs on their offshored products they would have found ways to make them here with nondiverse workers, and/or have lowered the boom on the diverse ones. Henry Ford hired blacks not out of liberal dogooderism because he realized that simple, repetitive tasks overseen by firm and consistent supervisors were well within their sphere of competency. The auto plants could have built out in non-Rust-Belt areas and avoided much of their union issues.
  109. @Jim Christian
    Concur all. And, not one more bomb need be dropped anywhere in the world. As if we need confirmation, the threat is within our borders. The threat is employed here, it festers here, it is because we allowed it to come here. Our President insists on even more. It will be generations to clear the threat even if we go medieval. It's over, we will resign ourselves to this, as has France.

    But the core of the rot is feminism at the end of the day. The men and policies soft, we are now ripe for the taking and now we find out that the women are not strong, that it was not wise to be soft, that it was unwise to allow the monsters in. With the threat here, at home in our midst, the idiots bomb sand 7000 miles away.

    But the core of the rot is feminism at the end of the day. The men and policies soft, we are now ripe for the taking and now we find out that the women are not strong, that it was not wise to be soft, that it was unwise to allow the monsters in.

    This is why I get so angry with the Jew-haters. They’d have us expel all the Jews and we would still have the exact same problem only with half the doctors left. We shunned the wisdom of our Founders at our peril. The vote was given white men who owned property for very good reason. Those without property are only too happy to vote themselves some of your property. And government is a necessary evil at best – it is no place for emotionalism inherent to the fairer sex. Women already control the home and children, the very wellspring from whence our civilization comes. Negroes and Indians, people who never managed to build anything approaching Western Civilization, certainly have no business directing its affairs. By abandoning the wisdom of our fathers, we have brought complete and utter ruin to what they bequeathed us. The price for this stupidity will be borne in misery for many many generations to come.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Jesus. If I was a druggie, I'd go take some now. I appreciate the insight, I hate the message. It pains me to see it articulated so well. And I suppose that reaction is trebled by the fact there is nothing I can do about it, because who listens to an old irrelevant White guy anyway?

    Cheers if you can.
  110. @Stan D Mute

    But the core of the rot is feminism at the end of the day. The men and policies soft, we are now ripe for the taking and now we find out that the women are not strong, that it was not wise to be soft, that it was unwise to allow the monsters in.
     
    This is why I get so angry with the Jew-haters. They'd have us expel all the Jews and we would still have the exact same problem only with half the doctors left. We shunned the wisdom of our Founders at our peril. The vote was given white men who owned property for very good reason. Those without property are only too happy to vote themselves some of your property. And government is a necessary evil at best - it is no place for emotionalism inherent to the fairer sex. Women already control the home and children, the very wellspring from whence our civilization comes. Negroes and Indians, people who never managed to build anything approaching Western Civilization, certainly have no business directing its affairs. By abandoning the wisdom of our fathers, we have brought complete and utter ruin to what they bequeathed us. The price for this stupidity will be borne in misery for many many generations to come.

    Jesus. If I was a druggie, I’d go take some now. I appreciate the insight, I hate the message. It pains me to see it articulated so well. And I suppose that reaction is trebled by the fact there is nothing I can do about it, because who listens to an old irrelevant White guy anyway?

    Cheers if you can.

    Read More
  111. @Calvin Hobbes
    "Before I spoke to the Black Law Students’ Association of the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2010, by way of preparation I did some quantitative analysis on the LSAT statistics, that’s the Law School Admission Test. On the basis of a simple LSAT cut-off score, I found that the expected number of blacks in the law school would be four. The actual number was 57. And that’s ignoring the phenomenon of the highest-prestige law schools sucking up all the brightest black applicants."

    So it's pretty clear that there is discrimination in favor of blacks in law school admissions, before they arrive at law school.

    But what happens after they get to law school?

    The answer is that most of them do abysmally with respect to first-year grades. An amazingly consistent pattern at American law schools is that half of black law students rank in the bottom 10%, with most of the rest still down there towards the bottom. At least that was the case in 1992, and I doubt that the situation now is much different. See Table 5.1, page 427, (for "elite" law schools) and Table 5.3 , page 431, (for lower-ranked law schools) here:

    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/final/SanderFINAL.pdf

    Of course this pattern is not possible at HBCU law schools, by the pigeon-hole principle of mathematics.

    So most blacks, always touchy about "stereotypes" concerning their intelligence, arrive at law school and discover that they are village idiots in their law school "village". It can't be fun being a village idiot. No wonder so many are angry and resentful.

    And what is the effect of this situation on the other law students? When they see that the black students around them are mostly village idiots, many of them constantly whining about being "oppressed" and making preposterous excuses for why they can't compete, the other students can't help but feel contempt for these dim bulbs. Of course those other students also know enough to STFU about what they see, but it's natural for them to develop a negative attitude towards blacks.

    So, the way our law schools admit students seems taylor-made to produce hostility among the blacks and contempt for blacks among the whites and Asians.

    There are huge racial test-score gaps among undergraduates at most universities, but there's not as much direct competition between smart undergraduates and dumb undergraduates at a particular university as there is between smart law students and dumb law students at a particular law school. Just about all big universities have "College for Dummies" majors that give their dim bulbs a path to a degree.

    So, the way our law schools admit students seems taylor-made to produce hostility among the blacks and contempt for blacks among the whites and Asians.

    damn. this pretty much sum up everything pretty neatly.

    Read More
  112. Truth says:
    @schmenz
    Jim, your taking this too personal. I only answered you because I sensed, perhaps wrongly, that you were missing the point I was trying to make to "truth" when you offered you reply comment to me.

    I could have replied directly to "truth" but his incoherent reply to me was unworthy of an answer.

    Cheers to you as well.

    “I could have replied directly to “truth” but his incoherent reply to me was unworthy of an answer.”

    It’s the old make-a-passive-response-to-someone’s-post-by-proxy-using-someone-else-in-an-attempt-to-imply-he-is-beneath-your-level, trick!

    Only, I can’t tell if you’re a Kaos agent*, or my grandmother (she used to do something similar when I was 10).

    *It’s an old man’s reference, Sport. Send Sailer or Fred Reed a private message and they’ll explain it to you, Son. Don’t bother Derb; he’s an Ivy League Fop with a Chinese wife, all he knows is Masterpiece TheatRE and Beowulf and shite like that.

    Read More
  113. bach says:
    @Priss Factor
    "I had a big laugh with this. You write some funny stuff. But you didn't mention Asians. How do Asians fit into all this?"

    With yellow, it very simple.

    Look at Chinee. So many people but no big on innovation.

    They grinds. They drones. Their nature is follow and imitate.

    Hawaii have big yellow population but yellows not assert much.

    But Asian Indians, aka dotters, different. They have nature sort of like they are smarter version of gypsies, at least their elites.

    Look at Chinee. So many people but no big on innovation. They grinds. They drones. Their nature is follow and imitate.

    But what better strategy than imitation when you’re a developing economy trying to catch up?

    Read More
  114. @Priss Factor
    Race colors so much stuff in the US.

    For example, take the nature/nurture controversy. If not for race, it would have been over long ago.

    Suppose there is only the white race and no other race. The nature/nurture debate would have ended ages ago in favor of nature. Everyone knows some white kids are born smart, some are born middling, some are born dumb. No controversy there.

    Nurture can make the naturally smart into a smart person, but it cannot turn a naturally dumb person into a smart person.

    So, why does the nature/nurture debate continue? It's because of race.
    It's not controversial to say some white kids are naturally smarter than other white kids.
    But it's problematic to say white kids generally are smarter than black kids.
    In our world where 'racism' be the worstest kind of sin and evil in the world, we can't ever say that.
    So, nature/nurture controversy goes on in the PC conviction that blacks can be made just as smart as whites.
    But that'd be like saying whites could be made just as fast as blacks. Not gonna happen except for odd white exceptions.

    It just so happens that black brains are wired to black butts. Black lips are connected to their lips. Blacks evolved with the culture of bongo-drumming and butt-shaking. So, black thought patterns be all ass-bumpity-grindy-twerky-and-shit.
    Even smart black folks feel this way. It's the way their brains are wired.
    Black mind is more into rhythm than reason. If blacks ruled the world, we would be living in the Age of Rhythm, not Reason.

    This is why blacks are so stuck on rap. Its oogity-boogity beat done make them feel like they is back in the steppes and jungles beating bongo drums, shaking booties, and chucking spears at hippos and buffaloes.

    In the end, nature wins. The only way nature can be changed in the long run is through selective pressures of evolution. Culture can achieve this.
    Suppose we create a harsh social order where all the wild-ass Negroes are either imprisoned, executed, exiled, or forbidden from mating. Suppose we have a culture that favors mild-mannered folks and hates on wild-ass mofos.
    Then we would allow mild-mannered Negroes to mate while preventing wildass mofos to mate. So, Emmanuel Lewis can have a harem while Mike Tyson is locked up for good. Over time, Negroes will become cuddly and wuvable, and they might not be so bad.

