The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
How Much Worse Are Black Homicide Rates Due to Living More in Big Cities?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Back in 2019, I reviewed Wilfred Reilly’s book Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left Is Selling a Fake Race War. Reilly is a part-black redneck college professor who teaches at Kentucky State in Frankfort.

These are homicide victims, not homicide perpetrators, but the correlation is usually pretty high between the two.

Kentucky’s Large Central Metro is Louisville, which is a pretty shooty town. Kentucky blacks settle down pretty quickly as they get less urban and by the rural NonCore (Nonmetro) category, their homicide death rate is only 1.6 times as bad as Kentucky whites.

Reilly offers an interesting perspective:

So, what is it nationally?

 

So, the black to white homicide death ratio falls with each less dense type of place, from 9.2x in Large Central Metros to 4.3x in NonCore (Nonmetros). The black Crude Rate of homicide deaths is only half as bad in rural areas (14.3 per 100,000) as in big cities (28.5).

In contrast, whites are least likely to die by homicide in big city suburbs (Large Fringe Metro), but otherwise their homicide Crude Rates are pretty similar (e.g., 3.1 in Large Central Metro and 3.3 in NonCore (Nonmetro)).

But the homicide rates nationally don’t get as similar as they do in Kentucky.

(I’m using non-Hispanics for the national numbers although to save time I didn’t specify non-Hispanic for the Kentucky numbers, figuring it would make much difference in Kentucky.)

Nationally, if I’m doing my arithmetic right, this would suggest that if blacks were distributed in the same proportions of urbanization as whites, that the black to white homicide ratio would fall by 10% from 8.0 to 7.2, which isn’t trivial but not huge either.

 
Hide 122 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. So “black-a-block” nationwide?

  2. Is the drug trade more likely to be associated with blacks in urban areas and whites in rural areas?

    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @George

    Possibly, particularly when talking about drug labs.

  3. if blacks were distributed in the same proportions of urbanization as whites, that the black to white homicide ratio would fall by 10% from 8.0 to 7.2, which isn’t trivial but not huge either.

    Yeah, probably. “isn’t trivial but not huge either.” is a very good way of saying it.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    • Replies: @James Speaks
    @JimDandy

    I think this shows the fight or flight mechanism at work. In a rural setting, negro on negro antagonism (NONA), the precursor to negro on negro violence (NONV), is much less than in an urban setting due to the lower negro per capita antagonism density factor (NPCADF). Basically, your average rural negro (ARN) has to walk farther to locate another ARN to engage in mutual antagonism. Hence, the lower rate of negro on negro projectile activity (NONPA).

    Hope this helps. (HTH)

    Replies: @James Speaks, @JimDandy

  4. Nationally, if I’m doing my arithmetic right, this would suggest that if blacks were distributed in the same proportions of urbanization as whites, that the black to white homicide ratio would fall by 10% from 8.0 to 7.2, which isn’t trivial but not huge either.

    Shh! Don’t give any excuse, not even 10%, for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)!

    • Agree: AnotherDad, Adam Smith, fish
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Shh! Don’t give any excuse, not even 10%, for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)!
     
    Unfortunately, Biden's opened it up to foreign vibrants as well--by the millions.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Polistra

    , @Polistra
    @Buzz Mohawk


    These are homicide victims, not homicide perpetrators, but the correlation is usually pretty high between the two.
     
    Of course we're not permitted to discuss perpetrators per se, but the extreme disparity between w>b and b>w crime means that using victimization rates as a proxy grossly understates black crime. Just as does depending on clearance rates, and so many other things.

    One of the many ironies of the prohibition against accurately reporting black crime is that even the "accurate" reporting understates the case.

  5. Something is off with column headings. 199 million white homicide deaths in 20 years?

  6. I believe your second from the right column is mislabeled.

    Shocking that 22% of whites still live in big cities.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @Ralph L

    Shocking that 22% of whites still live in big cities.

    Not when you factor in big cities like Boston and New York where blacks are a minority. Or DC, where whites actually recaptured large chunks of the city. After all, functional urban life is largely a European/white innovation (whereby I include Eastern Mediterraneans as “white”.) Blacks may be better suited toward small villages. Ceding cities to blacks is a mistake.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @Fred C Dobbs
    @Ralph L

    Assuming the "Large" cutoff is a central city population of over 500,000: Despite completely bombed out places like Cleveland and Detroit, and mostly bombed-out, like Philadelphia, there are some large cities like Denver and Phoenix that are still mostly decent.

  7. In this respect, the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era—such as Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago and the Calliope Projects in New Orleans— would seem to have caused far more black violence and instability than they resolved by packing blacks in tighter and closer together in dense urban environments.

    Which is ironic, since many of the true believing commies and hippies thought such large black-dominated projects would come to give poor blacks a “community” and reduce their racist oppression and make them be able to become wealthy and less-violent-ridden.

    So a solution to urban black crime would be similar to what the British did back in the day — spread out and scatter housing projects out to the country, making black populations far less dense.

    But the problem is — American blacks today really, really seem to like living in cities versus the country. Not only is “country” an insult American blacks toss around to this day, but American blacks really can’t understand why European Americans seem to have this longing for a Jeffersonian/simple farm life.

    “40 Acres and a Mule” sounds like a punishment to modern blacks. Malcom X’s description of himself in his autobiography moving from the country to the city and going from hick hayseed to sophisticated urban slickster is emblematic of black feelings on the subject (X’s Autobiography was largely fictional jive talk by a great hustler, but the story was meant to embody many blacks’ feelings about city v. country and struck a cord amongst black readers).

    So blacks would really resist this, and probably skeedaddle back to the cities when they could.

    Plus lots of D’s and “community organizers” and Marxists professors would get up in a rage at their black concentrations of voters/rioters being dispersed in the wind.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @R.G. Camara


    In this respect, the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era—such as Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago and the Calliope Projects in New Orleans— would seem to have caused far more black violence and instability
     
    Did they protect Whites from black violence?

    Replies: @Gordo

    , @Rob McX
    @R.G. Camara

    Blacks are definitely city people. It's no fun travelling 10 miles to the rural equivalent of a block party. And then 10 miles round trip back to your house to pick up your gun when someone other partygoer offends you.

    , @Rooster16
    @R.G. Camara

    The government/cities essentially provide everything to blacks from cradle to grave. The system relies on having blacks close to amenities, it would literally collapse due to logistical restraints if blacks were more spread out; thus the uproar about “food deserts”. Even if blacks were moved to rural locations, government assistance buildings would soon start to pop up near the largest congregation of them, and soon after the blacks would congregate around them… a modern version of the chicken and the egg scenario.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Almost Missouri
    @R.G. Camara


    lots of D’s and “community organizers” and Marxists professors would get up in a rage at their black concentrations of voters/rioters being dispersed in the wind.
     
    Judging by past practice, blacks wouldn't so much be dispersed to the wind as to the whites, primarily the whites in heretofore quiet R-voting towns. Government meta-planners use blacks as a biological weapon in their race war against normie whites. It's ironic that the weapon and it's retail beneficiaries resist its wholesale use more than the actual target resists it, probably because the target is still woefully underinformed, a condition the meta-planners make every effort to compound.

    (Minor side note: it's before my time, but my understanding is that "the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era" were not originally meant to be ¡B!lack communitays, but rather that just sort of happened as blacks disproportionately succumbed to the siren call of the welfare state. Though no doubt that there were many "true believing commies and hippies" on hand to theorize why this was a good thing ackshually.)

    Replies: @Thea

    , @Boy the way Glenn Miller played
    @R.G. Camara


    So a solution to urban black crime would be similar to what the British did back in the day — spread out and scatter housing projects out to the country, making black populations far less dense.
     
    What would be wrong with a renaissance of the Workhouse, the County Farm, and the Home for Unwed Mothers?
    , @Nick Granite
    @R.G. Camara

    Well let's be honest. 40 acres and a mule sounds like a hell of a lot of work.

  8. Just one data point, but my Kentucky brother-in-law (in a small-to-medium metro environment) does concealed carry every time he leaves the house.

    • Replies: @ForeverCARealist
    @Paco Wové

    Got a relative there, a pastor. He carries while preaching... concealed, not open.

  9. How Much Worse Are Black Homicide Rates Due to Living More in Big Cities?

    Definitely worse, but not much, much worse.

    There isn’t much doubt that there’s a completely dysfunction urban black culture that brings out the shooty.

    But there is also a lot of selection that’s going on here. Blacks that need “action” have boiled off to the cities. (Kinda like the Amish boil off.) Blacks who are still doing the rural are mentally more suited to it. They are still way more shooty than whites, but they aren’t the most problematic of blacks.

    ~~~

    I think Mr. Reilly’s is absolutely right on his answer to you on guns. In rural Kentucky both the whites and blacks will have guns.

    It’s just that rural Kentucky whites are a bit more “vibrant” than the typical rural white American. (They’re much more likely to be Scots-Irish.) While the rural Kentucky blacks are both
    — aware of some of that redneck honor culture–don’t be a big dick or you may get your ass shot off– and have ordinary familiarity with guns, taking them seriously
    — and the biggest dicks have boiled off to Louisville

    Together basically the result is rural Kentucky blacks are more like their peer whites than elsewhere.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @AnotherDad

    Selection is a good question. To what extent are shooty blacks shooty because of the city vs in the city because of the shootiness (or perhaps not the shootiness per se but all the drugs, gangs, hos, etc that accompany shootiness). Maybe this is another way of asking if relatively r- vs relatively K- strategy blacks naturally separate into urban and rural subgroups?

    Also, if it is urbanity causing black shootiness, what's the factor? Being around other blacks? Or, perceived ability to escape from police? Or, ubiquity of undocumented (non-traceable) guns? Or, religiosity of surrounding populations? Or, free time due to reduced commuting? Or....?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @LP5
    @AnotherDad

    AnotherDad writes:


    Blacks that need “action” have boiled off to the cities. (Kinda like the Amish boil off.)
     
    A type of distillation, to link to that Kentucky theme, so maybe bourbon for the urbans or moonshine for the rurals?
    Now, how to describe the Angel's Share https://thewhiskeywash.com/whiskey-styles/american-whiskey/what-is-the-angels-share/ that evaporates in the aging barrel.
    Provide your suggestions on appropriate naming.
    , @Fred C Dobbs
    @AnotherDad

    Re: Kentucky and its "Born Fightin" Scots-Irish population: If you find yourself cuttin' a rug down at a place called the Jug with a girl named Linda Lou.....

    You might later find yourself pleading....Gimme three steps, give me three steps, Mister....give me three steps toward the door....."

  10. Kentucky and WV are outliers in the high white ancestry of their black population and low socioeconomic status of whites.

    Lower IQ slaves in KY were sold down south where there was lower runaway risk and more profitable cotton plantations. That left a black population that was higher IQ household servants and skilled craftsmen, who were also heavily the mixed race descendants of slaveowners.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Pixo


    Lower IQ slaves in KY were sold down south where there was lower runaway risk and more profitable cotton plantations. That left a black population that was higher IQ household servants and skilled craftsmen, who were also heavily the mixed race descendants of slaveowners.
     
    The first time I was in Mississippi, it was noticeable to me that many blacks looked "blacker"--darker, more African, less white--than the ones I had been around and worked with in Cincinnati and elsewhere.

    Some of the dark is just sunshine. Some of it is no doubt cultural--how one carries oneself, talks. But pretty sure there is a net admixture issue. Selection probably both under slavery and in the get-up-and-go to head north.

    The genetics of black Americans and correlation with other metrics of traits/behavior/socio-economics would be interesting but is probably not at the top of anyone's research agenda.
  11. Wouldn’t the easier way to come at this question be to look at the homicide rates in mostly black rural counties (or census tracts if such crime stat granularity exists) and compare it with homicide rates in mostly black metro areas?

    I suspect the result will be about the same as above: rural blacks less murdery than urban blacks but still more murdery than whites. As per AnotherDad’s explanation, part of this is probably a result of boiling off: the hotter heads “going to town”, but what would be interesting is to find a density coefficient that would predict—all else being equal—how much crime goes up as population density increases.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Almost Missouri

    I don't have a good head for remembering numbers, I thought I saw once that black homicide rates in the USA were more similar to rates in Africa than to US whites, whereas white rates in the USA were more similar to Europe than to US blacks. How about blacks in Europe? Or, how about urban vs rural in Africa? Or, how about in Brazil?

    Replies: @Polistra

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Almost Missouri


    ...how much crime goes up as population density increases.
     
    Some of this is closer targets.

    If you miss your shot in in the woods, you miss your shot. In the city, you cannot miss. if you don't hit one thing (or person), you hit something (or someone) else.

    Stricter standards for gun possession thus make sense in the city. But these should be tied tightly to stricter standards of voter registration.
    , @kaganovitch
    @Almost Missouri

    but what would be interesting is to find a density coefficient that would predict—all else being equal—how much crime goes up as population density increases.

    I'm sure Raj Chetty is going to get on that soonest.

    , @Wade Hampton
    @Almost Missouri

    When I lived in NC, I did a similar analysis to the one you describe. The NC State Bureau of Investigation maintains crime statistics (including murder) by county. It's easy enough to get county population and demographic data.

    NC is an interesting State in the there are heavily black and mostly rural counties in the Eastern Coastal Plain because that's where the antebellum plantations were. The big cities, Charlotte-Gastonia, Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem and Raleigh-Durham, are in the Central part of the State called the Piedmont. The big cities occupied their own counties and were pretty black. The Piedmont outside the big cities was pretty rural, not as black as the Piedmont cities, but nowhere near as black as many of the Coastal Counties. While there was a lot of agriculture in the Piedmont, there weren't the big plantations. Then the Western part of the state was mostly mountainous and completely unsuitable for plantations. No big cities and not a lot of blacks.

    So you got a good spread of urban-heavily-black, urban-somewhat-black, rural-heavily-black, rural-no-blacks. There was no ambiguity in the results. If you wanted to get yourself killed, live in a heavily black county. Either urban or rural. It did not matter at all. The blacker, the more likely you were to get murdered. In fact, the county in the state with the worst murder rate was heavily-black-rural. Durham was in the top 5 though.

  12. @Buzz Mohawk

    Nationally, if I’m doing my arithmetic right, this would suggest that if blacks were distributed in the same proportions of urbanization as whites, that the black to white homicide ratio would fall by 10% from 8.0 to 7.2, which isn’t trivial but not huge either.
     
    Shh! Don't give any excuse, not even 10%, for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)!

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Polistra

    Shh! Don’t give any excuse, not even 10%, for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)!

    Unfortunately, Biden’s opened it up to foreign vibrants as well–by the millions.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @AnotherDad



    Shh! Don’t give any excuse, not even 10%, for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)!
     
    Unfortunately, Biden’s opened it up to foreign vibrants as well–by the millions.
     
    Such neighborhoods, native or foreign, could be called AFFHholes.
    , @Polistra
    @AnotherDad

    We need a discussion about the busing of migrants from Texas to NY & DC that Governor Abbott is currently pulling off. It's an awesome story and great fun watching Muriel Bowser and Eric Adams squirming and huffing while trying to stay on the right side of wokacity. Hearing their angry objections one might almost wonder if the flood of migrants is a good thing or not.

  13. rural NonCore

    “Noncore” sounds like a literary genre, or a section in the record store on Spotify

    Guns are, if anything, rarer in metro Louisville.

    It’s Ground Zero for a certain other popular weapon, though.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Reg Cæsar

    What? Does that put Chicago's METAL bat in just the Little League at best? Horrors!

    https://baseballismy.life/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/batcolumn-chicago-il.jpg

  14. @AnotherDad

    How Much Worse Are Black Homicide Rates Due to Living More in Big Cities?
     
    Definitely worse, but not much, much worse.

    There isn't much doubt that there's a completely dysfunction urban black culture that brings out the shooty.

    But there is also a lot of selection that's going on here. Blacks that need "action" have boiled off to the cities. (Kinda like the Amish boil off.) Blacks who are still doing the rural are mentally more suited to it. They are still way more shooty than whites, but they aren't the most problematic of blacks.

    ~~~

    I think Mr. Reilly's is absolutely right on his answer to you on guns. In rural Kentucky both the whites and blacks will have guns.

    It's just that rural Kentucky whites are a bit more "vibrant" than the typical rural white American. (They're much more likely to be Scots-Irish.) While the rural Kentucky blacks are both
    -- aware of some of that redneck honor culture--don't be a big dick or you may get your ass shot off-- and have ordinary familiarity with guns, taking them seriously
    -- and the biggest dicks have boiled off to Louisville

    Together basically the result is rural Kentucky blacks are more like their peer whites than elsewhere.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @LP5, @Fred C Dobbs

    Selection is a good question. To what extent are shooty blacks shooty because of the city vs in the city because of the shootiness (or perhaps not the shootiness per se but all the drugs, gangs, hos, etc that accompany shootiness). Maybe this is another way of asking if relatively r- vs relatively K- strategy blacks naturally separate into urban and rural subgroups?

    Also, if it is urbanity causing black shootiness, what’s the factor? Being around other blacks? Or, perceived ability to escape from police? Or, ubiquity of undocumented (non-traceable) guns? Or, religiosity of surrounding populations? Or, free time due to reduced commuting? Or….?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Chrisnonymous

    Population density ought to be a determinative variable on its own. After all, a lone person on an island can't commit any crimes because there is no one to commit them against, while in extremely densely populated environments, you could be literally stepping on everyone's toes: committing crimes without even meaning to.

    But I wonder if it is possible that urban whites are less criminal than rural whites? If so, that is probably a peculiarity of the US: using diversity to commit the crimes that urban whites have too much ennui to commit.

    Replies: @International Jew

  15. @Almost Missouri
    Wouldn't the easier way to come at this question be to look at the homicide rates in mostly black rural counties (or census tracts if such crime stat granularity exists) and compare it with homicide rates in mostly black metro areas?

    I suspect the result will be about the same as above: rural blacks less murdery than urban blacks but still more murdery than whites. As per AnotherDad's explanation, part of this is probably a result of boiling off: the hotter heads "going to town", but what would be interesting is to find a density coefficient that would predict—all else being equal—how much crime goes up as population density increases.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @kaganovitch, @Wade Hampton

    I don’t have a good head for remembering numbers, I thought I saw once that black homicide rates in the USA were more similar to rates in Africa than to US whites, whereas white rates in the USA were more similar to Europe than to US blacks. How about blacks in Europe? Or, how about urban vs rural in Africa? Or, how about in Brazil?

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Chrisnonymous

    Also, how about we separate so we dont have to waste so much time and resources on topics like this?

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Hangnail Hans

  16. ‘Blacks in Louisville, KY are surrounded by other blacks, so they often carry illegal handguns. Blacks in Dogpatch, KY are surrounded by whites, so they don’t often carry illegal handguns.’

    This relates to something that’s occurred to me.

    Humans are social animals — and tend to conform to the norms established by their neighbors.

    So around here — where blacks make up 0.3% of the population — their behavior is arguably worse than the white average, but they more or less conform to our rather modest social expectations. Don’t actually shoot your neighbor, etc.

    But put all the blacks together, and…well.

    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    @Colin Wright

    Another way to test this would be to examine the crime rates among selected groups of African immigrants widely dispersed among White European populations in some European countries. Of course a problem there is the selection effect (many of the African immigrants in Poland, Sweden, etc. entered via expired student visas and so are a very selected sample of Africans). It would be tricky to test but it is an interesting hypothesis which seems very plausible. It would not work in the UK or France where there are densely packed homogenous African neighborhoods.

    , @Muggles
    @Colin Wright


    But put all the blacks together, and…well.
     
    Yes, this reminds me of something my career Army sergeant Dad told me about his experience in the Korean War.

    He said that if blacks were sparsely distributed, one or two in a small unit, generally no problems. But if you had four or more, they tended to congregate and act out as "blacks" (or Negroes, back then) and become loud, goofy and careless.

    He said that they would often warn such groups to keep down and keep quiet, due to NorKor snipers.

    But he said they often didn't and thus suffered the consequences.

    I have noticed that in job areas where there were several blacks among others, they sooner or later they would crowd around each other and get loud and boisterous. It's like "they can't be themselves" around mainly just Whites.

    This may well translate into crime rates, urban vs. rural.

    Replies: @Wielgus

  17. …of course, the converse also seems to happen.

    Put whites around a large black population, and they’ll start conforming to black norms.

    This was noticed back when schools were integrated. The hope was that all those white kids would lead to improved black academic performance.

    Actually, all those black kids led to declines in white academic performance. Less tangibly, in integrated communities I’ve noticed white drivers starting to copy blackisms: pulling out half way across a busy street and blocking traffic while waiting for a break in the traffic flowing the other way, for example.

    • Agree: Polistra
    • Replies: @SaneClownPosse
    @Colin Wright

    The rise of the "wiggers".

  18. I have suggested this previously.

    Hypothesis: there exists an inflection upward in the murder rate per Capita once blacks reach a supermajority.

    Data: Detroit, Baltimore, Jackson, New Orleans, Newark.

    Hypothesis reason: deaths of exuberance with no consequences.

    Counter- hypothesis: where one just has a black mayor, no supermajority elected by ally whites, but retains white vestige police, firefighter, etc. The inflection may reverse. (Giuliani/Bloomberg, Daley/Emmanuel).

    I am fairly certain one can do a regression analysis that will show the murder per Capita rate increase linearly with the % black. Then will inflect sharply upwards once 65% black population in the municipality.

    I say municipality because this is an urban phenomenon. Other things one will notice, besides the highest murder rate in the world, is drugs, homeless people, black mayor, black DA, shitty schools, total civic incompetence with zero accountability.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    @rebunga

    The long:

    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hood.htm

    and the short of it:


    "Summary
    We have modeled violent victimization of whites in a racially mixed neighborhood. Our model is based on data collected by the Justice Department and reported in the NCVS. It paints a bleak picture for whites. As a neighborhood turns black, violent victimization of its white residents begins immediately. At first the risk is small, not much different from its previous all-white level. However, by the time the neighborhood reaches the half-black point, every white family of four has better than a one in three chance of being victimized within a year. Two factors account for black-on-white violence. 1) Blacks are 3 times more likely to commit violent crime than whites, and 2) black thugs prefer white victims, selecting them 64 times more than white thugs choose black victims. Most of the risk faced by whites, results from the predilection of black thugs to prey upon whites. As a neighborhood becomes overwhelmingly black, the risk curve for whites rises to ominous heights. In the last stages of transformation, the likelihood of a white being victimized within a year becomes a virtual certainty."
     
  19. @Almost Missouri
    Wouldn't the easier way to come at this question be to look at the homicide rates in mostly black rural counties (or census tracts if such crime stat granularity exists) and compare it with homicide rates in mostly black metro areas?

    I suspect the result will be about the same as above: rural blacks less murdery than urban blacks but still more murdery than whites. As per AnotherDad's explanation, part of this is probably a result of boiling off: the hotter heads "going to town", but what would be interesting is to find a density coefficient that would predict—all else being equal—how much crime goes up as population density increases.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @kaganovitch, @Wade Hampton

    …how much crime goes up as population density increases.

    Some of this is closer targets.

    If you miss your shot in in the woods, you miss your shot. In the city, you cannot miss. if you don’t hit one thing (or person), you hit something (or someone) else.

    Stricter standards for gun possession thus make sense in the city. But these should be tied tightly to stricter standards of voter registration.

  20. @AnotherDad
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Shh! Don’t give any excuse, not even 10%, for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)!
     
    Unfortunately, Biden's opened it up to foreign vibrants as well--by the millions.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Polistra

    Shh! Don’t give any excuse, not even 10%, for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)!

    Unfortunately, Biden’s opened it up to foreign vibrants as well–by the millions.

    Such neighborhoods, native or foreign, could be called AFFHholes.

    • LOL: kaganovitch
  21. “Illegal” is an interesting modifier here, but probably 25%+ of all white and Black males just carry guns in every environment I venture into.

    Why does Wilfred Reilly put Whites in lowercase?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    Why does Wilfred Reilly put Whites in lowercase?
     
    Why does [Theodore Roosevelt] put Whites in lowercase?

    Why does [Lothrop Stoddard] put Whites in lowercase?

    Why does [Winston Churchill] put Whites in lowercase?

    Why does [Madison Grant] put Whites in lowercase?

    Because that's what normal educated people do. The question is, why does he treat "Blacks" differently?
  22. @Buzz Mohawk

    Nationally, if I’m doing my arithmetic right, this would suggest that if blacks were distributed in the same proportions of urbanization as whites, that the black to white homicide ratio would fall by 10% from 8.0 to 7.2, which isn’t trivial but not huge either.
     
    Shh! Don't give any excuse, not even 10%, for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)!

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Polistra

    These are homicide victims, not homicide perpetrators, but the correlation is usually pretty high between the two.

    Of course we’re not permitted to discuss perpetrators per se, but the extreme disparity between w>b and b>w crime means that using victimization rates as a proxy grossly understates black crime. Just as does depending on clearance rates, and so many other things.

    One of the many ironies of the prohibition against accurately reporting black crime is that even the “accurate” reporting understates the case.

  23. @Chrisnonymous
    @AnotherDad

    Selection is a good question. To what extent are shooty blacks shooty because of the city vs in the city because of the shootiness (or perhaps not the shootiness per se but all the drugs, gangs, hos, etc that accompany shootiness). Maybe this is another way of asking if relatively r- vs relatively K- strategy blacks naturally separate into urban and rural subgroups?

    Also, if it is urbanity causing black shootiness, what's the factor? Being around other blacks? Or, perceived ability to escape from police? Or, ubiquity of undocumented (non-traceable) guns? Or, religiosity of surrounding populations? Or, free time due to reduced commuting? Or....?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Population density ought to be a determinative variable on its own. After all, a lone person on an island can’t commit any crimes because there is no one to commit them against, while in extremely densely populated environments, you could be literally stepping on everyone’s toes: committing crimes without even meaning to.

    But I wonder if it is possible that urban whites are less criminal than rural whites? If so, that is probably a peculiarity of the US: using diversity to commit the crimes that urban whites have too much ennui to commit.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Almost Missouri


    But I wonder if it is possible that urban whites are less criminal than rural whites?
     
    Not just that but urban whites are starkly different in all their habits. Compared to rural whites they eat differently, vote differently, and play differently. Blacks seem to be more homogeneous; wherever they live, they eat junk and vote Democrat.

    Maybe it's because cities are kind of a white idea to begin with; cities exist because certain kinds of white people wanted to have cities so they built them so they could live in them. Blacks, in contrast, don't create cities, they just sorta wind up in them.

  24. Back in June, I proposed a “black density” theory of violence based on the the idea that when individuals with a propensity for violence interact with one another, actual violence is going to increase exponentially, rather than additively.

    For example, if two people with what we could call an average violence propensity (defined as a “1.0 VP”) interact, the expected odds of a violent outcome are 1.0 x 1.0 = 1.0 (i.e. exactly average by definition). If someone with a 1.0 VP interacts with a 3.0 VP person the odds of violence are three times higher (1.0 VP x 3.0 VP = 3.0). But if two 3.0 VPs interact, there is a nine times greater chance of violence. (3.0 VP x 3.0 VP = 9.0).

    This means that if an average black person has a violence propensity of 3.0, he’ll be approximately three times more likely to be involved in violence than the average white if he lives in all-white Des Moines. But if he moves to East Saint Louis he’ll be approximately nine times likelier to be involved in violence. This is also a way to discover the generic black propensity for violence by reverse-engineering it from the observed data of blacks living within different populations. If Steve wanted to crunch the specific numbers for different locations, I bet this model would make some interesting fodder for his Twitter feed.

    (Note: This model technically has nothing to do with race but rather the violence propensity of the surrounding people — where white populations have higher or lower propensities for violence this data just goes into the formula and the same model applies).

    [MORE]

    I don’t know how to link an old post but this was the original post from June 17:

    The lowest black homicide rates are in (in ascending order) Hawaii, Maine, North Dakota, Utah, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Montana, and Massachusetts.

    My theory is that black homicide is mostly driven by blacks interacting with other blacks. When that happens, one of them will eventually disrespect the other or talk sh*t about one of their mutual black friends and so things are likely to “get real.” And once that happens, someone has to retaliate. And then someone has to retaliate again for the retaliation. And so on.

    Thus, if you graphed black shooty-ness, it would probably be a function of the square of the density of blacks in the immediate population.

    Blacks are like Plutonium. Once you get a critical mass in one place (D.C. or Chicago), the situation goes critical. In Maine or South Dakota there are so few blacks that most of their interactions are with white people. Whites (especially peaceful Northern whites) are like the control rods that keep the black violence neutrons from starting a chain reaction.

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri, bomag
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Hypnotoad666

    That theory makes a lot of sense, as far as theories go. Congratulations on coming up with something clever and interesting.

    But, with regard to this rather broad topic in general, I would just like to say that there seems to be a pronounced tendency to overthink things. It is apparently very tempting to most of the commenters here to just assume that blacks are more violent because of their "biology." This has some superficial plausibility, until you realize that the flipside of this theory is the assertion that whites are less violent because of their "biology." In fact, the whole corpus of HBD reasoning more or less rests on just such an assumption.

    But that cannot be true. White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance. Whites used to be a great deal more violent to one another. The purges, feuds, and intrigues that prevailed in Florence in the ages of Dante and Machiavelli would make any night in modern Chicago look tame; and, being fairly typical of the period, they were recorded by these authors without a critical and moralizing pose. They were just the "raw material" through which they analyzed spiritual life (Dante) and political life (Machiavelli).

    Furthermore, while whites are less violent to one another today, they are no wise less vicious. It's just that they prefer to destroy each other using the more subtle techniques of character assassination and professional ruination rather than 9mms and switchblades. I think that provides a clue to what is really going on here.

    In contemporary white society, we've obviated the need for individual violence because all the rackets have been legalized and all the risk has been financialized. People do not have a constant need to protect themselves, their honor, and their property with arms, which means that violent confrontations have become a rarity. Identity theft protection and insurance settlements have reduced the necessity to shoot the mugger and the burglar, while at the same time welfare and easy finance have taken the markets away from loan sharks and crooks. Illicit drug use is now legal or tolerated in many jurisdictions, so the idea of blasting it out with the revenuers has become passé. Contraception and sexual license have blunted the edge of spousal jealousy, with the divorce court providing the ultimate surety against being forced to raise and rear another's bastards. You can carry this analysis on and on, mutatis mutandis, in any department of life. Since 99% of all fights are going to be over sex, money, power, or moodiness exacerbated by intoxication, and since modern society provides relief valves for all of those things, there just isn't as much to fight about.

    It used to be a frequent topic of conversation to speculate about why North America and Latin America ended up with quite different levels of development, despite being similarly advantaged with immense natural resources. The answer most often mooted had to do with the "Protestant work ethic" and the idea that the dingy Catholics in the South just couldn't organize anything like the virtuous Yanks could. That idea has always been preposterous. If those old time Jesuits knew anything, it was how to organize stuff.

    After devoting some considerable thought to that question, the real answer revealed itself to be progressivism. The liberal anglospheric nations make very heavy-handed attempts to suppress individual violence by neutering and buying off their more virile elements. The resulting peace has led to great developments in the public space at the expense of individual excellence. We have created a great glittering society that everyone feels individually alienated from, whereas the Latins have created a poorer society but one where individuals live life to the fullest.

    Now, you might say that this is still jus HBD. It's the same old r/K selection theory otherwise expressed. You might say that what this proves is that blacks live life permanently at the level of some Congolese fishing village, whereas whites, sure, will live rough when they have to, but despite their own centuries of violence, at least have the ability to build civilizations when the opportunity arises. I would counter that, in addition to the short timeframe proving that biology can have nothing to do with it, the kind of "civilization" we're talking about here is alien to the entire human condition and could not have arisen organically from anybody's "biology," but must have been imposed from outside, by a mind detached from the actual business of living.

    The sad, tragic, terrifying fact is that most white people do not derive any personal benefit from belonging to their "civilization" past a certain point of complexity, and that point was reached and exceeded quite some time ago.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Rob McX, @Hangnail Hans, @Gordo

  25. @AnotherDad
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Shh! Don’t give any excuse, not even 10%, for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)!
     
    Unfortunately, Biden's opened it up to foreign vibrants as well--by the millions.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Polistra

    We need a discussion about the busing of migrants from Texas to NY & DC that Governor Abbott is currently pulling off. It’s an awesome story and great fun watching Muriel Bowser and Eric Adams squirming and huffing while trying to stay on the right side of wokacity. Hearing their angry objections one might almost wonder if the flood of migrants is a good thing or not.

    • Agree: fish, Charon
  26. @Anonymous

    "Illegal" is an interesting modifier here, but probably 25%+ of all white and Black males just carry guns in every environment I venture into.
     
    Why does Wilfred Reilly put Whites in lowercase?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Why does Wilfred Reilly put Whites in lowercase?

    Why does [Theodore Roosevelt] put Whites in lowercase?

    Why does [Lothrop Stoddard] put Whites in lowercase?

    Why does [Winston Churchill] put Whites in lowercase?

    Why does [Madison Grant] put Whites in lowercase?

    Because that’s what normal educated people do. The question is, why does he treat “Blacks” differently?

  27. @Chrisnonymous
    @Almost Missouri

    I don't have a good head for remembering numbers, I thought I saw once that black homicide rates in the USA were more similar to rates in Africa than to US whites, whereas white rates in the USA were more similar to Europe than to US blacks. How about blacks in Europe? Or, how about urban vs rural in Africa? Or, how about in Brazil?

    Replies: @Polistra

    Also, how about we separate so we dont have to waste so much time and resources on topics like this?

    • Agree: Kylie, Rob McX
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Polistra

    Handy rule of thumb: The best solution to any of these problems is always the one you can't mention.

    , @Hangnail Hans
    @Polistra

    ((They)) won't allow us to separate. Ever.

    The mere thought that any of their victims might enjoy a fair measure of freedom is total anathema. It might cause a fissure in their 'project'.

    Hence, "white separatist" is one of the most hated notions in our society.

    Replies: @Rob Lee

  28. @Almost Missouri
    @Chrisnonymous

    Population density ought to be a determinative variable on its own. After all, a lone person on an island can't commit any crimes because there is no one to commit them against, while in extremely densely populated environments, you could be literally stepping on everyone's toes: committing crimes without even meaning to.

    But I wonder if it is possible that urban whites are less criminal than rural whites? If so, that is probably a peculiarity of the US: using diversity to commit the crimes that urban whites have too much ennui to commit.

    Replies: @International Jew

    But I wonder if it is possible that urban whites are less criminal than rural whites?

    Not just that but urban whites are starkly different in all their habits. Compared to rural whites they eat differently, vote differently, and play differently. Blacks seem to be more homogeneous; wherever they live, they eat junk and vote Democrat.

    Maybe it’s because cities are kind of a white idea to begin with; cities exist because certain kinds of white people wanted to have cities so they built them so they could live in them. Blacks, in contrast, don’t create cities, they just sorta wind up in them.

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
  29. @Colin Wright
    'Blacks in Louisville, KY are surrounded by other blacks, so they often carry illegal handguns. Blacks in Dogpatch, KY are surrounded by whites, so they don't often carry illegal handguns.'

    This relates to something that's occurred to me.

    Humans are social animals -- and tend to conform to the norms established by their neighbors.

    So around here -- where blacks make up 0.3% of the population -- their behavior is arguably worse than the white average, but they more or less conform to our rather modest social expectations. Don't actually shoot your neighbor, etc.

    But put all the blacks together, and...well.

    Replies: @Peter Johnson, @Muggles

    Another way to test this would be to examine the crime rates among selected groups of African immigrants widely dispersed among White European populations in some European countries. Of course a problem there is the selection effect (many of the African immigrants in Poland, Sweden, etc. entered via expired student visas and so are a very selected sample of Africans). It would be tricky to test but it is an interesting hypothesis which seems very plausible. It would not work in the UK or France where there are densely packed homogenous African neighborhoods.

  30. @R.G. Camara
    In this respect, the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era---such as Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago and the Calliope Projects in New Orleans--- would seem to have caused far more black violence and instability than they resolved by packing blacks in tighter and closer together in dense urban environments.

    Which is ironic, since many of the true believing commies and hippies thought such large black-dominated projects would come to give poor blacks a "community" and reduce their racist oppression and make them be able to become wealthy and less-violent-ridden.

    So a solution to urban black crime would be similar to what the British did back in the day --- spread out and scatter housing projects out to the country, making black populations far less dense.

    But the problem is -- American blacks today really, really seem to like living in cities versus the country. Not only is "country" an insult American blacks toss around to this day, but American blacks really can't understand why European Americans seem to have this longing for a Jeffersonian/simple farm life.

    "40 Acres and a Mule" sounds like a punishment to modern blacks. Malcom X's description of himself in his autobiography moving from the country to the city and going from hick hayseed to sophisticated urban slickster is emblematic of black feelings on the subject (X's Autobiography was largely fictional jive talk by a great hustler, but the story was meant to embody many blacks' feelings about city v. country and struck a cord amongst black readers).

    So blacks would really resist this, and probably skeedaddle back to the cities when they could.

    Plus lots of D's and "community organizers" and Marxists professors would get up in a rage at their black concentrations of voters/rioters being dispersed in the wind.

    Replies: @Anon, @Rob McX, @Rooster16, @Almost Missouri, @Boy the way Glenn Miller played, @Nick Granite

    In this respect, the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era—such as Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago and the Calliope Projects in New Orleans— would seem to have caused far more black violence and instability

    Did they protect Whites from black violence?

    • Replies: @Gordo
    @Anon


    Did they protect Whites from black violence?
     
    That should be the aim and separation is the solution.
  31. Although African crime statistics are probably unreliable, I wonder if the same urban-rural dichotomy shows up in Africa?

  32. @Hypnotoad666
    Back in June, I proposed a "black density" theory of violence based on the the idea that when individuals with a propensity for violence interact with one another, actual violence is going to increase exponentially, rather than additively.

    For example, if two people with what we could call an average violence propensity (defined as a "1.0 VP") interact, the expected odds of a violent outcome are 1.0 x 1.0 = 1.0 (i.e. exactly average by definition). If someone with a 1.0 VP interacts with a 3.0 VP person the odds of violence are three times higher (1.0 VP x 3.0 VP = 3.0). But if two 3.0 VPs interact, there is a nine times greater chance of violence. (3.0 VP x 3.0 VP = 9.0).

    This means that if an average black person has a violence propensity of 3.0, he'll be approximately three times more likely to be involved in violence than the average white if he lives in all-white Des Moines. But if he moves to East Saint Louis he'll be approximately nine times likelier to be involved in violence. This is also a way to discover the generic black propensity for violence by reverse-engineering it from the observed data of blacks living within different populations. If Steve wanted to crunch the specific numbers for different locations, I bet this model would make some interesting fodder for his Twitter feed.

    (Note: This model technically has nothing to do with race but rather the violence propensity of the surrounding people -- where white populations have higher or lower propensities for violence this data just goes into the formula and the same model applies).



    I don't know how to link an old post but this was the original post from June 17:



    The lowest black homicide rates are in (in ascending order) Hawaii, Maine, North Dakota, Utah, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Montana, and Massachusetts.
     

     
    My theory is that black homicide is mostly driven by blacks interacting with other blacks. When that happens, one of them will eventually disrespect the other or talk sh*t about one of their mutual black friends and so things are likely to “get real.” And once that happens, someone has to retaliate. And then someone has to retaliate again for the retaliation. And so on.

    Thus, if you graphed black shooty-ness, it would probably be a function of the square of the density of blacks in the immediate population.

    Blacks are like Plutonium. Once you get a critical mass in one place (D.C. or Chicago), the situation goes critical. In Maine or South Dakota there are so few blacks that most of their interactions are with white people. Whites (especially peaceful Northern whites) are like the control rods that keep the black violence neutrons from starting a chain reaction.
     

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    That theory makes a lot of sense, as far as theories go. Congratulations on coming up with something clever and interesting.

    But, with regard to this rather broad topic in general, I would just like to say that there seems to be a pronounced tendency to overthink things. It is apparently very tempting to most of the commenters here to just assume that blacks are more violent because of their “biology.” This has some superficial plausibility, until you realize that the flipside of this theory is the assertion that whites are less violent because of their “biology.” In fact, the whole corpus of HBD reasoning more or less rests on just such an assumption.

    But that cannot be true. White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance. Whites used to be a great deal more violent to one another. The purges, feuds, and intrigues that prevailed in Florence in the ages of Dante and Machiavelli would make any night in modern Chicago look tame; and, being fairly typical of the period, they were recorded by these authors without a critical and moralizing pose. They were just the “raw material” through which they analyzed spiritual life (Dante) and political life (Machiavelli).

    Furthermore, while whites are less violent to one another today, they are no wise less vicious. It’s just that they prefer to destroy each other using the more subtle techniques of character assassination and professional ruination rather than 9mms and switchblades. I think that provides a clue to what is really going on here.

    In contemporary white society, we’ve obviated the need for individual violence because all the rackets have been legalized and all the risk has been financialized. People do not have a constant need to protect themselves, their honor, and their property with arms, which means that violent confrontations have become a rarity. Identity theft protection and insurance settlements have reduced the necessity to shoot the mugger and the burglar, while at the same time welfare and easy finance have taken the markets away from loan sharks and crooks. Illicit drug use is now legal or tolerated in many jurisdictions, so the idea of blasting it out with the revenuers has become passé. Contraception and sexual license have blunted the edge of spousal jealousy, with the divorce court providing the ultimate surety against being forced to raise and rear another’s bastards. You can carry this analysis on and on, mutatis mutandis, in any department of life. Since 99% of all fights are going to be over sex, money, power, or moodiness exacerbated by intoxication, and since modern society provides relief valves for all of those things, there just isn’t as much to fight about.

    It used to be a frequent topic of conversation to speculate about why North America and Latin America ended up with quite different levels of development, despite being similarly advantaged with immense natural resources. The answer most often mooted had to do with the “Protestant work ethic” and the idea that the dingy Catholics in the South just couldn’t organize anything like the virtuous Yanks could. That idea has always been preposterous. If those old time Jesuits knew anything, it was how to organize stuff.

    After devoting some considerable thought to that question, the real answer revealed itself to be progressivism. The liberal anglospheric nations make very heavy-handed attempts to suppress individual violence by neutering and buying off their more virile elements. The resulting peace has led to great developments in the public space at the expense of individual excellence. We have created a great glittering society that everyone feels individually alienated from, whereas the Latins have created a poorer society but one where individuals live life to the fullest.

    Now, you might say that this is still jus HBD. It’s the same old r/K selection theory otherwise expressed. You might say that what this proves is that blacks live life permanently at the level of some Congolese fishing village, whereas whites, sure, will live rough when they have to, but despite their own centuries of violence, at least have the ability to build civilizations when the opportunity arises. I would counter that, in addition to the short timeframe proving that biology can have nothing to do with it, the kind of “civilization” we’re talking about here is alien to the entire human condition and could not have arisen organically from anybody’s “biology,” but must have been imposed from outside, by a mind detached from the actual business of living.

    The sad, tragic, terrifying fact is that most white people do not derive any personal benefit from belonging to their “civilization” past a certain point of complexity, and that point was reached and exceeded quite some time ago.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @Intelligent Dasein

    "We hang men for trifles, and banish them for things not worth naming;..."

    , @Rob McX
    @Intelligent Dasein


    White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance.
     
    In A Farewell to Alms, Gregory Clark explains how human biology did change since the Industrial Revolution to make people less violent in Britain and other industrialised countries. He shows how resulting cultural changes amplified this. Not having read the book, I can't say how valid his argument is.

    With regard to South American countries, there is the big racial difference between them and the US. Their populations have far more Amerindian and African blood mixed in with the original European stock.

    Replies: @Occasional lurker

    , @Hangnail Hans
    @Intelligent Dasein


    white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance. Whites used to be a great deal more violent to one another. The purges, feuds, and intrigues that prevailed in Florence in the ages of Dante and Machiavelli would make any night in modern Chicago look tame
     
    Unknowable "facts" and extensive argument from anecdote. Yes, history is full of fun "facts" which you can cherry-pick to "prove" just about anything.

    Wild stuff happened back in the old days! One trouble is, it's mainly the "wild stuff" which gets recorded, and in particular it's the wild stuff which gets retrieved in current times, to demonstrate some point or another. Your post is a good example.
    , @Gordo
    @Intelligent Dasein


    But that cannot be true. White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance.
     
    But White biology has changed.
  33. New evidence regarding the speed of human evolution shows that it can happen very quickly, within the space of centuries, not millennia. Your argument “But that cannot be true. White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance. ” is not longer consistent with the evidence. Within a few generations, the frequency distribution of genetic variation can lead to observable changes to patterns of social behavior.

    • Agree: ic1000
    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Peter Johnson

    True that. And right now in the US, between welfare, affirmative action, plaques-for-blacks and defacto immunity from the law, conditions are perfect for the quick evolution of a spectacularly dysfunctional black nation-within-a-nation.

    Replies: @Total Kneegro Fatigue

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @Peter Johnson

    No.

    You're drawing an epicycle within an epicycle called "polygenic score," and it's a bunch of horse manure. Polygenes are nothing but statistical legerdemain, and there is no mechanism by which they can produce complex behaviors. There is, as yet, no mechanism even hypothesized, nor even imagined, nor has anyone even done the typical evolutionist two-step of pulling some entirely fabricated Just-So story out of his ever-loving ass. It is entirely an exercise in correlation without causation. The fact that you would try to salvage HBD theory by reaching for such flimsy, ad hoc nonsense really says something about the strength of the theory---and about you.

    , @Peter Johnson
    @Peter Johnson

    See Paolo Shirasi's twitter thread on this common misunderstanding. The misconception that human evolution is extremely slow was concocted by the American Marxist propagandist Stephen J. Gould, and spread like wildfire due its political convenience. Gould's deception still lives on, in the face of ever-growing contrary evidence.

    https://twitter.com/PaoloShirasi/status/1557778129040596993

  34. @R.G. Camara
    In this respect, the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era---such as Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago and the Calliope Projects in New Orleans--- would seem to have caused far more black violence and instability than they resolved by packing blacks in tighter and closer together in dense urban environments.

    Which is ironic, since many of the true believing commies and hippies thought such large black-dominated projects would come to give poor blacks a "community" and reduce their racist oppression and make them be able to become wealthy and less-violent-ridden.

    So a solution to urban black crime would be similar to what the British did back in the day --- spread out and scatter housing projects out to the country, making black populations far less dense.

    But the problem is -- American blacks today really, really seem to like living in cities versus the country. Not only is "country" an insult American blacks toss around to this day, but American blacks really can't understand why European Americans seem to have this longing for a Jeffersonian/simple farm life.

    "40 Acres and a Mule" sounds like a punishment to modern blacks. Malcom X's description of himself in his autobiography moving from the country to the city and going from hick hayseed to sophisticated urban slickster is emblematic of black feelings on the subject (X's Autobiography was largely fictional jive talk by a great hustler, but the story was meant to embody many blacks' feelings about city v. country and struck a cord amongst black readers).

    So blacks would really resist this, and probably skeedaddle back to the cities when they could.

    Plus lots of D's and "community organizers" and Marxists professors would get up in a rage at their black concentrations of voters/rioters being dispersed in the wind.

    Replies: @Anon, @Rob McX, @Rooster16, @Almost Missouri, @Boy the way Glenn Miller played, @Nick Granite

    Blacks are definitely city people. It’s no fun travelling 10 miles to the rural equivalent of a block party. And then 10 miles round trip back to your house to pick up your gun when someone other partygoer offends you.

  35. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Hypnotoad666

    That theory makes a lot of sense, as far as theories go. Congratulations on coming up with something clever and interesting.

    But, with regard to this rather broad topic in general, I would just like to say that there seems to be a pronounced tendency to overthink things. It is apparently very tempting to most of the commenters here to just assume that blacks are more violent because of their "biology." This has some superficial plausibility, until you realize that the flipside of this theory is the assertion that whites are less violent because of their "biology." In fact, the whole corpus of HBD reasoning more or less rests on just such an assumption.

    But that cannot be true. White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance. Whites used to be a great deal more violent to one another. The purges, feuds, and intrigues that prevailed in Florence in the ages of Dante and Machiavelli would make any night in modern Chicago look tame; and, being fairly typical of the period, they were recorded by these authors without a critical and moralizing pose. They were just the "raw material" through which they analyzed spiritual life (Dante) and political life (Machiavelli).

    Furthermore, while whites are less violent to one another today, they are no wise less vicious. It's just that they prefer to destroy each other using the more subtle techniques of character assassination and professional ruination rather than 9mms and switchblades. I think that provides a clue to what is really going on here.

    In contemporary white society, we've obviated the need for individual violence because all the rackets have been legalized and all the risk has been financialized. People do not have a constant need to protect themselves, their honor, and their property with arms, which means that violent confrontations have become a rarity. Identity theft protection and insurance settlements have reduced the necessity to shoot the mugger and the burglar, while at the same time welfare and easy finance have taken the markets away from loan sharks and crooks. Illicit drug use is now legal or tolerated in many jurisdictions, so the idea of blasting it out with the revenuers has become passé. Contraception and sexual license have blunted the edge of spousal jealousy, with the divorce court providing the ultimate surety against being forced to raise and rear another's bastards. You can carry this analysis on and on, mutatis mutandis, in any department of life. Since 99% of all fights are going to be over sex, money, power, or moodiness exacerbated by intoxication, and since modern society provides relief valves for all of those things, there just isn't as much to fight about.

    It used to be a frequent topic of conversation to speculate about why North America and Latin America ended up with quite different levels of development, despite being similarly advantaged with immense natural resources. The answer most often mooted had to do with the "Protestant work ethic" and the idea that the dingy Catholics in the South just couldn't organize anything like the virtuous Yanks could. That idea has always been preposterous. If those old time Jesuits knew anything, it was how to organize stuff.

    After devoting some considerable thought to that question, the real answer revealed itself to be progressivism. The liberal anglospheric nations make very heavy-handed attempts to suppress individual violence by neutering and buying off their more virile elements. The resulting peace has led to great developments in the public space at the expense of individual excellence. We have created a great glittering society that everyone feels individually alienated from, whereas the Latins have created a poorer society but one where individuals live life to the fullest.

    Now, you might say that this is still jus HBD. It's the same old r/K selection theory otherwise expressed. You might say that what this proves is that blacks live life permanently at the level of some Congolese fishing village, whereas whites, sure, will live rough when they have to, but despite their own centuries of violence, at least have the ability to build civilizations when the opportunity arises. I would counter that, in addition to the short timeframe proving that biology can have nothing to do with it, the kind of "civilization" we're talking about here is alien to the entire human condition and could not have arisen organically from anybody's "biology," but must have been imposed from outside, by a mind detached from the actual business of living.

    The sad, tragic, terrifying fact is that most white people do not derive any personal benefit from belonging to their "civilization" past a certain point of complexity, and that point was reached and exceeded quite some time ago.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Rob McX, @Hangnail Hans, @Gordo

    “We hang men for trifles, and banish them for things not worth naming;…”

  36. @Polistra
    @Chrisnonymous

    Also, how about we separate so we dont have to waste so much time and resources on topics like this?

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Hangnail Hans

    Handy rule of thumb: The best solution to any of these problems is always the one you can’t mention.

  37. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Hypnotoad666

    That theory makes a lot of sense, as far as theories go. Congratulations on coming up with something clever and interesting.

    But, with regard to this rather broad topic in general, I would just like to say that there seems to be a pronounced tendency to overthink things. It is apparently very tempting to most of the commenters here to just assume that blacks are more violent because of their "biology." This has some superficial plausibility, until you realize that the flipside of this theory is the assertion that whites are less violent because of their "biology." In fact, the whole corpus of HBD reasoning more or less rests on just such an assumption.

    But that cannot be true. White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance. Whites used to be a great deal more violent to one another. The purges, feuds, and intrigues that prevailed in Florence in the ages of Dante and Machiavelli would make any night in modern Chicago look tame; and, being fairly typical of the period, they were recorded by these authors without a critical and moralizing pose. They were just the "raw material" through which they analyzed spiritual life (Dante) and political life (Machiavelli).

    Furthermore, while whites are less violent to one another today, they are no wise less vicious. It's just that they prefer to destroy each other using the more subtle techniques of character assassination and professional ruination rather than 9mms and switchblades. I think that provides a clue to what is really going on here.

    In contemporary white society, we've obviated the need for individual violence because all the rackets have been legalized and all the risk has been financialized. People do not have a constant need to protect themselves, their honor, and their property with arms, which means that violent confrontations have become a rarity. Identity theft protection and insurance settlements have reduced the necessity to shoot the mugger and the burglar, while at the same time welfare and easy finance have taken the markets away from loan sharks and crooks. Illicit drug use is now legal or tolerated in many jurisdictions, so the idea of blasting it out with the revenuers has become passé. Contraception and sexual license have blunted the edge of spousal jealousy, with the divorce court providing the ultimate surety against being forced to raise and rear another's bastards. You can carry this analysis on and on, mutatis mutandis, in any department of life. Since 99% of all fights are going to be over sex, money, power, or moodiness exacerbated by intoxication, and since modern society provides relief valves for all of those things, there just isn't as much to fight about.

    It used to be a frequent topic of conversation to speculate about why North America and Latin America ended up with quite different levels of development, despite being similarly advantaged with immense natural resources. The answer most often mooted had to do with the "Protestant work ethic" and the idea that the dingy Catholics in the South just couldn't organize anything like the virtuous Yanks could. That idea has always been preposterous. If those old time Jesuits knew anything, it was how to organize stuff.

    After devoting some considerable thought to that question, the real answer revealed itself to be progressivism. The liberal anglospheric nations make very heavy-handed attempts to suppress individual violence by neutering and buying off their more virile elements. The resulting peace has led to great developments in the public space at the expense of individual excellence. We have created a great glittering society that everyone feels individually alienated from, whereas the Latins have created a poorer society but one where individuals live life to the fullest.

    Now, you might say that this is still jus HBD. It's the same old r/K selection theory otherwise expressed. You might say that what this proves is that blacks live life permanently at the level of some Congolese fishing village, whereas whites, sure, will live rough when they have to, but despite their own centuries of violence, at least have the ability to build civilizations when the opportunity arises. I would counter that, in addition to the short timeframe proving that biology can have nothing to do with it, the kind of "civilization" we're talking about here is alien to the entire human condition and could not have arisen organically from anybody's "biology," but must have been imposed from outside, by a mind detached from the actual business of living.

    The sad, tragic, terrifying fact is that most white people do not derive any personal benefit from belonging to their "civilization" past a certain point of complexity, and that point was reached and exceeded quite some time ago.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Rob McX, @Hangnail Hans, @Gordo

    White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance.

    In A Farewell to Alms, Gregory Clark explains how human biology did change since the Industrial Revolution to make people less violent in Britain and other industrialised countries. He shows how resulting cultural changes amplified this. Not having read the book, I can’t say how valid his argument is.

    With regard to South American countries, there is the big racial difference between them and the US. Their populations have far more Amerindian and African blood mixed in with the original European stock.

    • Agree: ic1000
    • Replies: @Occasional lurker
    @Rob McX

    I never found a Farewell to Alms very convincing, considering (among other things) that in my European country, the process of violence reduction went on long after the mechanisms assumed in the book were gone or counteracted by others. It's possible that the propensity to impulsivity/adventure-seeking varies somewhat genetically between populations (as it does between indiviuduals), but environmental influences are clearly very powerful here and might be enough to explain the phenomena. We just don't know yet. West Africa and American native culture were high violence tribal cultures, this may be difficult to overcome in a few generations, especially in a high Gini coefficient society. Think Germanic tribals of Roman times. Possibly there are also epigenetic effects of high violence societies that need to be overridden.

  38. @Polistra
    @Chrisnonymous

    Also, how about we separate so we dont have to waste so much time and resources on topics like this?

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Hangnail Hans

    ((They)) won’t allow us to separate. Ever.

    The mere thought that any of their victims might enjoy a fair measure of freedom is total anathema. It might cause a fissure in their ‘project’.

    Hence, “white separatist” is one of the most hated notions in our society.

    • Replies: @Rob Lee
    @Hangnail Hans

    Of course. You couldn't play a very effective game of chess with only one side. You have to have both black and white pieces for a proper game.

  39. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Hypnotoad666

    That theory makes a lot of sense, as far as theories go. Congratulations on coming up with something clever and interesting.

    But, with regard to this rather broad topic in general, I would just like to say that there seems to be a pronounced tendency to overthink things. It is apparently very tempting to most of the commenters here to just assume that blacks are more violent because of their "biology." This has some superficial plausibility, until you realize that the flipside of this theory is the assertion that whites are less violent because of their "biology." In fact, the whole corpus of HBD reasoning more or less rests on just such an assumption.

    But that cannot be true. White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance. Whites used to be a great deal more violent to one another. The purges, feuds, and intrigues that prevailed in Florence in the ages of Dante and Machiavelli would make any night in modern Chicago look tame; and, being fairly typical of the period, they were recorded by these authors without a critical and moralizing pose. They were just the "raw material" through which they analyzed spiritual life (Dante) and political life (Machiavelli).

    Furthermore, while whites are less violent to one another today, they are no wise less vicious. It's just that they prefer to destroy each other using the more subtle techniques of character assassination and professional ruination rather than 9mms and switchblades. I think that provides a clue to what is really going on here.

    In contemporary white society, we've obviated the need for individual violence because all the rackets have been legalized and all the risk has been financialized. People do not have a constant need to protect themselves, their honor, and their property with arms, which means that violent confrontations have become a rarity. Identity theft protection and insurance settlements have reduced the necessity to shoot the mugger and the burglar, while at the same time welfare and easy finance have taken the markets away from loan sharks and crooks. Illicit drug use is now legal or tolerated in many jurisdictions, so the idea of blasting it out with the revenuers has become passé. Contraception and sexual license have blunted the edge of spousal jealousy, with the divorce court providing the ultimate surety against being forced to raise and rear another's bastards. You can carry this analysis on and on, mutatis mutandis, in any department of life. Since 99% of all fights are going to be over sex, money, power, or moodiness exacerbated by intoxication, and since modern society provides relief valves for all of those things, there just isn't as much to fight about.

    It used to be a frequent topic of conversation to speculate about why North America and Latin America ended up with quite different levels of development, despite being similarly advantaged with immense natural resources. The answer most often mooted had to do with the "Protestant work ethic" and the idea that the dingy Catholics in the South just couldn't organize anything like the virtuous Yanks could. That idea has always been preposterous. If those old time Jesuits knew anything, it was how to organize stuff.

    After devoting some considerable thought to that question, the real answer revealed itself to be progressivism. The liberal anglospheric nations make very heavy-handed attempts to suppress individual violence by neutering and buying off their more virile elements. The resulting peace has led to great developments in the public space at the expense of individual excellence. We have created a great glittering society that everyone feels individually alienated from, whereas the Latins have created a poorer society but one where individuals live life to the fullest.

    Now, you might say that this is still jus HBD. It's the same old r/K selection theory otherwise expressed. You might say that what this proves is that blacks live life permanently at the level of some Congolese fishing village, whereas whites, sure, will live rough when they have to, but despite their own centuries of violence, at least have the ability to build civilizations when the opportunity arises. I would counter that, in addition to the short timeframe proving that biology can have nothing to do with it, the kind of "civilization" we're talking about here is alien to the entire human condition and could not have arisen organically from anybody's "biology," but must have been imposed from outside, by a mind detached from the actual business of living.

    The sad, tragic, terrifying fact is that most white people do not derive any personal benefit from belonging to their "civilization" past a certain point of complexity, and that point was reached and exceeded quite some time ago.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Rob McX, @Hangnail Hans, @Gordo

    white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance. Whites used to be a great deal more violent to one another. The purges, feuds, and intrigues that prevailed in Florence in the ages of Dante and Machiavelli would make any night in modern Chicago look tame

    Unknowable “facts” and extensive argument from anecdote. Yes, history is full of fun “facts” which you can cherry-pick to “prove” just about anything.

    Wild stuff happened back in the old days! One trouble is, it’s mainly the “wild stuff” which gets recorded, and in particular it’s the wild stuff which gets retrieved in current times, to demonstrate some point or another. Your post is a good example.

    • Troll: Inquiring Mind
  40. It’s the Pottery Barn Effect

    At the end of the day, everyone just wants a nice house and to decorate it from Pottery Barn

    • Replies: @Total Kneegro Fatigue
    @Thoughts


    It’s the Pottery Barn Effect

    At the end of the day, everyone just wants a nice house and to decorate it from Pottery Barn
     

    Herein lies the problem… while many of US are willing to put in the necessary work to make us homeowners (building our credit score, saving up the down payment and then following through to make the mortgage payments for 15, 20, 30 years), while the “others” who harbor an entitlement mentality believe they should be handed the same for free, without having to lift a single finger to own said dwelling themselves.
  41. If I had to choose whether 40 Billion would go to “Ukraine” or go to American Blacks (to encourage birth rates of good middle class folk)

    I’d choose African Americans every time

    I’d end all foreign aid and send that money straight back into the pockets of the American Middle Class

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @Thoughts

    Most of that $40Billion will end up in the pockets of of the American Middle Class.The State Department half will go to grants to Foundations and Universities For Studies and Training, the War Department half on US Mercenary Companies and the good folk at Lockheed.
    It will do a lot more good for Northern Virginia and So-Cal real estate values than Ukrainian ones.

    That Appropriation should have been called The Deep State Funding Bill.

    See if you can suggest a tile for the recent IRS Funding in light of this picture from the IRS "Annual Report"

    https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-08-11-irs-annual-report-shows-heavily-armed-agents-training-to-shoot-people.html


    https://www.naturalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/91/2022/08/IRS-shooting-people-targets-full.png

  42. OT

    Since when did Saudi Arabia become a “hostile power”?

    “Abouammo acted in secret as an agent of a foreign government targeting dissenting voices,” said Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “This verdict shows that the Justice Department will not tolerate any act of transnational repression and will hold accountable those who aid hostile regimes in extending their reach to our shores.”

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-twitter-employee-found-guilty-acting-agent-foreign-government-and-unlawfully-sharing

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Bill B.


    Since when did Saudi Arabia become a “hostile power”?
     
    Since they offed an acolyte of the West's priestly class.
  43. @Ralph L
    I believe your second from the right column is mislabeled.

    Shocking that 22% of whites still live in big cities.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Fred C Dobbs

    Shocking that 22% of whites still live in big cities.

    Not when you factor in big cities like Boston and New York where blacks are a minority. Or DC, where whites actually recaptured large chunks of the city. After all, functional urban life is largely a European/white innovation (whereby I include Eastern Mediterraneans as “white”.) Blacks may be better suited toward small villages. Ceding cities to blacks is a mistake.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Blacks may be better suited toward small villages. Ceding cities to blacks is a mistake.
     
    Agreed, but once you have cities, blacks, and liberalism, is there any way to prevent blacks swarming the cities? You can get rid of the cities, but that defeats the purpose. You can get rid of the blacks, but no one has the stomach for that yet. Or you can get rid of liberalism, which at this point is the state religion, and so would require a religious revolution.

    NYC did temporarily manage to void a few of those points of liberalism that had to do with accommodating black urban dysfunction, but 1) after a few years their heresy was noted and ended by religious censors, and 2) NYC only managed to transfer black urban dysfunction to less powerful cities, so they didn't actually solve anything, just changed the victims (though no doubt that was an adequate "solution" as far as NYC was concerned, but I am asking about society-wide solutions, not covert games of pass-the-hot-potato).

    Replies: @Justvisiting

  44. “White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance.”

    Yep. This means if Steven Pinker was right (he is) black violence was a problem we could largely solve, even if Charles Murray was right (he is.) Just don’t go around undermining confidence in police lolol!

    It’s funny how Pinker opened up new avenues for “anti-racists” to argue how culture profoundly re-wires mentality that could be used to combat Charles Murray or (hiss!) Steve Sailer, but everyone’s too illiterate to read that 800 page book, so it’s all hack academic cliches from 1975 still. Incredible late Soviet intellectual lethargy.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Cosmohicks


    It’s funny how Pinker opened up new avenues for “anti-racists” to argue how culture profoundly re-wires mentality
     
    Is it “funny” or is it convenient? Jews don’t want Whites to appreciate the significance of their DNA, and the DNA of others.
  45. @R.G. Camara
    In this respect, the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era---such as Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago and the Calliope Projects in New Orleans--- would seem to have caused far more black violence and instability than they resolved by packing blacks in tighter and closer together in dense urban environments.

    Which is ironic, since many of the true believing commies and hippies thought such large black-dominated projects would come to give poor blacks a "community" and reduce their racist oppression and make them be able to become wealthy and less-violent-ridden.

    So a solution to urban black crime would be similar to what the British did back in the day --- spread out and scatter housing projects out to the country, making black populations far less dense.

    But the problem is -- American blacks today really, really seem to like living in cities versus the country. Not only is "country" an insult American blacks toss around to this day, but American blacks really can't understand why European Americans seem to have this longing for a Jeffersonian/simple farm life.

    "40 Acres and a Mule" sounds like a punishment to modern blacks. Malcom X's description of himself in his autobiography moving from the country to the city and going from hick hayseed to sophisticated urban slickster is emblematic of black feelings on the subject (X's Autobiography was largely fictional jive talk by a great hustler, but the story was meant to embody many blacks' feelings about city v. country and struck a cord amongst black readers).

    So blacks would really resist this, and probably skeedaddle back to the cities when they could.

    Plus lots of D's and "community organizers" and Marxists professors would get up in a rage at their black concentrations of voters/rioters being dispersed in the wind.

    Replies: @Anon, @Rob McX, @Rooster16, @Almost Missouri, @Boy the way Glenn Miller played, @Nick Granite

    The government/cities essentially provide everything to blacks from cradle to grave. The system relies on having blacks close to amenities, it would literally collapse due to logistical restraints if blacks were more spread out; thus the uproar about “food deserts”. Even if blacks were moved to rural locations, government assistance buildings would soon start to pop up near the largest congregation of them, and soon after the blacks would congregate around them… a modern version of the chicken and the egg scenario.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Rooster16

    Yes, definitely. Many American Indians started living close to the local white trader/ Indian agent for the same reason. That was where the all the goodies were. If you've ever read memoirs about the old West, many Indians moved to where the handouts were, whereupon they switched to a lifestyle where they spent a lot time shambling around drunk.

    Giving people what they crave most can be a disaster for a society, and the white love of meth, fentanyl, and pot is a good example.

    Human beings are programmed so that the chase is ultimately better for your physical and mental health than the reward. Once you achieve a life of nothing but rewards, you tend to fall apart.

  46. @rebunga
    I have suggested this previously.

    Hypothesis: there exists an inflection upward in the murder rate per Capita once blacks reach a supermajority.

    Data: Detroit, Baltimore, Jackson, New Orleans, Newark.

    Hypothesis reason: deaths of exuberance with no consequences.

    Counter- hypothesis: where one just has a black mayor, no supermajority elected by ally whites, but retains white vestige police, firefighter, etc. The inflection may reverse. (Giuliani/Bloomberg, Daley/Emmanuel).

    I am fairly certain one can do a regression analysis that will show the murder per Capita rate increase linearly with the % black. Then will inflect sharply upwards once 65% black population in the municipality.

    I say municipality because this is an urban phenomenon. Other things one will notice, besides the highest murder rate in the world, is drugs, homeless people, black mayor, black DA, shitty schools, total civic incompetence with zero accountability.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes

    The long:

    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hood.htm

    and the short of it:

    “Summary
    We have modeled violent victimization of whites in a racially mixed neighborhood. Our model is based on data collected by the Justice Department and reported in the NCVS. It paints a bleak picture for whites. As a neighborhood turns black, violent victimization of its white residents begins immediately. At first the risk is small, not much different from its previous all-white level. However, by the time the neighborhood reaches the half-black point, every white family of four has better than a one in three chance of being victimized within a year. Two factors account for black-on-white violence. 1) Blacks are 3 times more likely to commit violent crime than whites, and 2) black thugs prefer white victims, selecting them 64 times more than white thugs choose black victims. Most of the risk faced by whites, results from the predilection of black thugs to prey upon whites. As a neighborhood becomes overwhelmingly black, the risk curve for whites rises to ominous heights. In the last stages of transformation, the likelihood of a white being victimized within a year becomes a virtual certainty.”

  47. @Paco Wové
    Just one data point, but my Kentucky brother-in-law (in a small-to-medium metro environment) does concealed carry every time he leaves the house.

    Replies: @ForeverCARealist

    Got a relative there, a pastor. He carries while preaching… concealed, not open.

  48. @R.G. Camara
    In this respect, the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era---such as Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago and the Calliope Projects in New Orleans--- would seem to have caused far more black violence and instability than they resolved by packing blacks in tighter and closer together in dense urban environments.

    Which is ironic, since many of the true believing commies and hippies thought such large black-dominated projects would come to give poor blacks a "community" and reduce their racist oppression and make them be able to become wealthy and less-violent-ridden.

    So a solution to urban black crime would be similar to what the British did back in the day --- spread out and scatter housing projects out to the country, making black populations far less dense.

    But the problem is -- American blacks today really, really seem to like living in cities versus the country. Not only is "country" an insult American blacks toss around to this day, but American blacks really can't understand why European Americans seem to have this longing for a Jeffersonian/simple farm life.

    "40 Acres and a Mule" sounds like a punishment to modern blacks. Malcom X's description of himself in his autobiography moving from the country to the city and going from hick hayseed to sophisticated urban slickster is emblematic of black feelings on the subject (X's Autobiography was largely fictional jive talk by a great hustler, but the story was meant to embody many blacks' feelings about city v. country and struck a cord amongst black readers).

    So blacks would really resist this, and probably skeedaddle back to the cities when they could.

    Plus lots of D's and "community organizers" and Marxists professors would get up in a rage at their black concentrations of voters/rioters being dispersed in the wind.

    Replies: @Anon, @Rob McX, @Rooster16, @Almost Missouri, @Boy the way Glenn Miller played, @Nick Granite

    lots of D’s and “community organizers” and Marxists professors would get up in a rage at their black concentrations of voters/rioters being dispersed in the wind.

    Judging by past practice, blacks wouldn’t so much be dispersed to the wind as to the whites, primarily the whites in heretofore quiet R-voting towns. Government meta-planners use blacks as a biological weapon in their race war against normie whites. It’s ironic that the weapon and it’s retail beneficiaries resist its wholesale use more than the actual target resists it, probably because the target is still woefully underinformed, a condition the meta-planners make every effort to compound.

    (Minor side note: it’s before my time, but my understanding is that “the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era” were not originally meant to be ¡B!lack communitays, but rather that just sort of happened as blacks disproportionately succumbed to the siren call of the welfare state. Though no doubt that there were many “true believing commies and hippies” on hand to theorize why this was a good thing ackshually.)

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Thea
    @Almost Missouri

    Have you read the Norvelt books by Jack Gantos? They unfortunately advocate socialism and add some modern wokeness that no one in 1939 likely felt BUT clearly describe the working families those towns were built to house and demographic collapse a generation later.

    For something designed to give the working man dignity those communities sure sucked the life out of their residents.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  49. Notable Black Rednecks
    Charlie Pride
    Big John Tate
    Earl Campbell
    Tony Atlas

  50. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Ralph L

    Shocking that 22% of whites still live in big cities.

    Not when you factor in big cities like Boston and New York where blacks are a minority. Or DC, where whites actually recaptured large chunks of the city. After all, functional urban life is largely a European/white innovation (whereby I include Eastern Mediterraneans as “white”.) Blacks may be better suited toward small villages. Ceding cities to blacks is a mistake.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Blacks may be better suited toward small villages. Ceding cities to blacks is a mistake.

    Agreed, but once you have cities, blacks, and liberalism, is there any way to prevent blacks swarming the cities? You can get rid of the cities, but that defeats the purpose. You can get rid of the blacks, but no one has the stomach for that yet. Or you can get rid of liberalism, which at this point is the state religion, and so would require a religious revolution.

    NYC did temporarily manage to void a few of those points of liberalism that had to do with accommodating black urban dysfunction, but 1) after a few years their heresy was noted and ended by religious censors, and 2) NYC only managed to transfer black urban dysfunction to less powerful cities, so they didn’t actually solve anything, just changed the victims (though no doubt that was an adequate “solution” as far as NYC was concerned, but I am asking about society-wide solutions, not covert games of pass-the-hot-potato).

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @Almost Missouri


    is there any way to prevent blacks swarming the cities?
     
    For a new city there is an easy way--restrictive covenants.

    I mention this for future generations that may finally have "had enough" and can't figure out what could possibly be done.

    All it takes is the courage and determination to do it--anywhere on the planet.

    Btw this is what the elites do now--they have homeowners associations/clubs with "membership" and "vetting" of members. They get away with it because they rent the local politicians. Here is where Bill Gates has one of his homes, for example--a stunning Whitopia:

    https://pagesix.com/2021/05/11/bill-gates-hiding-out-at-the-vintage-club-in-indian-wells/

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  51. @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Blacks may be better suited toward small villages. Ceding cities to blacks is a mistake.
     
    Agreed, but once you have cities, blacks, and liberalism, is there any way to prevent blacks swarming the cities? You can get rid of the cities, but that defeats the purpose. You can get rid of the blacks, but no one has the stomach for that yet. Or you can get rid of liberalism, which at this point is the state religion, and so would require a religious revolution.

    NYC did temporarily manage to void a few of those points of liberalism that had to do with accommodating black urban dysfunction, but 1) after a few years their heresy was noted and ended by religious censors, and 2) NYC only managed to transfer black urban dysfunction to less powerful cities, so they didn't actually solve anything, just changed the victims (though no doubt that was an adequate "solution" as far as NYC was concerned, but I am asking about society-wide solutions, not covert games of pass-the-hot-potato).

    Replies: @Justvisiting

    is there any way to prevent blacks swarming the cities?

    For a new city there is an easy way–restrictive covenants.

    I mention this for future generations that may finally have “had enough” and can’t figure out what could possibly be done.

    All it takes is the courage and determination to do it–anywhere on the planet.

    Btw this is what the elites do now–they have homeowners associations/clubs with “membership” and “vetting” of members. They get away with it because they rent the local politicians. Here is where Bill Gates has one of his homes, for example–a stunning Whitopia:

    https://pagesix.com/2021/05/11/bill-gates-hiding-out-at-the-vintage-club-in-indian-wells/

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Justvisiting

    Restrictive covenants have been illegal and unenforceable in the US for decades, even before the [anti-]Civil Rights revolution. But yes, homeowners associations/clubs with “membership” and “vetting” of members is a way to do restrictive covenants without being seen to do restrictive covenants.

    As I've said elsewhere, against the rising tide of diversity, civilization will increasingly have to organize itself into associations, clubs, gated communities (what are Manhattan co-ops but vertical gated communities?), affinity marketing groups, etc. in order to carry out the ordinary discretion that everyone practiced for millennia but is now anathematized by the armed woke theocracy.

    Replies: @Charon

  52. @Almost Missouri
    @R.G. Camara


    lots of D’s and “community organizers” and Marxists professors would get up in a rage at their black concentrations of voters/rioters being dispersed in the wind.
     
    Judging by past practice, blacks wouldn't so much be dispersed to the wind as to the whites, primarily the whites in heretofore quiet R-voting towns. Government meta-planners use blacks as a biological weapon in their race war against normie whites. It's ironic that the weapon and it's retail beneficiaries resist its wholesale use more than the actual target resists it, probably because the target is still woefully underinformed, a condition the meta-planners make every effort to compound.

    (Minor side note: it's before my time, but my understanding is that "the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era" were not originally meant to be ¡B!lack communitays, but rather that just sort of happened as blacks disproportionately succumbed to the siren call of the welfare state. Though no doubt that there were many "true believing commies and hippies" on hand to theorize why this was a good thing ackshually.)

    Replies: @Thea

    Have you read the Norvelt books by Jack Gantos? They unfortunately advocate socialism and add some modern wokeness that no one in 1939 likely felt BUT clearly describe the working families those towns were built to house and demographic collapse a generation later.

    For something designed to give the working man dignity those communities sure sucked the life out of their residents.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Thea

    Can't say as I have. Is this the same Gantos that Wiki describes as a children's book author?

    Replies: @Thea

  53. Large and high density cities obviously inflate all forms of negative human behavior. Murder, assault, thievery, but also homosexuality, trannsexualism, drug use (at least before the flood of prescription opioids,) and in general the destructive leftist/progressive ideology.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Mike Tre

    No, but I’ve read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, and I’ve seen the movie directed by King Vidor and starring Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal, and Raymond Massey.

    It’s hilarious in hindsight that Howard Roark goes into full apeshit mad-bomber mode when he discovers that hack architects have added a couple of tacky Greek statues to his brilliant plans for Brutalist bare-concrete housing projects. In real life the statues would have been smashed to pieces by the residents within weeks if not days of their arrival.

    IIRC there’s a scene in The Bonfire of the Vanities where Tom Wolfe mentions that the utopian designers of a housing project planted trees and placed benches in the hopes that the downtrodden poor people would enjoy a nice place to sit and relax. The vibrants stripped the trees and dismantled the benches within a month.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  54. @Peter Johnson
    New evidence regarding the speed of human evolution shows that it can happen very quickly, within the space of centuries, not millennia. Your argument "But that cannot be true. White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance. " is not longer consistent with the evidence. Within a few generations, the frequency distribution of genetic variation can lead to observable changes to patterns of social behavior.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Intelligent Dasein, @Peter Johnson

    True that. And right now in the US, between welfare, affirmative action, plaques-for-blacks and defacto immunity from the law, conditions are perfect for the quick evolution of a spectacularly dysfunctional black nation-within-a-nation.

    • Replies: @Total Kneegro Fatigue
    @International Jew

    #53

    I agree with you on that point 100%..!!!

  55. @Peter Johnson
    New evidence regarding the speed of human evolution shows that it can happen very quickly, within the space of centuries, not millennia. Your argument "But that cannot be true. White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance. " is not longer consistent with the evidence. Within a few generations, the frequency distribution of genetic variation can lead to observable changes to patterns of social behavior.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Intelligent Dasein, @Peter Johnson

    No.

    You’re drawing an epicycle within an epicycle called “polygenic score,” and it’s a bunch of horse manure. Polygenes are nothing but statistical legerdemain, and there is no mechanism by which they can produce complex behaviors. There is, as yet, no mechanism even hypothesized, nor even imagined, nor has anyone even done the typical evolutionist two-step of pulling some entirely fabricated Just-So story out of his ever-loving ass. It is entirely an exercise in correlation without causation. The fact that you would try to salvage HBD theory by reaching for such flimsy, ad hoc nonsense really says something about the strength of the theory—and about you.

  56. @Almost Missouri
    Wouldn't the easier way to come at this question be to look at the homicide rates in mostly black rural counties (or census tracts if such crime stat granularity exists) and compare it with homicide rates in mostly black metro areas?

    I suspect the result will be about the same as above: rural blacks less murdery than urban blacks but still more murdery than whites. As per AnotherDad's explanation, part of this is probably a result of boiling off: the hotter heads "going to town", but what would be interesting is to find a density coefficient that would predict—all else being equal—how much crime goes up as population density increases.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @kaganovitch, @Wade Hampton

    but what would be interesting is to find a density coefficient that would predict—all else being equal—how much crime goes up as population density increases.

    I’m sure Raj Chetty is going to get on that soonest.

  57. I once had a cabin in rural SW Virginia. Its probably a lot like rural Kentucky. It was mostly poor whites who are older than the population in urban areas. Some counties are DRY, i.e. no bars or liquor stores and the counties that serve alcohol only serve beer! If you want liquor you buy it from a state run ABC store. Higher average age and limited access to alcohol are probably a huge reason for the lower murder rates. Toss in no strip clubs, hookah lounges or other late night scenes plus the low population density spur of the moment shootings are going to be reduced. Having to drive 10 miles to get your adversaries residence gives you time to cool off and think is shooting someone really what I want to do because a quick getaway is hard to pull off when you live in the sticks and everybody sort of knows everyone else.

  58. @AnotherDad

    How Much Worse Are Black Homicide Rates Due to Living More in Big Cities?
     
    Definitely worse, but not much, much worse.

    There isn't much doubt that there's a completely dysfunction urban black culture that brings out the shooty.

    But there is also a lot of selection that's going on here. Blacks that need "action" have boiled off to the cities. (Kinda like the Amish boil off.) Blacks who are still doing the rural are mentally more suited to it. They are still way more shooty than whites, but they aren't the most problematic of blacks.

    ~~~

    I think Mr. Reilly's is absolutely right on his answer to you on guns. In rural Kentucky both the whites and blacks will have guns.

    It's just that rural Kentucky whites are a bit more "vibrant" than the typical rural white American. (They're much more likely to be Scots-Irish.) While the rural Kentucky blacks are both
    -- aware of some of that redneck honor culture--don't be a big dick or you may get your ass shot off-- and have ordinary familiarity with guns, taking them seriously
    -- and the biggest dicks have boiled off to Louisville

    Together basically the result is rural Kentucky blacks are more like their peer whites than elsewhere.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @LP5, @Fred C Dobbs

    AnotherDad writes:

    Blacks that need “action” have boiled off to the cities. (Kinda like the Amish boil off.)

    A type of distillation, to link to that Kentucky theme, so maybe bourbon for the urbans or moonshine for the rurals?
    Now, how to describe the Angel’s Share https://thewhiskeywash.com/whiskey-styles/american-whiskey/what-is-the-angels-share/ that evaporates in the aging barrel.
    Provide your suggestions on appropriate naming.

  59. @Anon
    @R.G. Camara


    In this respect, the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era—such as Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago and the Calliope Projects in New Orleans— would seem to have caused far more black violence and instability
     
    Did they protect Whites from black violence?

    Replies: @Gordo

    Did they protect Whites from black violence?

    That should be the aim and separation is the solution.

  60. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Hypnotoad666

    That theory makes a lot of sense, as far as theories go. Congratulations on coming up with something clever and interesting.

    But, with regard to this rather broad topic in general, I would just like to say that there seems to be a pronounced tendency to overthink things. It is apparently very tempting to most of the commenters here to just assume that blacks are more violent because of their "biology." This has some superficial plausibility, until you realize that the flipside of this theory is the assertion that whites are less violent because of their "biology." In fact, the whole corpus of HBD reasoning more or less rests on just such an assumption.

    But that cannot be true. White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance. Whites used to be a great deal more violent to one another. The purges, feuds, and intrigues that prevailed in Florence in the ages of Dante and Machiavelli would make any night in modern Chicago look tame; and, being fairly typical of the period, they were recorded by these authors without a critical and moralizing pose. They were just the "raw material" through which they analyzed spiritual life (Dante) and political life (Machiavelli).

    Furthermore, while whites are less violent to one another today, they are no wise less vicious. It's just that they prefer to destroy each other using the more subtle techniques of character assassination and professional ruination rather than 9mms and switchblades. I think that provides a clue to what is really going on here.

    In contemporary white society, we've obviated the need for individual violence because all the rackets have been legalized and all the risk has been financialized. People do not have a constant need to protect themselves, their honor, and their property with arms, which means that violent confrontations have become a rarity. Identity theft protection and insurance settlements have reduced the necessity to shoot the mugger and the burglar, while at the same time welfare and easy finance have taken the markets away from loan sharks and crooks. Illicit drug use is now legal or tolerated in many jurisdictions, so the idea of blasting it out with the revenuers has become passé. Contraception and sexual license have blunted the edge of spousal jealousy, with the divorce court providing the ultimate surety against being forced to raise and rear another's bastards. You can carry this analysis on and on, mutatis mutandis, in any department of life. Since 99% of all fights are going to be over sex, money, power, or moodiness exacerbated by intoxication, and since modern society provides relief valves for all of those things, there just isn't as much to fight about.

    It used to be a frequent topic of conversation to speculate about why North America and Latin America ended up with quite different levels of development, despite being similarly advantaged with immense natural resources. The answer most often mooted had to do with the "Protestant work ethic" and the idea that the dingy Catholics in the South just couldn't organize anything like the virtuous Yanks could. That idea has always been preposterous. If those old time Jesuits knew anything, it was how to organize stuff.

    After devoting some considerable thought to that question, the real answer revealed itself to be progressivism. The liberal anglospheric nations make very heavy-handed attempts to suppress individual violence by neutering and buying off their more virile elements. The resulting peace has led to great developments in the public space at the expense of individual excellence. We have created a great glittering society that everyone feels individually alienated from, whereas the Latins have created a poorer society but one where individuals live life to the fullest.

    Now, you might say that this is still jus HBD. It's the same old r/K selection theory otherwise expressed. You might say that what this proves is that blacks live life permanently at the level of some Congolese fishing village, whereas whites, sure, will live rough when they have to, but despite their own centuries of violence, at least have the ability to build civilizations when the opportunity arises. I would counter that, in addition to the short timeframe proving that biology can have nothing to do with it, the kind of "civilization" we're talking about here is alien to the entire human condition and could not have arisen organically from anybody's "biology," but must have been imposed from outside, by a mind detached from the actual business of living.

    The sad, tragic, terrifying fact is that most white people do not derive any personal benefit from belonging to their "civilization" past a certain point of complexity, and that point was reached and exceeded quite some time ago.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Rob McX, @Hangnail Hans, @Gordo

    But that cannot be true. White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance.

    But White biology has changed.

  61. Is it possible that the black population in your cities see weak disarmed Whites poisoned by pathological altruism and thus easy targets and blacks in Kentucky see proud and conservative White people quite possibly armed and probably good shots if they are?

  62. @Justvisiting
    @Almost Missouri


    is there any way to prevent blacks swarming the cities?
     
    For a new city there is an easy way--restrictive covenants.

    I mention this for future generations that may finally have "had enough" and can't figure out what could possibly be done.

    All it takes is the courage and determination to do it--anywhere on the planet.

    Btw this is what the elites do now--they have homeowners associations/clubs with "membership" and "vetting" of members. They get away with it because they rent the local politicians. Here is where Bill Gates has one of his homes, for example--a stunning Whitopia:

    https://pagesix.com/2021/05/11/bill-gates-hiding-out-at-the-vintage-club-in-indian-wells/

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Restrictive covenants have been illegal and unenforceable in the US for decades, even before the [anti-]Civil Rights revolution. But yes, homeowners associations/clubs with “membership” and “vetting” of members is a way to do restrictive covenants without being seen to do restrictive covenants.

    As I’ve said elsewhere, against the rising tide of diversity, civilization will increasingly have to organize itself into associations, clubs, gated communities (what are Manhattan co-ops but vertical gated communities?), affinity marketing groups, etc. in order to carry out the ordinary discretion that everyone practiced for millennia but is now anathematized by the armed woke theocracy.

    • Replies: @Charon
    @Almost Missouri


    what are Manhattan co-ops but vertical gated communities?

     

    They are much more: they are restrictive covenants on steroids. If it weren't for the implications for livability on Park Avenue, and the nature of the residents there, co-ops would have been trashed by the courts many years ago.

    The process is completely opaque, redolent of extreme privilege, and results in extreme disparities. Yet untouchable. And despite my mention of Park Avenue, co-ops are all over NYC. Yet no one makes a sound.

    Replies: @Justvisiting

  63. @Thea
    @Almost Missouri

    Have you read the Norvelt books by Jack Gantos? They unfortunately advocate socialism and add some modern wokeness that no one in 1939 likely felt BUT clearly describe the working families those towns were built to house and demographic collapse a generation later.

    For something designed to give the working man dignity those communities sure sucked the life out of their residents.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Can’t say as I have. Is this the same Gantos that Wiki describes as a children’s book author?

    • Replies: @Thea
    @Almost Missouri

    Yes I read them to my kids. He was a boomer yet somehow the town had very few other children and many elderly by the 1960s so my guess is the despair of welfare.

  64. @Bill B.
    OT

    Since when did Saudi Arabia become a "hostile power"?

    “Abouammo acted in secret as an agent of a foreign government targeting dissenting voices,” said Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “This verdict shows that the Justice Department will not tolerate any act of transnational repression and will hold accountable those who aid hostile regimes in extending their reach to our shores.”
     
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-twitter-employee-found-guilty-acting-agent-foreign-government-and-unlawfully-sharing

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Since when did Saudi Arabia become a “hostile power”?

    Since they offed an acolyte of the West’s priestly class.

  65. I was surprised at Steve’s tweet about gun carrying. “Gun violence” and gun carrying have very little to do with each other, because actually there is no such thing as “gun violence”, there is only people violence. No gun has ever shot anyone without some person pulling the trigger.

    The reason that blacks in big cities have more people violence is that the lowest functioning blacks are concentrated there. When mechanical reapers replaced the cotton picking blacks of the Deep South, the surplus population was shipped off to Northern big cities where there was temporary demand for this sort of mindless labor.

    Generally speaking the most violent kind of blacks do not like living in small, mostly white, rural towns – there is no tolerance there for their bad behavior. Long before they shoot anyone, they will get locked up for the sort of anti-social behavior that wouldn’t even get you a ticket in Chicago.

    Many years ago when I was a student living in NY I took a bus to visit my parents in semi-rural NJ. In the back of the bus was a NY ghetto teen doing all sorts of stereotypical ghetto crap – talking loudly, playing loud music, throwing food wrappers on the floor, etc. The topper came when he took out a joint and proceeded to smoke it (this was decades before cannabis was legalized but after the time you could smoke tobacco on a bus). I assume that he thought that he was still on a city bus and this was just normal behavior for him or maybe this is just how he acted everywhere.

    As I got off the bus, I happened to see a local cop and I pointed out the annoying reefer bearing Negro to him and they arrested him immediately. I don’t think he spent 30 seconds on the ground in rural NJ before he was in the back of a cop car.

    TBH, I had (and have) nothing against the smoking of natural herbs in the correct setting. What bothered me was his completely unconstrained behavior. He really needed to be taught a lesson in how you are supposed to act when they let you out of the zoo and out among civilized humans. Even the most feral of ghetto blacks respond to the carrot and the stick and this young fellow needed some stick at that particular moment.

    • Agree: Occasional lurker
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Jack D


    “Gun violence” and gun carrying have very little to do with each other, because actually there is no such thing as “gun violence”, there is only people violence.
     
    So, the basically, the cosmopolitans have succeeded in substituting "Gun violence" in order to further their aim of the disarmament of the general populace rather than putting the onus on murderous Black activities... so, Felonious Black Gunfire should be the preferred phraseology if the TPTB wanted non-euphemistic reporting.

    Waiting for hell to freeze over RIGHT NOW.

    Replies: @Jack D

  66. The old MyPostingCareer line was that blacks as a population are particularly victimized by what they called “SCALE”.

  67. @Thoughts
    It's the Pottery Barn Effect

    At the end of the day, everyone just wants a nice house and to decorate it from Pottery Barn

    Replies: @Total Kneegro Fatigue

    It’s the Pottery Barn Effect

    At the end of the day, everyone just wants a nice house and to decorate it from Pottery Barn

    Herein lies the problem… while many of US are willing to put in the necessary work to make us homeowners (building our credit score, saving up the down payment and then following through to make the mortgage payments for 15, 20, 30 years), while the “others” who harbor an entitlement mentality believe they should be handed the same for free, without having to lift a single finger to own said dwelling themselves.

  68. @International Jew
    @Peter Johnson

    True that. And right now in the US, between welfare, affirmative action, plaques-for-blacks and defacto immunity from the law, conditions are perfect for the quick evolution of a spectacularly dysfunctional black nation-within-a-nation.

    Replies: @Total Kneegro Fatigue

    #53

    I agree with you on that point 100%..!!!

  69. @Rob McX
    @Intelligent Dasein


    White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance.
     
    In A Farewell to Alms, Gregory Clark explains how human biology did change since the Industrial Revolution to make people less violent in Britain and other industrialised countries. He shows how resulting cultural changes amplified this. Not having read the book, I can't say how valid his argument is.

    With regard to South American countries, there is the big racial difference between them and the US. Their populations have far more Amerindian and African blood mixed in with the original European stock.

    Replies: @Occasional lurker

    I never found a Farewell to Alms very convincing, considering (among other things) that in my European country, the process of violence reduction went on long after the mechanisms assumed in the book were gone or counteracted by others. It’s possible that the propensity to impulsivity/adventure-seeking varies somewhat genetically between populations (as it does between indiviuduals), but environmental influences are clearly very powerful here and might be enough to explain the phenomena. We just don’t know yet. West Africa and American native culture were high violence tribal cultures, this may be difficult to overcome in a few generations, especially in a high Gini coefficient society. Think Germanic tribals of Roman times. Possibly there are also epigenetic effects of high violence societies that need to be overridden.

    • Thanks: Rob McX
  70. Anon[426] • Disclaimer says:

    According to cops, blacks shoot each other mainly because of ‘stupid sh*t.’ It’s mostly one black saying something that really ticks off another, and a gun comes out and bang. Not even the drug trade generates the majority of the killings, it’s simple and plain hurt feelings.

    Blacks, being low IQ, low impulse control, unperceptive of other peoples’ feelings, and having poor manners due to a ghetto upbringing, really get on each other’s nerves when they’re concentrated together. Rural blacks are more spread out, and there are fewer of them to annoy each other.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Anon

    If you spend time around blacks you'll notice how they aren't nice to each other. They will gang up and pick on another black about acne, clothes, anything until the resentful victim lashes out.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

  71. @Reg Cæsar

    rural NonCore
     
    "Noncore" sounds like a literary genre, or a section in the record store on Spotify

    Guns are, if anything, rarer in metro Louisville.

     

    It's Ground Zero for a certain other popular weapon, though.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUQPIcrXsAQUsOR.jpg:large

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    What? Does that put Chicago’s METAL bat in just the Little League at best? Horrors!

  72. @Jack D
    I was surprised at Steve's tweet about gun carrying. "Gun violence" and gun carrying have very little to do with each other, because actually there is no such thing as "gun violence", there is only people violence. No gun has ever shot anyone without some person pulling the trigger.

    The reason that blacks in big cities have more people violence is that the lowest functioning blacks are concentrated there. When mechanical reapers replaced the cotton picking blacks of the Deep South, the surplus population was shipped off to Northern big cities where there was temporary demand for this sort of mindless labor.

    Generally speaking the most violent kind of blacks do not like living in small, mostly white, rural towns - there is no tolerance there for their bad behavior. Long before they shoot anyone, they will get locked up for the sort of anti-social behavior that wouldn't even get you a ticket in Chicago.

    Many years ago when I was a student living in NY I took a bus to visit my parents in semi-rural NJ. In the back of the bus was a NY ghetto teen doing all sorts of stereotypical ghetto crap - talking loudly, playing loud music, throwing food wrappers on the floor, etc. The topper came when he took out a joint and proceeded to smoke it (this was decades before cannabis was legalized but after the time you could smoke tobacco on a bus). I assume that he thought that he was still on a city bus and this was just normal behavior for him or maybe this is just how he acted everywhere.

    As I got off the bus, I happened to see a local cop and I pointed out the annoying reefer bearing Negro to him and they arrested him immediately. I don't think he spent 30 seconds on the ground in rural NJ before he was in the back of a cop car.

    TBH, I had (and have) nothing against the smoking of natural herbs in the correct setting. What bothered me was his completely unconstrained behavior. He really needed to be taught a lesson in how you are supposed to act when they let you out of the zoo and out among civilized humans. Even the most feral of ghetto blacks respond to the carrot and the stick and this young fellow needed some stick at that particular moment.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    “Gun violence” and gun carrying have very little to do with each other, because actually there is no such thing as “gun violence”, there is only people violence.

    So, the basically, the cosmopolitans have succeeded in substituting “Gun violence” in order to further their aim of the disarmament of the general populace rather than putting the onus on murderous Black activities… so, Felonious Black Gunfire should be the preferred phraseology if the TPTB wanted non-euphemistic reporting.

    Waiting for hell to freeze over RIGHT NOW.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Joe Stalin

    I would say Felonious Blacks Firing Guns.

    Gunfire sounds too passive tense - "Gunfire erupted", like it's coming from a volcano and not from the hands of (mostly black) men.

  73. Anon[426] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rooster16
    @R.G. Camara

    The government/cities essentially provide everything to blacks from cradle to grave. The system relies on having blacks close to amenities, it would literally collapse due to logistical restraints if blacks were more spread out; thus the uproar about “food deserts”. Even if blacks were moved to rural locations, government assistance buildings would soon start to pop up near the largest congregation of them, and soon after the blacks would congregate around them… a modern version of the chicken and the egg scenario.

    Replies: @Anon

    Yes, definitely. Many American Indians started living close to the local white trader/ Indian agent for the same reason. That was where the all the goodies were. If you’ve ever read memoirs about the old West, many Indians moved to where the handouts were, whereupon they switched to a lifestyle where they spent a lot time shambling around drunk.

    Giving people what they crave most can be a disaster for a society, and the white love of meth, fentanyl, and pot is a good example.

    Human beings are programmed so that the chase is ultimately better for your physical and mental health than the reward. Once you achieve a life of nothing but rewards, you tend to fall apart.

  74. @Cosmohicks
    "White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance."

    Yep. This means if Steven Pinker was right (he is) black violence was a problem we could largely solve, even if Charles Murray was right (he is.) Just don't go around undermining confidence in police lolol!

    It's funny how Pinker opened up new avenues for "anti-racists" to argue how culture profoundly re-wires mentality that could be used to combat Charles Murray or (hiss!) Steve Sailer, but everyone's too illiterate to read that 800 page book, so it's all hack academic cliches from 1975 still. Incredible late Soviet intellectual lethargy.

    Replies: @anon

    It’s funny how Pinker opened up new avenues for “anti-racists” to argue how culture profoundly re-wires mentality

    Is it “funny” or is it convenient? Jews don’t want Whites to appreciate the significance of their DNA, and the DNA of others.

  75. There’s a large difference in homicide rates in NYC boroughs:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @surly


    There’s a large difference in homicide rates in NYC boroughs
     
    Pretty much correlates with density.
  76. Those are weird locality designations (metro, fringe metro, etc), at least for the purposes you’re using them here.

    There’s an excellent tool for identifying racial demographics, from national level down through state, county, down to “census block” level, which is pretty much a neighborhood.

    https://www.city-data.com/
    (Go to the pull-down menu just above the embedded map. Start with “Data: Races: Black alone %”. It visualizes the data really well.)

    You can identify geographic locations (county, city, neighborhood) that have a high percentage of blacks, with the exact percentage provided. Then you could match those locations (say, over 80% black) with murder statistics.

    Then do the same with high white locales and murder statistics.

    You’d be better off using BOTH murder victims AND offenders, to capture a better overall view of the correlations.

    It would take a bit of research time, but your results would be much more useful than the CDC numbers you use here.

  77. @Mike Tre
    Large and high density cities obviously inflate all forms of negative human behavior. Murder, assault, thievery, but also homosexuality, trannsexualism, drug use (at least before the flood of prescription opioids,) and in general the destructive leftist/progressive ideology.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    No, but I’ve read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, and I’ve seen the movie directed by King Vidor and starring Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal, and Raymond Massey.

    It’s hilarious in hindsight that Howard Roark goes into full apeshit mad-bomber mode when he discovers that hack architects have added a couple of tacky Greek statues to his brilliant plans for Brutalist bare-concrete housing projects. In real life the statues would have been smashed to pieces by the residents within weeks if not days of their arrival.

    IIRC there’s a scene in The Bonfire of the Vanities where Tom Wolfe mentions that the utopian designers of a housing project planted trees and placed benches in the hopes that the downtrodden poor people would enjoy a nice place to sit and relax. The vibrants stripped the trees and dismantled the benches within a month.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Stan Adams

    I meant to reply to Thea’s comment, obviously.

  78. @Pixo
    Kentucky and WV are outliers in the high white ancestry of their black population and low socioeconomic status of whites.

    Lower IQ slaves in KY were sold down south where there was lower runaway risk and more profitable cotton plantations. That left a black population that was higher IQ household servants and skilled craftsmen, who were also heavily the mixed race descendants of slaveowners.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Lower IQ slaves in KY were sold down south where there was lower runaway risk and more profitable cotton plantations. That left a black population that was higher IQ household servants and skilled craftsmen, who were also heavily the mixed race descendants of slaveowners.

    The first time I was in Mississippi, it was noticeable to me that many blacks looked “blacker”–darker, more African, less white–than the ones I had been around and worked with in Cincinnati and elsewhere.

    Some of the dark is just sunshine. Some of it is no doubt cultural–how one carries oneself, talks. But pretty sure there is a net admixture issue. Selection probably both under slavery and in the get-up-and-go to head north.

    The genetics of black Americans and correlation with other metrics of traits/behavior/socio-economics would be interesting but is probably not at the top of anyone’s research agenda.

  79. @Colin Wright
    'Blacks in Louisville, KY are surrounded by other blacks, so they often carry illegal handguns. Blacks in Dogpatch, KY are surrounded by whites, so they don't often carry illegal handguns.'

    This relates to something that's occurred to me.

    Humans are social animals -- and tend to conform to the norms established by their neighbors.

    So around here -- where blacks make up 0.3% of the population -- their behavior is arguably worse than the white average, but they more or less conform to our rather modest social expectations. Don't actually shoot your neighbor, etc.

    But put all the blacks together, and...well.

    Replies: @Peter Johnson, @Muggles

    But put all the blacks together, and…well.

    Yes, this reminds me of something my career Army sergeant Dad told me about his experience in the Korean War.

    He said that if blacks were sparsely distributed, one or two in a small unit, generally no problems. But if you had four or more, they tended to congregate and act out as “blacks” (or Negroes, back then) and become loud, goofy and careless.

    He said that they would often warn such groups to keep down and keep quiet, due to NorKor snipers.

    But he said they often didn’t and thus suffered the consequences.

    I have noticed that in job areas where there were several blacks among others, they sooner or later they would crowd around each other and get loud and boisterous. It’s like “they can’t be themselves” around mainly just Whites.

    This may well translate into crime rates, urban vs. rural.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Muggles

    Having an entire segregated unit of them in the line was a recipe for an enemy breakthrough, which is why segregation formally ended during the Korean War.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  80. Steve, it would be great if you kept specifically an archive of your “data work” like this terrific excel spreadsheet of homicide/area-type/race from the CDC data.

    You’ve done a lot of really terrific solid stuff like this over the years. Search can–if one can remember what one needs to search for–find some of it. But good to have this data work specifically saved off.

    (I filed this link away to my “demographics” folder and created a separate “crime” subfolder as my demographics folder is bulging. But again, saved off in the Steve’s data archive would be great.)

  81. @George
    Is the drug trade more likely to be associated with blacks in urban areas and whites in rural areas?

    Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Possibly, particularly when talking about drug labs.

  82. When blacks live in large cities, they commit more crimes. But, according to Unz, living in an urban area has a positive causal effect on IQ (for European-Americans). So, perhaps there’s a trade-off.

  83. You missed the obvious one Steve.

    The blacks are obviously much more likely to hit someone in densely populated ares.
    Their aim is shit. Any-one counted the number of dead trees in Rural Kentucky?

    Has anybody ever done any research anywhere anytime that asks the convicted perps “By the way, did you hit the guy you were aiming at”?

    Thought not.

  84. @surly
    There's a large difference in homicide rates in NYC boroughs:

    https://twitter.com/HomicideNyc/status/1558862393458974721

    Replies: @Anonymous

    There’s a large difference in homicide rates in NYC boroughs

    Pretty much correlates with density.

  85. @Almost Missouri
    @Thea

    Can't say as I have. Is this the same Gantos that Wiki describes as a children's book author?

    Replies: @Thea

    Yes I read them to my kids. He was a boomer yet somehow the town had very few other children and many elderly by the 1960s so my guess is the despair of welfare.

  86. @Ralph L
    I believe your second from the right column is mislabeled.

    Shocking that 22% of whites still live in big cities.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Fred C Dobbs

    Assuming the “Large” cutoff is a central city population of over 500,000: Despite completely bombed out places like Cleveland and Detroit, and mostly bombed-out, like Philadelphia, there are some large cities like Denver and Phoenix that are still mostly decent.

  87. Just to be safe, probably better to avoid the country variety, too.

  88. @AnotherDad

    How Much Worse Are Black Homicide Rates Due to Living More in Big Cities?
     
    Definitely worse, but not much, much worse.

    There isn't much doubt that there's a completely dysfunction urban black culture that brings out the shooty.

    But there is also a lot of selection that's going on here. Blacks that need "action" have boiled off to the cities. (Kinda like the Amish boil off.) Blacks who are still doing the rural are mentally more suited to it. They are still way more shooty than whites, but they aren't the most problematic of blacks.

    ~~~

    I think Mr. Reilly's is absolutely right on his answer to you on guns. In rural Kentucky both the whites and blacks will have guns.

    It's just that rural Kentucky whites are a bit more "vibrant" than the typical rural white American. (They're much more likely to be Scots-Irish.) While the rural Kentucky blacks are both
    -- aware of some of that redneck honor culture--don't be a big dick or you may get your ass shot off-- and have ordinary familiarity with guns, taking them seriously
    -- and the biggest dicks have boiled off to Louisville

    Together basically the result is rural Kentucky blacks are more like their peer whites than elsewhere.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @LP5, @Fred C Dobbs

    Re: Kentucky and its “Born Fightin” Scots-Irish population: If you find yourself cuttin’ a rug down at a place called the Jug with a girl named Linda Lou…..

    You might later find yourself pleading….Gimme three steps, give me three steps, Mister….give me three steps toward the door…..”

  89. @JimDandy
    if blacks were distributed in the same proportions of urbanization as whites, that the black to white homicide ratio would fall by 10% from 8.0 to 7.2, which isn’t trivial but not huge either.

    Yeah, probably. "isn't trivial but not huge either." is a very good way of saying it.

    Replies: @James Speaks

    I think this shows the fight or flight mechanism at work. In a rural setting, negro on negro antagonism (NONA), the precursor to negro on negro violence (NONV), is much less than in an urban setting due to the lower negro per capita antagonism density factor (NPCADF). Basically, your average rural negro (ARN) has to walk farther to locate another ARN to engage in mutual antagonism. Hence, the lower rate of negro on negro projectile activity (NONPA).

    Hope this helps. (HTH)

    • Replies: @James Speaks
    @James Speaks

    Or, as we said in college:

    Negro on the left
    Negro on the right
    Negro in the middle
    Fight
    Fight
    Fight

    , @JimDandy
    @James Speaks

    That's very helpful, thanks, professor. And speaking of fighting and flighting one thing that I don't think got taken into consideration here is the increasing levels of black flight. Lots of blacks are leaving the cities, and reason tells me that these are generally the less criminal/animalistic urban blacks who instantly become non-urban blacks who don't commit as much crime. Eh, I could go on, but you're a renowned blackologist, I'm sure you get my drift.

    Replies: @James Speaks

  90. @James Speaks
    @JimDandy

    I think this shows the fight or flight mechanism at work. In a rural setting, negro on negro antagonism (NONA), the precursor to negro on negro violence (NONV), is much less than in an urban setting due to the lower negro per capita antagonism density factor (NPCADF). Basically, your average rural negro (ARN) has to walk farther to locate another ARN to engage in mutual antagonism. Hence, the lower rate of negro on negro projectile activity (NONPA).

    Hope this helps. (HTH)

    Replies: @James Speaks, @JimDandy

    Or, as we said in college:

    Negro on the left
    Negro on the right
    Negro in the middle
    Fight
    Fight
    Fight

  91. @Joe Stalin
    @Jack D


    “Gun violence” and gun carrying have very little to do with each other, because actually there is no such thing as “gun violence”, there is only people violence.
     
    So, the basically, the cosmopolitans have succeeded in substituting "Gun violence" in order to further their aim of the disarmament of the general populace rather than putting the onus on murderous Black activities... so, Felonious Black Gunfire should be the preferred phraseology if the TPTB wanted non-euphemistic reporting.

    Waiting for hell to freeze over RIGHT NOW.

    Replies: @Jack D

    I would say Felonious Blacks Firing Guns.

    Gunfire sounds too passive tense – “Gunfire erupted”, like it’s coming from a volcano and not from the hands of (mostly black) men.

  92. Since the Rushdie post is several posts backs, here’s another case for the National Immigration Safety Board to investigate:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11110983/PICTURED-Driver-plowed-community-fundraiser-killing-one-person-injuring-17-more.html

    Adrian Oswaldo Sura Reyes, 24, was charged Sunday with two counts of homicide and is being held without bail
    Pennsylvania State Police say he intentionally plowed his car into a community fundraiser, killing one person and injuring 17 others Saturday night
    He then allegedly fled the scene and was found moments later bludgeoning his mother to death with a hammer

    Oswaldo is the one wearing blue in the middle.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    This guy allegedly started the fire which was the basis of the fundraiser, then attacked the people affected by the fire there, then killed his mother because she wouldn't give him money. An anonymous commenter observed that this was the collapse of the Maslovian hierarchy of needs. You know, this guy sounds like he's kind of a real jerk.

    , @Bill Jones
    @Jack D

    The Stage left trooper isn't wearing his name tag. What was the production assistant thinking?

  93. @James Speaks
    @JimDandy

    I think this shows the fight or flight mechanism at work. In a rural setting, negro on negro antagonism (NONA), the precursor to negro on negro violence (NONV), is much less than in an urban setting due to the lower negro per capita antagonism density factor (NPCADF). Basically, your average rural negro (ARN) has to walk farther to locate another ARN to engage in mutual antagonism. Hence, the lower rate of negro on negro projectile activity (NONPA).

    Hope this helps. (HTH)

    Replies: @James Speaks, @JimDandy

    That’s very helpful, thanks, professor. And speaking of fighting and flighting one thing that I don’t think got taken into consideration here is the increasing levels of black flight. Lots of blacks are leaving the cities, and reason tells me that these are generally the less criminal/animalistic urban blacks who instantly become non-urban blacks who don’t commit as much crime. Eh, I could go on, but you’re a renowned blackologist, I’m sure you get my drift.

    • Agree: James Speaks
    • Replies: @James Speaks
    @JimDandy


    due to the lower negro per capita antagonism density factor (NPCADF).
     
    I stand corrected. Not only is it the lower average rural negro density, but also the average lower antagonism per negro?
  94. @Almost Missouri
    @Justvisiting

    Restrictive covenants have been illegal and unenforceable in the US for decades, even before the [anti-]Civil Rights revolution. But yes, homeowners associations/clubs with “membership” and “vetting” of members is a way to do restrictive covenants without being seen to do restrictive covenants.

    As I've said elsewhere, against the rising tide of diversity, civilization will increasingly have to organize itself into associations, clubs, gated communities (what are Manhattan co-ops but vertical gated communities?), affinity marketing groups, etc. in order to carry out the ordinary discretion that everyone practiced for millennia but is now anathematized by the armed woke theocracy.

    Replies: @Charon

    what are Manhattan co-ops but vertical gated communities?

    They are much more: they are restrictive covenants on steroids. If it weren’t for the implications for livability on Park Avenue, and the nature of the residents there, co-ops would have been trashed by the courts many years ago.

    The process is completely opaque, redolent of extreme privilege, and results in extreme disparities. Yet untouchable. And despite my mention of Park Avenue, co-ops are all over NYC. Yet no one makes a sound.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @Charon


    They are much more: they are restrictive covenants on steroids. If it weren’t for the implications for livability on Park Avenue, and the nature of the residents there, co-ops would have been trashed by the courts many years ago.
     
    Agree--the warmer climate golf course communities have also mastered the skill of restrictive covenants.

    This is a classic case of where the "law" against restrictive covenants is a hilarious joke.

    Third world countries are places where the written law and street practice have extreme divergence--we are getting there fast.

    This divergence requires bribery of public officials to keep their paws off--it cannot work without it.

    (A free or deeply discounted unit in such a community has been known to be a very effective long term bribe.)
  95. OT: From “Scientific” American:

    Cultural Bias Distorts the Search for Alien Life

    SETI scientists are grappling with the disquieting notion that, much like their intellectual forebears, their search may somehow be undermined by biases they only dimly perceive—biases that could, for instance, be related to the misunderstanding and mistreatment of Indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups that occurred during the development of modern astronomy and many other scientific fields…

    SETI concerns listening to alien civilizations, ideally, but we also have to get better at listening to Earthlings! We’re not very good at that right now, but we’re starting to move in that direction. There are members of the SETI community, myself included, who are very interested in listening to marginalized and historically excluded perspectives.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anon7

    Thanks

  96. @Hangnail Hans
    @Polistra

    ((They)) won't allow us to separate. Ever.

    The mere thought that any of their victims might enjoy a fair measure of freedom is total anathema. It might cause a fissure in their 'project'.

    Hence, "white separatist" is one of the most hated notions in our society.

    Replies: @Rob Lee

    Of course. You couldn’t play a very effective game of chess with only one side. You have to have both black and white pieces for a proper game.

  97. @Charon
    @Almost Missouri


    what are Manhattan co-ops but vertical gated communities?

     

    They are much more: they are restrictive covenants on steroids. If it weren't for the implications for livability on Park Avenue, and the nature of the residents there, co-ops would have been trashed by the courts many years ago.

    The process is completely opaque, redolent of extreme privilege, and results in extreme disparities. Yet untouchable. And despite my mention of Park Avenue, co-ops are all over NYC. Yet no one makes a sound.

    Replies: @Justvisiting

    They are much more: they are restrictive covenants on steroids. If it weren’t for the implications for livability on Park Avenue, and the nature of the residents there, co-ops would have been trashed by the courts many years ago.

    Agree–the warmer climate golf course communities have also mastered the skill of restrictive covenants.

    This is a classic case of where the “law” against restrictive covenants is a hilarious joke.

    Third world countries are places where the written law and street practice have extreme divergence–we are getting there fast.

    This divergence requires bribery of public officials to keep their paws off–it cannot work without it.

    (A free or deeply discounted unit in such a community has been known to be a very effective long term bribe.)

  98. @R.G. Camara
    In this respect, the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era---such as Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago and the Calliope Projects in New Orleans--- would seem to have caused far more black violence and instability than they resolved by packing blacks in tighter and closer together in dense urban environments.

    Which is ironic, since many of the true believing commies and hippies thought such large black-dominated projects would come to give poor blacks a "community" and reduce their racist oppression and make them be able to become wealthy and less-violent-ridden.

    So a solution to urban black crime would be similar to what the British did back in the day --- spread out and scatter housing projects out to the country, making black populations far less dense.

    But the problem is -- American blacks today really, really seem to like living in cities versus the country. Not only is "country" an insult American blacks toss around to this day, but American blacks really can't understand why European Americans seem to have this longing for a Jeffersonian/simple farm life.

    "40 Acres and a Mule" sounds like a punishment to modern blacks. Malcom X's description of himself in his autobiography moving from the country to the city and going from hick hayseed to sophisticated urban slickster is emblematic of black feelings on the subject (X's Autobiography was largely fictional jive talk by a great hustler, but the story was meant to embody many blacks' feelings about city v. country and struck a cord amongst black readers).

    So blacks would really resist this, and probably skeedaddle back to the cities when they could.

    Plus lots of D's and "community organizers" and Marxists professors would get up in a rage at their black concentrations of voters/rioters being dispersed in the wind.

    Replies: @Anon, @Rob McX, @Rooster16, @Almost Missouri, @Boy the way Glenn Miller played, @Nick Granite

    So a solution to urban black crime would be similar to what the British did back in the day — spread out and scatter housing projects out to the country, making black populations far less dense.

    What would be wrong with a renaissance of the Workhouse, the County Farm, and the Home for Unwed Mothers?

  99. @Colin Wright
    ...of course, the converse also seems to happen.

    Put whites around a large black population, and they'll start conforming to black norms.

    This was noticed back when schools were integrated. The hope was that all those white kids would lead to improved black academic performance.

    Actually, all those black kids led to declines in white academic performance. Less tangibly, in integrated communities I've noticed white drivers starting to copy blackisms: pulling out half way across a busy street and blocking traffic while waiting for a break in the traffic flowing the other way, for example.

    Replies: @SaneClownPosse

    The rise of the “wiggers”.

  100. @Anon7
    OT: From “Scientific” American:

    Cultural Bias Distorts the Search for Alien Life

    SETI scientists are grappling with the disquieting notion that, much like their intellectual forebears, their search may somehow be undermined by biases they only dimly perceive—biases that could, for instance, be related to the misunderstanding and mistreatment of Indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups that occurred during the development of modern astronomy and many other scientific fields…

    SETI concerns listening to alien civilizations, ideally, but we also have to get better at listening to Earthlings! We're not very good at that right now, but we're starting to move in that direction. There are members of the SETI community, myself included, who are very interested in listening to marginalized and historically excluded perspectives.
     

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Thanks

  101. Reilly doesn’t know what an illegal gun is, or doesn’t know the significance of having an illegal gun. A gun is a gun, same as any other, right?

  102. My homicide number of interest is stranger killings.

    My area of interest a suburb of almost 100K with less than 10 percent black.

    25 years 5 stranger deaths. Blacks killed 4. 3 white. 1 hispanic.

    Do the stats reflect deaths at the hands of strangers?

  103. @Stan Adams
    @Mike Tre

    No, but I’ve read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, and I’ve seen the movie directed by King Vidor and starring Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal, and Raymond Massey.

    It’s hilarious in hindsight that Howard Roark goes into full apeshit mad-bomber mode when he discovers that hack architects have added a couple of tacky Greek statues to his brilliant plans for Brutalist bare-concrete housing projects. In real life the statues would have been smashed to pieces by the residents within weeks if not days of their arrival.

    IIRC there’s a scene in The Bonfire of the Vanities where Tom Wolfe mentions that the utopian designers of a housing project planted trees and placed benches in the hopes that the downtrodden poor people would enjoy a nice place to sit and relax. The vibrants stripped the trees and dismantled the benches within a month.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    I meant to reply to Thea’s comment, obviously.

  104. @JimDandy
    @James Speaks

    That's very helpful, thanks, professor. And speaking of fighting and flighting one thing that I don't think got taken into consideration here is the increasing levels of black flight. Lots of blacks are leaving the cities, and reason tells me that these are generally the less criminal/animalistic urban blacks who instantly become non-urban blacks who don't commit as much crime. Eh, I could go on, but you're a renowned blackologist, I'm sure you get my drift.

    Replies: @James Speaks

    due to the lower negro per capita antagonism density factor (NPCADF).

    I stand corrected. Not only is it the lower average rural negro density, but also the average lower antagonism per negro?

  105. @Anon
    According to cops, blacks shoot each other mainly because of 'stupid sh*t.' It's mostly one black saying something that really ticks off another, and a gun comes out and bang. Not even the drug trade generates the majority of the killings, it's simple and plain hurt feelings.

    Blacks, being low IQ, low impulse control, unperceptive of other peoples' feelings, and having poor manners due to a ghetto upbringing, really get on each other's nerves when they're concentrated together. Rural blacks are more spread out, and there are fewer of them to annoy each other.

    Replies: @Anon

    If you spend time around blacks you’ll notice how they aren’t nice to each other. They will gang up and pick on another black about acne, clothes, anything until the resentful victim lashes out.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @Anon

    And how is that different from white male behavior? Sounds like a typical sports team.

    Replies: @Anon

  106. @Jack D
    Since the Rushdie post is several posts backs, here's another case for the National Immigration Safety Board to investigate:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11110983/PICTURED-Driver-plowed-community-fundraiser-killing-one-person-injuring-17-more.html


    Adrian Oswaldo Sura Reyes, 24, was charged Sunday with two counts of homicide and is being held without bail
    Pennsylvania State Police say he intentionally plowed his car into a community fundraiser, killing one person and injuring 17 others Saturday night
    He then allegedly fled the scene and was found moments later bludgeoning his mother to death with a hammer

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/08/14/22/61378281-11110983-image-m-11_1660510819124.jpg

    Oswaldo is the one wearing blue in the middle.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Bill Jones

    This guy allegedly started the fire which was the basis of the fundraiser, then attacked the people affected by the fire there, then killed his mother because she wouldn’t give him money. An anonymous commenter observed that this was the collapse of the Maslovian hierarchy of needs. You know, this guy sounds like he’s kind of a real jerk.

  107. So what’s the answer? Do poverty and density largely explain high rates of violent crime byockquote>

  108. @Thoughts
    If I had to choose whether 40 Billion would go to "Ukraine" or go to American Blacks (to encourage birth rates of good middle class folk)

    I'd choose African Americans every time

    I'd end all foreign aid and send that money straight back into the pockets of the American Middle Class

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    Most of that \$40Billion will end up in the pockets of of the American Middle Class.The State Department half will go to grants to Foundations and Universities For Studies and Training, the War Department half on US Mercenary Companies and the good folk at Lockheed.
    It will do a lot more good for Northern Virginia and So-Cal real estate values than Ukrainian ones.

    That Appropriation should have been called The Deep State Funding Bill.

    See if you can suggest a tile for the recent IRS Funding in light of this picture from the IRS “Annual Report”

    https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-08-11-irs-annual-report-shows-heavily-armed-agents-training-to-shoot-people.html

  109. People behave best in their ancestral conditions. How were they living 500 years ago? For blacks, that is always rural. For some whites, the town is more the natural habitat. The same could be said for climate. The worst behaved whites are in the South, and the worst behaved blacks are in Detroit and Chicago. Uproot people and they go loopy.

  110. @Jack D
    Since the Rushdie post is several posts backs, here's another case for the National Immigration Safety Board to investigate:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11110983/PICTURED-Driver-plowed-community-fundraiser-killing-one-person-injuring-17-more.html


    Adrian Oswaldo Sura Reyes, 24, was charged Sunday with two counts of homicide and is being held without bail
    Pennsylvania State Police say he intentionally plowed his car into a community fundraiser, killing one person and injuring 17 others Saturday night
    He then allegedly fled the scene and was found moments later bludgeoning his mother to death with a hammer

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/08/14/22/61378281-11110983-image-m-11_1660510819124.jpg

    Oswaldo is the one wearing blue in the middle.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Bill Jones

    The Stage left trooper isn’t wearing his name tag. What was the production assistant thinking?

  111. @Anon
    @Anon

    If you spend time around blacks you'll notice how they aren't nice to each other. They will gang up and pick on another black about acne, clothes, anything until the resentful victim lashes out.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

    And how is that different from white male behavior? Sounds like a typical sports team.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Peter Akuleyev

    True, but blacks tend to take it up a notch as Steve's meticulous data gathering has shown us over the years.

  112. @Muggles
    @Colin Wright


    But put all the blacks together, and…well.
     
    Yes, this reminds me of something my career Army sergeant Dad told me about his experience in the Korean War.

    He said that if blacks were sparsely distributed, one or two in a small unit, generally no problems. But if you had four or more, they tended to congregate and act out as "blacks" (or Negroes, back then) and become loud, goofy and careless.

    He said that they would often warn such groups to keep down and keep quiet, due to NorKor snipers.

    But he said they often didn't and thus suffered the consequences.

    I have noticed that in job areas where there were several blacks among others, they sooner or later they would crowd around each other and get loud and boisterous. It's like "they can't be themselves" around mainly just Whites.

    This may well translate into crime rates, urban vs. rural.

    Replies: @Wielgus

    Having an entire segregated unit of them in the line was a recipe for an enemy breakthrough, which is why segregation formally ended during the Korean War.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Wielgus

    Two years prior to the Korean War.

    Replies: @Wielgus

  113. @Peter Johnson
    New evidence regarding the speed of human evolution shows that it can happen very quickly, within the space of centuries, not millennia. Your argument "But that cannot be true. White biology has not changed for thousands of years of recorded history, but white relative nonviolence is of very recent historical provenance. " is not longer consistent with the evidence. Within a few generations, the frequency distribution of genetic variation can lead to observable changes to patterns of social behavior.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Intelligent Dasein, @Peter Johnson

    See Paolo Shirasi’s twitter thread on this common misunderstanding. The misconception that human evolution is extremely slow was concocted by the American Marxist propagandist Stephen J. Gould, and spread like wildfire due its political convenience. Gould’s deception still lives on, in the face of ever-growing contrary evidence.

  114. If I understand the data in New York correctly, density has some relationship with frequency of homicide, but the observable association is much weaker than that with racial composition or with the law enforcement regime. Where you see the relationship between density and crime rates big time, it’s in regard to robbery.

  115. Note that Kentucky has a proportionately small black population. Blacks resident in small towns and rural areas are a self-selected population willing to live in areas where there aren’t many other blacks. That does indicate something about their sensibility and assessment of others which suggests in turn that they resemble more the surrounding society than do blacks who congregate.

    • Agree: Peter Johnson
  116. @Almost Missouri
    Wouldn't the easier way to come at this question be to look at the homicide rates in mostly black rural counties (or census tracts if such crime stat granularity exists) and compare it with homicide rates in mostly black metro areas?

    I suspect the result will be about the same as above: rural blacks less murdery than urban blacks but still more murdery than whites. As per AnotherDad's explanation, part of this is probably a result of boiling off: the hotter heads "going to town", but what would be interesting is to find a density coefficient that would predict—all else being equal—how much crime goes up as population density increases.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @kaganovitch, @Wade Hampton

    When I lived in NC, I did a similar analysis to the one you describe. The NC State Bureau of Investigation maintains crime statistics (including murder) by county. It’s easy enough to get county population and demographic data.

    NC is an interesting State in the there are heavily black and mostly rural counties in the Eastern Coastal Plain because that’s where the antebellum plantations were. The big cities, Charlotte-Gastonia, Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem and Raleigh-Durham, are in the Central part of the State called the Piedmont. The big cities occupied their own counties and were pretty black. The Piedmont outside the big cities was pretty rural, not as black as the Piedmont cities, but nowhere near as black as many of the Coastal Counties. While there was a lot of agriculture in the Piedmont, there weren’t the big plantations. Then the Western part of the state was mostly mountainous and completely unsuitable for plantations. No big cities and not a lot of blacks.

    So you got a good spread of urban-heavily-black, urban-somewhat-black, rural-heavily-black, rural-no-blacks. There was no ambiguity in the results. If you wanted to get yourself killed, live in a heavily black county. Either urban or rural. It did not matter at all. The blacker, the more likely you were to get murdered. In fact, the county in the state with the worst murder rate was heavily-black-rural. Durham was in the top 5 though.

  117. @R.G. Camara
    In this respect, the giant black housing projects of the New Deal/post WW2 era---such as Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago and the Calliope Projects in New Orleans--- would seem to have caused far more black violence and instability than they resolved by packing blacks in tighter and closer together in dense urban environments.

    Which is ironic, since many of the true believing commies and hippies thought such large black-dominated projects would come to give poor blacks a "community" and reduce their racist oppression and make them be able to become wealthy and less-violent-ridden.

    So a solution to urban black crime would be similar to what the British did back in the day --- spread out and scatter housing projects out to the country, making black populations far less dense.

    But the problem is -- American blacks today really, really seem to like living in cities versus the country. Not only is "country" an insult American blacks toss around to this day, but American blacks really can't understand why European Americans seem to have this longing for a Jeffersonian/simple farm life.

    "40 Acres and a Mule" sounds like a punishment to modern blacks. Malcom X's description of himself in his autobiography moving from the country to the city and going from hick hayseed to sophisticated urban slickster is emblematic of black feelings on the subject (X's Autobiography was largely fictional jive talk by a great hustler, but the story was meant to embody many blacks' feelings about city v. country and struck a cord amongst black readers).

    So blacks would really resist this, and probably skeedaddle back to the cities when they could.

    Plus lots of D's and "community organizers" and Marxists professors would get up in a rage at their black concentrations of voters/rioters being dispersed in the wind.

    Replies: @Anon, @Rob McX, @Rooster16, @Almost Missouri, @Boy the way Glenn Miller played, @Nick Granite

    Well let’s be honest. 40 acres and a mule sounds like a hell of a lot of work.

  118. @Wielgus
    @Muggles

    Having an entire segregated unit of them in the line was a recipe for an enemy breakthrough, which is why segregation formally ended during the Korean War.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Two years prior to the Korean War.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Art Deco

    Still traces of it in 1950-1.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

    I believe there was another regiment that had a black battalion and their fortitude in combat was questioned, too. Basically unit segregation was entirely finished off in 1951 after some unhappy experiences.

  119. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Anon

    And how is that different from white male behavior? Sounds like a typical sports team.

    Replies: @Anon

    True, but blacks tend to take it up a notch as Steve’s meticulous data gathering has shown us over the years.

  120. @Art Deco
    @Wielgus

    Two years prior to the Korean War.

    Replies: @Wielgus

    Still traces of it in 1950-1.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

    I believe there was another regiment that had a black battalion and their fortitude in combat was questioned, too. Basically unit segregation was entirely finished off in 1951 after some unhappy experiences.

  121. What’s the age profile of blacks in rural areas? The difference in crime rates is most pronounced among males aged 15-35. Are there a bunch old black Joes out in the countryside who may have had a checkered past (though not so checkered as the ones who died in gang spats), but have calmed down in their old age?

  122. Is there any way to increase the number of Wilfred Reillys in the academy and find other work for, well, most of the rest? Whatever the specifics on policy, the academic interest in thinking and engaging with all others, including the Steve Sailers of the world, seems to be gone in the academy.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS