Blacks chimp out for Christmas


La Griffe du Lion finds that though the average criminality of blacks is substantially higher than that of whites, the variance is substantially lower. This predicts that under a firm and effective law enforcement environment, in which only the most criminally inclined misbehaved, a black majority area would be safer than a white majority area. However in a lax environment, in modern anarcho tyranny where everything has been criminalized, except crime, which has been decriminalized, the difference between blacks and the more evolved types of human is exceptionally visible, and the fact that no one can speak of it exceptionally ludicrous.

Just as affirmative action makes the differences between blacks and whites starkly visible to everyone at the same time as it makes it a criminal offense to notice, or even think about, those differences, law enforcement that primarily targets the honest and productive similarly makes the differences between the honest and productive, and those born to welfare to live on their votes, starkly visible to everyone.

The propensity to commit crime is extremely sensitive to the level of enforcement. A modest tightening of enforcement, such as Singapore with its floggings and swift justice, reduces crime by a factor of a hundred or a thousand. The punishments in Singapore are not hundred times more severe, nor is justice a hundred times swifter, but crime is reduced by more than a hundred fold.

The fact that some societies have no difficult in reducing crime to zero for all practical purposes, reducing it to levels so insignificant as to have eliminated it for all practical purposes, shows that the supply of crime is extremely elastic to the price of crime.

In such an environment, only the most exceptionally criminally inclined are likely to misbehave. La Griffe Du Lion’s analysis shows that though the typical black is criminally inclined, and the typical white is not, the exceptionally and extraordinarily criminally inclined individual is typically white, not black. Just as very smart people are overwhelmingly male, due to the greater male variance in IQ, very criminal people are overwhelmingly white. When we see niggers chimping out en masse, they are doing stupid stuff – minor assaults. Black flash mobs are seldom deadly. Nothing anyone did in this video would be surprising or disturbing if a single white individual did it. What is surprising and disturbing is a mob doing it. What is disturbing is not the edge of the black bell curve, but the center.

Singapore does not allow us to test this theoretical prediction, because by and large, they just don’t let black people in, however the America of the past does allow us to test this prediction, since back then, most crimes would get you immediately hung from a tree. Consistent with this prediction, we read Nehemiah Adams in “A Southside View of Slavery” telling us how peaceable and well behaved negroes are. Similarly, Froude in “The Bow of Ulysses” never pays the slightest attention to whether or not he is in an all black area. Carlyle in “Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question” remarks on how negroes thrive under white rule and are made into good people, and argues that God and/or Nature makes it the duty of whites to so rule backs for the good of their souls, and if not so ruled, blacks will prey upon each other.

But obviously rule by today’s whites does not benefit today’s blacks – indeed state policy is to turn everyone, regardless of race, into underclass, in order to move the electorate left. If everyone, regardless of race, are pimps, whores, and thieves, they will reliably vote for the sort of politics that the good and the great know they should vote for.

The solution, therefore, is not separation of whites and blacks, but just, efficient, and swift law enforcement, preferably with offenders hanging by their necks from trees, something that democracy is unlikely to provide us because we have wound up with rule by those who steal the money of the productive to buy themselves the electorate they want. And the electorate that they want is on display in the above video.

20 Responses to “Blacks chimp out for Christmas”

  1. spandrell says:

    Still no good will ever come from blacks. Having them forces us to have a level of law enforcement higher than would be needed without them, and that’s a cost. Most whites wouldn’t like Singapore levels of law enforcement.
    Nothing good will ever come from blacks, why having them hanging around consuming resources? Let them eat each other in Africa.

    • jim says:

      That solution would never have occurred to Froude or Carlyle, because he took it for granted that whites should and would rule Africa.

      Singaporean enforcement is oppressive only because too many things are illegal. If, as in the old America, the only things that were illegal were things an ordinary respectable person would not do anyway, because they would be socially disapproved or physically dangerous, then the burden of severe law enforcement (hang ‘em all) falls entirely on the disreputable – who in the old America did not get to vote.

      • spandrell says:

        Well we are not ruling Africa nor will anytime soon. And even if we did, with today’s technology blacks aren’t useful even as menial labor, as Chinese business practice there shows. They are as productive as chimps.
        Singapore is run largely as a business, why would they allow blacks in? Of course you can make them behave, but you would still have to feed them. So they’re in jail either way.
        Just bribe them not to breed. Free abortion is the smartest policy in America seen in that light.

        • jim says:

          We are not ruling America either – but the same people as are ruling America, are ruling Haiti, Zimbabwe, and the rest of the muppet states

          As Mencius Moldbug tells us:

          What’s especially interesting is that when we step back and consider the history of the non-Western world since 1500, we see a broad trend that does not reverse course at all the 20th century. If anything, the 20th century is more of the same, only more so.

          We see four basic structures of government: native rule with private Western trade, native rule under the protection of chartered companies or other monopolies (like the East India Company, the British South Africa Company, Anaconda Copper, etc, etc), classic nationalized colonialism with indirect rule, and the postcolonial muppet states.

          Across all these stages, as time increases, we see the following trends. One, the non-European world becomes culturally and politically Westernized. Two, more and more Westerners are employed in the actual task of governing them. (I don’t know the ratio of aid workers today to colonial administrators 50 years ago, but I’m sure it’s tremendous.) And three, the profits accruing to the West from all of this activity dwindle away and are replaced by massive losses. (“Aid” is essentially a subsidy to the muppet states, which are to the old chartered companies as a Lada factory is to a Honda factory.)

          Were we once again to rule America, chances are that pretty soon we would be ruling Africa, whether we intended to or not. Some group would go to Africa to get diamonds or gold or cultivate the land or some such, the local wildlife would obstreperously get in the way, and they would end up managing the local wildlife.

          And even if we did, with today’s technology blacks aren’t useful even as menial labor, as Chinese business practice there shows. They are as productive as chimps

          Africa is immensely resource rich, its resources unutilized or under utilized, and the bell curve means that there is a significant minority of negroes that are actually quite useful. When Garnet Wolseley went to make the colonies safe from the Ashantee, he rapidly found that the local subjects of Queen Victoria were a useless encumbrance, much like the thornbushes or the mosquitoes, and came to rely primarily on white labor, but was soon mightily impressed by the leadership of the Ashantee empire, who he concluded were close enough to being his equals, and who, through brutal means that he was not allowed to use, were able to get something useful out of the local population.

          The problem is simply to sort out the capable from the incapable, the virtuous from the criminals, and hire the competent and virtuous to rule the useless so as to keep the useless out of the way.

          Harvard rules Africa, just as it rules the US. See Haiti for examples. In the US its rule is resisted to some extent by the business class and the military, which is why the US is not a total hellhole. In Africa, its rule its pretty much unresisted. Except for Botswana and Somalia, Africa south of the Sahara is a vacuum – there is nothing there except resources and wildlife, some of the wildlife being two legged.

          The Cathedral rule that businessmen leave Africa to the blacks is pretty much like their rule that businessmen leave Antarctica to the penguins – there is no local Antarctican army capable of making the rule stick.

          • spandrell says:

            Fair enough.

            Happy New Year Jim, I’ve learned a lot here. I think we’ll have a fun 2012.

          • jim says:

            Happy New Year

          • Bill says:

            The problem is simply to sort out the capable from the incapable, the virtuous from the criminals, and hire the competent and virtuous to rule the useless so as to keep the useless out of the way.

            The capable have children. Regression to the mean ensures that these children will rarely be capable. The tension this will cause is obvious. Right now, America manages this by a combination of elite nepotism, affirmative action, and marrying high performing black men to white women. These are not especially good solutions, though.

  2. red says:

    What you’re seeing in the video is more correctly defined as low level tribal warfare. What’s missing is whites being allowed to exert their own tribal warfare and beat the crap out of the rampaging tribe. If that was an unruly gang of skinheads it would have been all over within 5 minutes with a bunch of hardcore beatings.

    Most of the bad behavior we see in blacks is their lack of being able to form large cohesive groups. Their loyalty is limited to their current small group and even those bonds are very weak.

    The most interesting thing about the resent spat of chimpouts has been the lack of fatal violence and gang rapes. The black group violence of the 60s, 70s, and 80s were much more pronounced. I’m assuming the left decided to come down hard of real violent acts while they let the low level less violent stuff go unpunished. They essentially changed the ground rules while continuing encourage blacks to intimidate and harass white people.

  3. [...] Jim posted something today which at first may seem unrelated, but which makes my point better than I did: La Griffe du Lion finds that though the average criminality of blacks is substantially higher than that of whites, the variance is substantially lower. This predicts that under a firm and effective law enforcement environment, in which only the most criminally inclined misbehaved, a black majority area would be safer than a white majority area. However in a lax environment, in modern anarcho tyranny where everything has been criminalized, except crime, which has been decriminalized, the difference between blacks and the more evolved types of human is exceptionally visible, and the fact that no one can speak of it exceptionally ludicrous. . . . La Griffe Du Lion’s analysis shows that though the typical black is criminally inclined, and the typical white is not, the exceptionally and extraordinarily criminally inclined individual is typically white, not black. Just as very smart people are overwhelmingly male, due to the greater male variance in IQ, very criminal people are overwhelmingly white. . . . Singapore does not allow us to test this theoretical prediction, because by and large, they just don’t let black people in, however the America of the past does allow us to test this prediction, since back then, most crimes would get you immediately hung from a tree. Consistent with this prediction, we read Nehemiah Adams in “A Southside View of Slavery” telling us how peaceable and well behaved negroes are. Similarly, Froude in “The Bow of Ulysses” never pays the slightest attention to whether or not he is in an all black area. Carlyle in “Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question” remarks on how negroes thrive under white rule and are made into good people, and argues that God and/or Nature makes it the duty of whites to so rule backs for the good of their souls, and if not so ruled, blacks will prey upon each other. . . . The solution, therefore, is not separation of whites and blacks, but just, efficient, and swift law enforcement, preferably with offenders hanging by their necks from trees, something that democracy is unlikely to provide us because we have wound up with rule by those who steal the money of the productive to buy themselves the electorate they want. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

  4. Bill says:

    There are some problems with that analysis by Griffe. You can see it, first, in the DC data point. DC’s blacks have such a great over representation likely for reasons of selection. DC blacks are a conventional Northern urban ghetto black population. DC whites are a bunch of PhDs and JDs who work for the gvt. I exaggerate, of course. I think this is a serious problem generally, though. High ability whites migrate to liberal places, ’cause that’s where the universities and big governments are. Those places also tend to have conventionally criminal black populations.

    Second, blacks are over represented among serial killers. If we take this to be the most extreme form of criminality, Griffe’s analysis would seem to suggest white over representation.

    Third, very aggressive law enforcement should make white rates of imprisonment lower than black. I don’t believe this has been the case ever, even when law enforcement was very aggressive in the US.

    • jim says:

      Third, very aggressive law enforcement should make white rates of imprisonment lower than black. I don’t believe this has been the case.

      I get the impression that in the nineteenth century, it was the case.

      When Carlyle denounces black characteristics, and concludes that they need to be enslaved to improve their moral character, he does not mention a propensity to criminality. A disproportionate rate of imprisonment among the recently freed blacks of the West Indies would surely be compelling support for his case. Reading old books that address the black problem, often in terms that are today horrifyingly politically incorrect, the writers do not seem to have any concern that presence of white ruled blacks indicates the presence of lawlessness. Carlyle specifically argues that blacks, unlike other savage races, can be tamed, and that white colonialists do tame them. He does not specifically compare them with whites, but he does specifically compare them with all other primitives.

  5. rob says:

    While many of your observations regarding the behavior of certain ethnic sub-groups are correct, I believe you are over-emphasizing the genetic component (nature) vs the environmental/social components (nurture) without having justified your emphasis.

    For a very interesting exploration of the devastating effects of liberal welfare-state thinking on the lower classes I invite you to read “Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass” by Theodore Dalrymple (here’s a link to the amazon page for it: http://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes-Underclass/dp/1566635055/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325634652&sr=8-1 . Its worth noting that the subjects studied in his book are overwhelmingly white, and that race does not seem to be a major factor at all. Instead, it’s the culture and worldview of moral relativism and victim-hood that seem to be the primary factors trapping these people in a sub-human situation.

    • jim says:

      The welfare state has a disproportionate effect on certain races, increasing, rather than decreasing, innate differences.

      The British ruling class have been immensely more successful in creating a white underclass than the American ruling class. Nonetheless, in the recent British underclass riots, the rioters where overwhelmingly black. In every video I saw where there was arson, violence, vandalism, or theft, the rioters were 100% black, despite totalitarian efforts to make whites underclass.

      In the US, the underclass is a lot blacker than in Britain. To a good approximation, if someone is underclass, he is black or hispanic. If someone is white, he is not underclass.

      The US elite spend an immense amount of energy sneering at rednecks, pretending to themselves that they have a white underclass, like the much envied Britain.

      But in redneck areas (white rural working class) we see unattended shops – you are invited to come in, take stuff and leave the money in the box. Conversely, in rural Hispanic areas, farms are forts under attack from depraved howling savages, who will smash anything they can find in the hope of picking up some scrap metal from the wreckage.

      • rob says:

        I just don’t see any evidence that there is significant difference between races once cultural upbringing is accounted for. There may be studies that show differences, but they cannot really control for upbringing can they? I don’t see how they can unless they are studying children of one race who have been brought up outside their home culture. Are there such studies? Otherwise there is no way to prove whether any differences were the results of genetic not cultural factors.

        And even if such a study were done and showed differences, who cares? Why focus on that? The people of different races are still more alike than they are different. We’re all humans. Whats the point of searching for and focusing on genetics which are out of anyone’s control rather than focusing on societal and social factors which we possibly can change?

        My own experience with blacks in particular doesn’t at all support the idea that they’re inferior at all. Granted, I have mostly had experience with and been friends with black people who have rejected mainstream black/ghetto culture, and haven’t hung out with the ghetto types, but that supports my experience race is not the major factor, it is mental outlook formed by upbringing and also, importantly, self determination and choice. We all, including blacks, have free will and can become better people if we work at it. It seems to me that it makes more sense to focus on mental and philosophical viewpoint which we have a choice about rather than our genetics over which we have no control.

        And of focusing on differences between people, why even choose race? Why not talk about stupid or immoral people in general, of which there are plenty in every race? Or why not focus on breastfed vs non-breastfeed people? Or fluoridated water drinkers vs those who don’t drink fluoridated water? There is solid evidence that fluoride and lack of breast feeding affect intelligence.

        Not to mention that you alienate a lot of people by focusing on race. Is race really important enough to sabotage your chance of reaching a wider audience with your ideas?

        • jim says:

          just don’t see any evidence that there is significant difference between races once cultural upbringing is accounted for.

          Obviously marriage, fatherhood, and regular employment will produce lower levels of crime – but then one must ask why blacks are more vulnerable than whites to welfare state policies and marital law that punishes marriage, fatherhood, and regular employment.

          If culture makes a difference, we should see two peoples of the same race and similar levels of law enforcement, but very different histories and cultures, with very different crime levels.

          I don’t see this. There a vast number of peoples with different histories and cultures, but for a given race and level of law enforcement, crime rates are roughly similar. Detroit is extremely violent, umpteen different black races and cultures with different languages and histories in South Africa are extremely violent, the Congo is extremely violent, Haiti is extremely violent, Jamaica is extremely violent, and so on and so forth.

          These are places with very different languages and histories. If black crime is caused by culture, where is the good culture that reduces crime? The only places with large numbers of blacks but low levels of black violence are places like Saudi Arabia, where they liberally apply floggings and beheadings. That culture works, but I doubt that that is what you had in mind.

          Why focus on that?

          The government is enforcing equal outcomes on unequal people, which enforcement punishes innocent people and destroys lives and wealth.

          We just lost around a trillion dollars in large part due to affirmative action lending, and everyone is piously averting their eyes. You can find figures on interest rates by race, loans by race, mortgage terms by race, but you cannot find figures on defaults by race. Simply snooping around indicates that defaults are overwhelmingly racial, that the vast majority of money lost was lost in big money loans to blacks and hispanics, which indicates that the vast majority of losses were due to affirmative action lending. Theoretically standards were lowered for everyone, regardless of race, but somehow the great majority of loans to total deadbeats were made to nonwhite deadbeats – mostly by Hispanics marketing loans to Hispanics.

          People of all races are suffering due to black violence tolerated by the state. Facilities are closed due to black mob violence – malls, discos, movie theaters. Most blacks would welcome the kind of “racist” law enforcement that would enable theaters, discos, and malls to stay open in and near black areas.

          Observe what happened to Detroit.

          Blacks benefit more than whites from firm law enforcement. It does not follow that punishments for black criminals should be more severe than punishments for white criminals – obviously a white criminal who commits a particular crime is just as bad as a black criminal who commits the same crime and needs to be punished just the same, but law enforcement needs to address the fact that there are more black criminals, that a black man is more likely to behave criminally. The chief beneficiaries of such selective enforcement, the chief beneficiaries of profiling, would be blacks, who are the group most severely disadvantaged by the closure of facilities, and the group most likely to be victims of crime. The government service that blacks need a lot more of, and are not getting, is law enforcement against real crimes. Supplying that service to those that need it most, is profiling, that is to say, racism, which is why they are not getting it.

          And of focusing on differences between people, why even choose race?

          Well there is also Islam. but I think you would like me talking about that even less.

          These are differences that get people killed, and about which discussion is forbidden, and lies are compulsory.

          And there is also gender, which seldom gets people killed, but does result in the state applying savage violence to innocent people, destroying their lives and confiscating their property. And again, discussion is forbidden, and lies are compulsory.

          I talk about gender differences also, and I think that if you read my writings on gender, you would like them even less than my writings on race and religion.

          Not to mention that you alienate a lot of people by focusing on race. Is race really important enough to sabotage your chance of reaching a wider audience with your ideas?

          I don’t focus on race. I attack equalist myths across the board – and I doubt you would be happy with any of my criticisms of any of the equalist myths.

        • Bill says:

          I just don’t see any evidence that there is significant difference between races once cultural upbringing is accounted for . . . Are there such studies?

          The best evidence is probably the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, which was about race and IQ.

          Another piece of evidence is Prince George’s County, MD. If you are old enough, you remember thumb-sucker stories in news magazines (both print and TV) in the 80s about “the black middle class.” They featured neighborhoods in PGC full of neat suburban houses inhabited by black families in which the parent(s) worked for the federal government. Allegedly, these neighborhoods were going to show all the bigots that black people, elevated to middle class incomes, neighborhoods, and schools, were going to produce subsequent generations who were just like middle class whites. Didn’t work out that way.

          Another piece of evidence is that on a variety of outcomes, IQ, grades, violence, the children of black professionals do worse than the children of white high school graduates.

          None of these are at all easy to explain using “culture” unless your definition of “culture” expands to meaninglessness.

          My own experience with blacks in particular doesn’t at all support the idea that they’re inferior at all.

          This seems to be one of the drawbacks of segregation. I call it the Yglesias effect—whites generally, and high SES whites especially, have no experience with unselected groups of blacks. If you had significant experience with unselected groups of blacks and whites, you would not be able to say what you are saying honestly.

          And of focusing on differences between people, why even choose race?

          This is a very good question. Talking about race honestly is taboo in the modern West. First, this opens up an opportunity for fringe ideologies—people very naturally are curious about and interested in race, and, since the general culture has forsworn honest dialogue, talking about race is a way to attract eyeballs. Second, it gives the fringe ideologue an opportunity to signal that he is honest. If you are so committed to the truth that you are willing to run the risk of telling this taboo truth, then it’s more likely that you are honest on other topics. Third, the fact that the current system has this taboo is an indication that it needs lies in this area. So, telling the truth is a kind of monkey-wrenching.

          • jim says:

            Rob:

            My own experience with blacks in particular doesn’t at all support the idea that they’re inferior at all.

            Bill:

            This seems to be one of the drawbacks of segregation.

            Blacks that show up at university are seldom conspicuously badly behaved. But that they are less sharp in mean and distribution than those around them is more noticeable at university than outside, and more noticeable at elite universities than at lesser universities. Thus though people whose experience is of affirmative actioned blacks might well believe that blacks are not inherently violent and criminal, the broader claim that “my own experience with blacks in particular doesn’t at all support the idea that they’re inferior at all” is improbable. He might well believe that blacks are only inferior because of racism capitalism imperialism pollution and blah blah blah, that those poor blacks affirmative actioned into the best universities appear to be a bit on the dim side merely because they are victims of racism. But “not inferior at all”? Rob is not telling the truth about his experiences and beliefs.

          • spandrell says:

            “But “not inferior at all”? Rob is not telling the truth about his experiences and beliefs.”

            A guy who spells ‘victim-hood’ isn’t any brighter than a random black college student. He might be black for all I know.

          • jim says:

            “Victim-hood” is incorrect because “victim hood” is incorrect, has an inappropriate meaning, but when you write something and press the button, you don’t get a chance to check it. If he did not recognize the error, he is stupid. If he failed to notice the error, not an indication of stupidity.

            I think appropriate use of less common words, and the concise expression of non stereotyped ideas is a better indicator of intelligence than mistakes that may be typos or forgetfulness. Because his statements are conventional, hard to assess intelligence from his writing. So many people say almost the same thing in almost the same words. It is like a communist protectively proclaiming Marxist boilerplate.

          • Laxman says:

            “The key is group identity, not emoconics.”The underlying driving force is tribal warfare but emoconics is one of the battlegrounds on which it is taking place.”Jews (and blacks, latinos, asians, …) are well aware of their group interests and organize politically to pursue them”They don’t though. Jews do yes and currently latinos and asians maybe but non-immigrant blacks, which is the group the first poster used as an example, don’t benefit from mass immigration. They get thrown anti-white cultural bones and AA for now to keep them onside but they’re in the process of being thrown under the bus in favor of latinos.Everyone is being played here except the Jews. The white elites who are going along with it for money are being played, the white majority obviously are being played, blacks are being played etc.Even latinos, although on the surface they are being given America by the Jews they’re not being given the same America. They’re being given the future Brazil version of America with a billion people living in slums. At the moment they may be getting a taste of the old prosperous America but their future in America is exactly the same as their past in Mexico – poverty and slums – simply because of numbers. The borders won’t suddenly close when white people are a minority. They’ll stay open until the new Americans are as poor as the Jews want them to be.Like i say. Everyone is being played.(This isn’t generally relevant to the position of this blog. It’s a specific response to Mr Weisel’s point about the gop/democrat puppet show.)

Leave a Reply