    But absent such evolutionary pressure of tough culture that favors mild folks over wild folks, nature will win.
    While culture can try to shape nature, nature also shapes culture.
    It's like Christianity is a pacifist culture that emphasizes prayer, quietude, meditative-ness, patience, and calmness. Such fit the natural personalities of certain European folks.
    When Christianity was used to tame the Negroes, it worked somewhat. Negroes began to sing the spiritual and say lawdy lawdy and worship Jesus who stood for love and peace. But over time, as Negroes got more freedom, the Negro spiritual gave way to the wilder Negro gospel. And then Negro gospel singers began to feel, "I aint singing all this wildass music for God. I's singing it cuz I wanna bang a lot of ho's", and they turned to rhythm and blues.

    So, even as Christianity sought to tame the Negroes, Negroes ended up barbarizing Christianity by turning into a wildass celebration of hollering, hooting, ass-shaking, fancy footwork, twisting and twirling, and acting like baboons.

    Nature wins, especially when society becomes more permissive and libertarian and allows individuals to do as they like.

    Just look at our society. We can learn so much as to why things are the way they are just by considering the NATURE OF certain folks.

    The NATURE OF Negroes is to be wildass, jive-ass, and ugabuga. So, with more permissiveness, Negroes decided to go crazy cuz acting wild and crazy comes naturally to them.

    The NATURE OF Jews is to be pushy, feisty, cunning, abrasive, arrogant, and relentless. It's the nature of Jewish personality. We see it in so many Jews.
    So, even as Anglo culture sought to make Jews straighter and dignified, the nature of the Jew makes them do all sorts of pushy and nasty stuff.
    Just like Christian culture was made wild by Negro nature, Anglo culture was made slippery and shadier by Jewish nature.

    The NATURE OF homos is to be vain, hissy, haughty, fancy-pants, narcissistic, self-centered, oh-tho-thenthitive, and ooh-lala. And we can see this aspect of homos.

    This is why all those who thought that homos would be satisfied with tolerance were wrong. Given their nature, homos want to be the queens of the world. They look in the mirror and ask, 'mirror mirror on the wall, who's the prettiest of them all, and it better be me, and everyone better agree or else he or she should be destroyed as a homophobe, transphobe, or whateverphobe'.

    If you know the NATURE OF Negroes, Jews, and homos, it's obvious why they are so problematic. It's in their nature to be a big pain in the arse.

    Black nature is wild and wants to be loud and proud. It shows others no respeck but demands respeck from everyone else. Take BLM. It be so dumb. Blacks be killing other blacks as well as non-blacks, but they play like they is the main victim.
    How do you explain such behavior? By understanding the NATURE OF blacks.
    Black nature is like that.
    Trying to reason with blacks is like trying to reason with the terminator. It can't be reasoned with. Black nature programmed blacks to be a bunch of punkass lowlifes.

    Jews are very smart, and some Jews are conscientious, but so many Jews have this Jewish nature that makes them so difficult to reason with. Jews have the power of reason, but the combination of their natural arrogance and natural neurosis makes it impossible to have an honest argument with many of them. They will always try to pull some shit.

    As for homos, their nature is pretty obvious. Just look at Chris Crocker and Perez Hilton. Or Elton John. The idea that we can reason with these fruiter-tooters is nuts.
    It's not that they are low in IQ or dumb. It's just that the NATURE OF their personality makes them feel like they are natural aristocracy whose ass should be licked.

    As for why so many white gentiles have become such spineless toadies of Jews, Negroes, and homos, one needs to consider their NATURE too. It is too straight and earnest. Too bland.
    When bland mixes with strong, the strong wins. This is so even when the strong is just a fraction of the bland.
    Take water. It is bland. Take black ink. It is strong. If we mix 50/50 with clear water and black ink, we don't get something in between. We have black water. Indeed, if we were to mix 90/10 with clear water with black ink, the 10% that is ink could dominate the end result mixture.

    Anglo and Jew is like bread and pepper. Suppose there is a big loaf of bread and one hot pepper. Suppose you eat the bread and the pepper. Since the bread is bigger, you'd think you'd taste more of the bread than the pepper. Wrong. Even as you eat the whole bread, the taste of pepper will be felt much stronger in your mouth and make your tongue go 'hot!!!!'

    The nature of bread is bland. The nature of pepper is hot.

    So, if we know the NATURE OF stuff, we know why certain things are happening.

    White folks are too bland. Blacks are wild, Jews are feisty, and homos are tooty.

    Bland nature loses out to strong nature.

    Bland nature loses out to strong nature.

    And the solution? Would you want to segregate and have a bland society?

    Read More
  115. @Calvin Hobbes
    I don't know about the Math 55 question. There was a smart math guy named Jonathan Farley who graduated with an undergrad degree in math from Harvard in 1991. It's remotely possible that this Farley did Math 55, though I doubt it. He did prove one thing in a niche field and has been bragging about it even since. He got very agitated about the Derb's "The Talk, Non-black Version" article here:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/12/black-mathematicians-john-derbyshire-fields-medal

    I don't think any black (of any nationality) has gotten an IMO gold medal. The Derb wrote about it here:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/derbyshire-on-race-and-the-international-math-olympiad

    There was a Nigerian who got 4 IMO bronze medals, twice just barely missing a silver.

    http://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=19734

    This guy is REALLY smart. He's not as smart as the guys who got IMO golds, though.

    I'm pretty sure that no American black has ever been on the US IMO team. The 6-person US IMO team is, more or less, chosen from the 12 "USAMO winners" on the United States of America Mathematical Olympiad. I'm pretty sure that no black has ever been a USAMO winner.

    The only important math contest for US undergraduates is the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, known as the "Putnam Exam". The top 5 (or top 6 last year, because of ties) are deemed Putnam Fellows. I don't believe there has ever been a black Putnam Fellow.

    The premier math contest for middle schoolers is MathCounts. Each state (and another 7 "states" like DC and Guam and Puerto Rico) sends a 4-person team to the national competition. The top 12 on the written part of the contest go on to the "CountDown" round, in which they compete in an insanely nerve-wracking contest in front of a huge audience. I'm pretty sure that no black has ever made the CountDown round. In my experience, there are almost no black competitors at all at the national competition.

    Jonathan Farley’s three brothers graduated from Harvard. Their parents were immigrants from Guyana and Jamaica and both have PhDs. Buddy Fletcher was a math major at Harvard and both of his brothers also graduated from the college. Their mother has a PhD from Columbia in education. Soledad Obrien and her five siblings all graduated from Harvard. Their parents are from Australia and Cuba and their father has a PhD in mechanical engineering. Notice a pattern?

    Soledad Obrien’s niece recently graduated from Harvard with the highest GPA (sociology). Jonathan Farley brags (or complains) about graduating with the second highest GPA.

    Chigozie Henry Aniobi is majoring in computer science at the University of Waterloo. He is probably as smart as the gold medalists. I assume he was educated in Nigeria and had limited resources/opportunities.

    Two of the 12 USAMO winners competed for Canada, Alex Song and Kevin Sun. They attended Phillips Exeter. Most of the Canadian team goes to school in the US.

    There could be a black USAMO winner every five years or so, but black parents rarely pay for the type of enrichment activities needed to reach that level. Besides, if a black kid gets 1400/1600 on the SAT he is guaranteed admission into almost every college except Caltech and will receive free-ride offers from public universities. Why bother with math competitions?

    Read More
  116. @Truth

    But I’d say that for many whites, it’s not just cowardice that causes them to back off, but an understanding that
     
    Not in you're case, you're just a chickenshit.

    Well, I did have probation (not parole) officer in high school due to fighting problems, so I can’t be that much of a chickenshit. Granted, I never got in a fight with black kids because we didn’t have any. Just whites and Indians (real Indians, not dot heads). Btw, watch out for Indians. They might be drunk most of the time, but they can fight.

    Read More
  117. annamaria says:
    @aeolius
    The simple matter of fact is that Rosalind Franklin was an excellent technician. Yes RF produced the famous photo 51. But she did not see the value of what she had produced. Crick and Watson did.
    It has been years since I have read the Double Helix stuff. But I am sure that there were many other prior studies used in the discovery. Certainly her work gave them an answer. But it was they and not her who were asking the correct questions.
    It was they not Franklin who were able to fit the pieces together to gain their wonderful insight. The Franklin boosters imply that without her work the correct structure would not have been found. This is an unfounded mental masturbation fantasy.
    Why do you not mention some of the other studies s it because they were done by men?
    The whole attempt to boost Franklin as being on a par with Watson and Crick is rather pathetic. It is a perversion of the Scientific Process to further a politic agenda.
    They have been many women who have made exciting scientific discoveries. Franklin just is not one of these. She produced a technically proficient photo.

    “The simple matter of fact is that Rosalind Franklin was an excellent technician. Yes RF produced the famous photo 51. But she did not see the value of what she had produced. Crick and Watson did.”

    But the factual data and the opinion of the experts is not in agreement with your statement: “Working with a student, Raymond Gosling, Franklin was able to get two sets of high-resolution photos of crystallized DNA fibers…From this she deduced the basic dimensions of DNA strands, and that the phosphates were on the outside of what was probably a helical structure. She presented her data at a lecture in King’s College at which James Watson was in attendance” 15 months before the latter and two other gentlemen made their conclusions on the helical structure of the DNA. … Franklin was responsible for much of the research and discovery work that led to the understanding of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA. … Of the four DNA researchers, only Rosalind Franklin had any degrees in chemistry. ”

    My response was specifically on the “luster “that Watson had supposedly added to the Nobel Prize, not on the specifics of the research in the DNA structure. As for your condescending statement on “pathetic perversion of Scientific Process,” I firmly believe that some people are born smarter than others; this believe is based on empirical research and, as you can read, it is gender-blind.

    [Franklin] “and Wilkins led separate research groups and had separate projects, although both were concerned with DNA. When Randall gave Franklin responsibility for her DNA project, no one had worked on it for months. Wilkins was away at the time, and when he returned he misunderstood her role, behaving as though she were a technical assistant. Both scientists were actually peers. His mistake, acknowledged but never overcome, was not surprising given the climate for women at the university then. Only males were allowed in the university dining rooms, and after hours Franklin’s colleagues went to men-only pubs.”

    “According to Watson [and Crick], photo 51 provided the vital clue to the double helix… What Watson and Crick needed was far more than the idea of a helix – they needed precise observations from X-ray crystallography. Those numbers were unwittingly provided by Franklin herself, included in a brief informal report that was given to Max Perutz of Cambridge University. Ironically, the data provided by Franklin to the MRC were virtually identical to those she presented at a small seminar in King’s in autumn 1951, when Jim Watson was in the audience.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/23/sexism-in-science-did-watson-and-crick-really-steal-rosalind-franklins-data

    Read More
  118. Truth says:

    Then you’re part of the problem, not part of the cure, now ain’t ya Son?

    Read More
  119. @Former Darfur
    All "black" women that are even remotely palatable as sexual partners to any remotely sane white male are, in fact, mulattas with substantial white genetics which dominate in key areas. Even then the allure is largely because of propaganda.

    White men who have relations with underclass ghetto black women are really defective from my own personal observations.

    In my own case, I was never in the slightest aroused by black women, including several of the black musical figures I was around in an earlier occupation, many of whom I regarded highly as musicians and some of whom I thought were very decent human beings. Not that I ever thought I "had a chance with them" anyway, but for instance I thought Donna Summer was a very likable and decent person, but I didn't look at her that way. (Diana Ross, a better vocalist, was also a complete c***, by contrast. Neither could have aroused me had she wanted to.) Chrissie Hynde, only slightly less so in personality, I'd have gotten with in a minute, save for her well known refusal to be intimate with carnivores.

    On the other hand, for example, Japanese and Chinese women were frequently very attractive to me before I became racially conscious and I must admit to having been with several, along with a couple of Koreans, a couple of Iranians and a smattering of "light mestizas". I'm not proud of it, but I was quite promiscuous in my salad days.

    All “black” women that are even remotely palatable as sexual partners to any remotely sane white male are, in fact, mulattas with substantial white genetics which dominate in key areas. Even then the allure is largely because of propaganda.

    I don’t think this is really true. North American men are very prejudiced against African American women, but take Germans, for example, and they tend to subscribe to the belief that the darker the berry, the sweeter the juice.

    Personally I think that black women tend to be MORE sexually attractive than white women, however with the proviso that in North America a very large percentage are obese and/or poor and ugly and therefore unattractive. However that is more due to cultural and dietary factors that any inherent lack of sexiness. A beautiful young black woman who has smooth skin, good teeth, and a slim or athletic body is a good enough sexual partner for anyone, regardless of whether she has a high or low degree of mulatto in her makeup.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    Personally I think that black women tend to be MORE sexually attractive than white women,

    Some guys do. I'm only saying what I find to be the case with me.

    Personally I find any substantial trace of Negro features a definite no go. I grant that obviously a number of wealthy and famous white men with access to any woman they could want-Robert de Niro, David Bowie, et al- prefer the higher grade of ostensibly black women and a few have gone for fully African specimens, like Iman, but they aren't me.

    That said I can say with some confidence in saying MOST black women, from the US, the Carribean, or Africa, are not attractive to MOST white men. Then again I knew a guy who seemed completely typical to me until he revealed that he considered Grace Jones the sexiest possible woman on earth in all history.
  120. Truth says:

    “A beautiful young black woman who has smooth skin, good teeth, and a slim or athletic body is a good enough sexual partner for anyone, regardless of whether she has a high or low degree of mulatto in her makeup.”

    Definitely good enough for me.

    Read More
  121. @Jonathan Mason

    All “black” women that are even remotely palatable as sexual partners to any remotely sane white male are, in fact, mulattas with substantial white genetics which dominate in key areas. Even then the allure is largely because of propaganda.
     
    I don't think this is really true. North American men are very prejudiced against African American women, but take Germans, for example, and they tend to subscribe to the belief that the darker the berry, the sweeter the juice.

    Personally I think that black women tend to be MORE sexually attractive than white women, however with the proviso that in North America a very large percentage are obese and/or poor and ugly and therefore unattractive. However that is more due to cultural and dietary factors that any inherent lack of sexiness. A beautiful young black woman who has smooth skin, good teeth, and a slim or athletic body is a good enough sexual partner for anyone, regardless of whether she has a high or low degree of mulatto in her makeup.

    Personally I think that black women tend to be MORE sexually attractive than white women,

    Some guys do. I’m only saying what I find to be the case with me.

    Personally I find any substantial trace of Negro features a definite no go. I grant that obviously a number of wealthy and famous white men with access to any woman they could want-Robert de Niro, David Bowie, et al- prefer the higher grade of ostensibly black women and a few have gone for fully African specimens, like Iman, but they aren’t me.

    That said I can say with some confidence in saying MOST black women, from the US, the Carribean, or Africa, are not attractive to MOST white men. Then again I knew a guy who seemed completely typical to me until he revealed that he considered Grace Jones the sexiest possible woman on earth in all history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    By the same token, it would seem most white men don't find most Asian women attractive, at least not if they have access to average white women.
  122. @Stan D Mute
    Having spent a lifetime in thousands of US manufacturing plants, I'll also observe the cost of Diversity is higher than the cost of closing down a functioning factory, finding a site thousands of miles or Pacific Ocean away, translating everything to a new language, finding competent architects, engineers, and builders to build a new factory, paying off a corrupt political regime, training a new foreign labor force, constant travel costs to the new site, freight costs along with import/export tariffs, the enormous risk of operating in a nation without protection of American law (i.e. Venezuela), and loss of goodwill for no longer being American made. The idea that America lost her factories solely for a marginally lower cost of production is naive.

    I've seen Diverse factories with 30-40% reject rates on parts. I've seen auto assembly plants forced to rework 25% of production because Diverse workers (Union protected) simply refused to do their jobs. I've seen unions threaten to strike to protect Diverse workers who weren't just unproductive, but actively counter-productive, and faced with replacement with automation. Ive seen countless lawyers grow fat by gorging themselves on the carcass of manufacturers who foolishly tried to make their Diversities productive. I've seen thousands of such workers moved to a "jobs bank" where they sat at home drinking malt liquor all day while collecting 90% of their salary. Manufacturers could not improve productivity with automation, couldn't build new factories due to leftists' cries about endangered tree moss, and couldn't fire or even discipline counter-productive Diversities. Moving offshore was their only viable option.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that if those companies had faced stiff tariffs on their offshored products they would have found ways to make them here with nondiverse workers, and/or have lowered the boom on the diverse ones. Henry Ford hired blacks not out of liberal dogooderism because he realized that simple, repetitive tasks overseen by firm and consistent supervisors were well within their sphere of competency. The auto plants could have built out in non-Rust-Belt areas and avoided much of their union issues.

    Read More
  123. Interesting take. Remove race from the equation as being merely circumstantial, and I think you are on to something. In the US, it’s blacks who are sanctified by liberals. But in Europe, it’s Moslems. Move to the far right on the political spectrum, and it’s Jews who are sanctified by conservatives in a similar unquestionable manner. Today’s political battles differ little from the religious battles of yesteryear. It’s all about western morality. It’s the vengeful, jealous, smiting God /chosen people authoritarian morality of the old testament versus the loving, caring, compassionate, giving God of new testament morality. On this western society is terribly divided, as these two systems of morality are irreconcilable at the core.

    Read More
  124. @Former Darfur
    All "black" women that are even remotely palatable as sexual partners to any remotely sane white male are, in fact, mulattas with substantial white genetics which dominate in key areas. Even then the allure is largely because of propaganda.

    White men who have relations with underclass ghetto black women are really defective from my own personal observations.

    In my own case, I was never in the slightest aroused by black women, including several of the black musical figures I was around in an earlier occupation, many of whom I regarded highly as musicians and some of whom I thought were very decent human beings. Not that I ever thought I "had a chance with them" anyway, but for instance I thought Donna Summer was a very likable and decent person, but I didn't look at her that way. (Diana Ross, a better vocalist, was also a complete c***, by contrast. Neither could have aroused me had she wanted to.) Chrissie Hynde, only slightly less so in personality, I'd have gotten with in a minute, save for her well known refusal to be intimate with carnivores.

    On the other hand, for example, Japanese and Chinese women were frequently very attractive to me before I became racially conscious and I must admit to having been with several, along with a couple of Koreans, a couple of Iranians and a smattering of "light mestizas". I'm not proud of it, but I was quite promiscuous in my salad days.

    Meh, I’ve never understood the need to be racially aware when hitting some tail. The alt-right has this fixation with maintain Caucasian purity and some here fixate that extension to non-reproductive pursuits. You were getting laid, who cares what the nationality was? Same for marriage, too. It’s not my fault western women are largely broken, narcissistic shits. I’m sure as hell not going to take on the responsibility of fixing it myself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    There are other non-western women then. Otherwise do you really want to devote your best years to raising mulatto babies?
  125. Dwayne says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Partially true. Whites could easily take out blacks if we were allowed to use our advantages - intelligence, organization, discipline, use of technology, etc. - but we're not. This allows blacks to run roughshod over whites on the streets.

    Whites use mostly white cops - who can employ our advantages - as a surrogate for controlling blacks. However, it is true that most white cower when confronted by blacks. But I'd say that for many whites, it's not just cowardice that causes them to back off, but an understanding that 1) the vast majority of blacks really are stupid and aren't smart enough to consider the consequences of getting a serious fight (broken bones, lost teeth, etc.) while we are and 2) the government and media will persecute us regardless of whose fault it is.

    Basically, it's not worth getting into a fight with these dumb animals.

    Someday that equation may change.

    When I was a teenager my friends would meet on Sunday afternoon to play tackle football. One Sunday I arrived early and began to play with a few white teenager with which I had no previous contact.

    Shortly thereafter several black teenagers arrived on the scene and asked to participate. The white boys reluctantly agreed. In the huddle it was obvious that these guys were afraid of the blacks. I explained that they weren’t supermen and to give me the ball and I would prove it to them. I lined up as halfback and ran right through the middle of them for a touchdown.
    I don’t understand today’s fear of blacks. I don’t go strolling through black neighborhoods, I’m 63, but I not intimidated either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    They frequently hate whites. In straightforward interactions they are often easy to deal with, and easy to defeat in competition. It's the non-straightforward stuff that causes the problems.
  126. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Former Darfur
    Personally I think that black women tend to be MORE sexually attractive than white women,

    Some guys do. I'm only saying what I find to be the case with me.

    Personally I find any substantial trace of Negro features a definite no go. I grant that obviously a number of wealthy and famous white men with access to any woman they could want-Robert de Niro, David Bowie, et al- prefer the higher grade of ostensibly black women and a few have gone for fully African specimens, like Iman, but they aren't me.

    That said I can say with some confidence in saying MOST black women, from the US, the Carribean, or Africa, are not attractive to MOST white men. Then again I knew a guy who seemed completely typical to me until he revealed that he considered Grace Jones the sexiest possible woman on earth in all history.

    By the same token, it would seem most white men don’t find most Asian women attractive, at least not if they have access to average white women.

    Read More
  127. Rdm says:
    @aeolius
    The simple matter of fact is that Rosalind Franklin was an excellent technician. Yes RF produced the famous photo 51. But she did not see the value of what she had produced. Crick and Watson did.
    It has been years since I have read the Double Helix stuff. But I am sure that there were many other prior studies used in the discovery. Certainly her work gave them an answer. But it was they and not her who were asking the correct questions.
    It was they not Franklin who were able to fit the pieces together to gain their wonderful insight. The Franklin boosters imply that without her work the correct structure would not have been found. This is an unfounded mental masturbation fantasy.
    Why do you not mention some of the other studies s it because they were done by men?
    The whole attempt to boost Franklin as being on a par with Watson and Crick is rather pathetic. It is a perversion of the Scientific Process to further a politic agenda.
    They have been many women who have made exciting scientific discoveries. Franklin just is not one of these. She produced a technically proficient photo.

    Really? Jesus Fking Christ.

    Aside from Jim Watson rather controversial comment on Africa, what major contribution Watson made to the scientific discovery?

    Double Helix DNA structure?

    The guy is just a pure luck, didn’t get along with his previous lab, and for the love of god, happened to come across a bright Francis Crick in England. Otherwise, Watson will be smoking weed after booted out from tenure track with his track record of trashing all of his colleagues.

    Watson was held in high regard just solely for his Nobel Prize. The rest of his scientific contributions are just a mere reflection of his Nobel Prize halo.

    Franklin just is not one of these. She produced a technically proficient photo.

    It’s like saying, I’m just producing genetically competent sperms, but I’m not responsible for any progeny that might have come from my sperms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    No, the difference is that nobody else can produce your sperms. Lots of other competent technicians could have produced proper photos, that day or another day.

    Getting along in the lab is a nice professional skill, but the idea of the prickly genius that nobody can get along with is a stereotype, because it contains an important grain of truth.

    Black people can often excel at interpersonal relations. Many good comedians and other entertainers are black. They may have excellent interpersonal lab skills learned by experience in schools and in labs. They just pretty much never seem to have the spark of genius though.

  128. artichoke says:
    @unit472
    I was recently in hospital and each day a doctor came by. His tag said 'hospitalist' and he was black. He used his stethoscope on me, asked me how I doing and then went on his way. I needed a catheter installed and got another Nigerian 'doctor'. This was, apparently, all she did at this hospital. When I couldn't lay flat on my back for the procedure it was postponed until a white female doctor was found who told me to lay on my side while she performed the procedure.

    The horrible reality is, as a patient, you cannot give voice to your misgivings as to the professional competence of black doctors even when you have reasonable doubts. Your life is held hostage to a political/professional credentialing system that prevents you from doing what you could easily do with doctors of any other race. Refuse treatment by then.

    When you’re in a hospital you are at the mercy of their staff. When you’re not you can go to whatever doctor your insurance will pay for and thus avoid those who very likely would not have been in medical school at all, but for years of consecutive affirmative action boosts.

    Maybe there are good black doctors I am avoiding for this reason, but I have to look out for myself and my family above that concern.

    Anyway isn’t this the reason you didn’t talk back to those black hospitalists — because you were flat on your back and under the regime in the hospital?

    Read More
  129. artichoke says:
    @Rdm
    Really? Jesus Fking Christ.

    Aside from Jim Watson rather controversial comment on Africa, what major contribution Watson made to the scientific discovery?

    Double Helix DNA structure?

    The guy is just a pure luck, didn't get along with his previous lab, and for the love of god, happened to come across a bright Francis Crick in England. Otherwise, Watson will be smoking weed after booted out from tenure track with his track record of trashing all of his colleagues.

    Watson was held in high regard just solely for his Nobel Prize. The rest of his scientific contributions are just a mere reflection of his Nobel Prize halo.

    Franklin just is not one of these. She produced a technically proficient photo.
     
    It's like saying, I'm just producing genetically competent sperms, but I'm not responsible for any progeny that might have come from my sperms.

    No, the difference is that nobody else can produce your sperms. Lots of other competent technicians could have produced proper photos, that day or another day.

    Getting along in the lab is a nice professional skill, but the idea of the prickly genius that nobody can get along with is a stereotype, because it contains an important grain of truth.

    Black people can often excel at interpersonal relations. Many good comedians and other entertainers are black. They may have excellent interpersonal lab skills learned by experience in schools and in labs. They just pretty much never seem to have the spark of genius though.

    Read More
  130. artichoke says:
    @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    Meh, I've never understood the need to be racially aware when hitting some tail. The alt-right has this fixation with maintain Caucasian purity and some here fixate that extension to non-reproductive pursuits. You were getting laid, who cares what the nationality was? Same for marriage, too. It's not my fault western women are largely broken, narcissistic shits. I'm sure as hell not going to take on the responsibility of fixing it myself.

    There are other non-western women then. Otherwise do you really want to devote your best years to raising mulatto babies?

    Read More
  131. artichoke says:
    @Dwayne
    When I was a teenager my friends would meet on Sunday afternoon to play tackle football. One Sunday I arrived early and began to play with a few white teenager with which I had no previous contact.

    Shortly thereafter several black teenagers arrived on the scene and asked to participate. The white boys reluctantly agreed. In the huddle it was obvious that these guys were afraid of the blacks. I explained that they weren't supermen and to give me the ball and I would prove it to them. I lined up as halfback and ran right through the middle of them for a touchdown.
    I don't understand today's fear of blacks. I don't go strolling through black neighborhoods, I'm 63, but I not intimidated either.

    They frequently hate whites. In straightforward interactions they are often easy to deal with, and easy to defeat in competition. It’s the non-straightforward stuff that causes the problems.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering