The primitive predators that inhabit America
(Reader Mark E. strongly objects to this blog entry, and I reply to him, below. While I defend my position, I point out that I had a phrase in the initial entry, “left end of the black bell curve,” which I intended impressionistically or wholistically, but which, when taken literally to refer just to IQ, produced serious misunderstanding.)
In Rotterdam, New York, two black women followed an 88 year old woman from a mall to her apartment. Then, according to police, they punched the woman and threw bleach in her eyes (I assume liquid bleach, but the story doesn’t say), and took off with her credit card.
At the Capital News 9 website, the news story has photos of the bleach-in-the-eyes-throwing perpettes, who, as is typical for such criminals, were arrested almost immediately afterward, using the victim’s credit card to buy $450 worth of clothing. No word on how the victim is doing, but the story promises updates.
Throughout our society, there are physically powerful, mentally deficient, and morally depraved black people like Tiffany Tolliver and Dominique Lucas walking around at liberty, ready to strike. The reason our society is not much more dangerous and violent than it is, is the extremely high number of physically powerful, mentally deficient, and morally depraved blacks in jail. You know, they’re the ones who, according to USA Today, “find themselves living in a prison cell [rather] than in a college dormitory.”
Undercover Black Man will say that I’m smearing all blacks. I am not. But, for all our sakes, let us for once be honest about the specific nature of the left end of the black bell curve, shall we?
- end of initial entry -
Ben W. writes:
Just read “Why I’m fleeing South Africa.” by Anne Paton, the widow of Alan Paton—referenced by a VFR poster. Confirms my earlier email that they will revert to what they have always been. They do so in Africa and they do so in the USA. We have been suckers to have been duped by these civil rights scammers here in America and throughout the world.
They roam the streets of South Africa in violence just as they roam the halls of schools in America. There is no difference—especially when schools have become police stations in the U.S.
LA replies:
Anne Paton’s article was written in 1998, just four years after the onset of black rule. That’s how quickly the country descended in a reign of black anarchy and violence.
Bill in Maryland writes:
Mr Auster writes: “Anne Paton’s article was written in 1998, just four years after the onset of black rule [in South Africa]. That’s how quickly the country descended in a reign of black anarchy and violence.”
To get some idea of the extent of violent crime in South Africa, consider the following. According to a recent LA Time article, there were 18,528 murders in SA in 2006, a national rate of 42 per 100,000 per year. That is the typical number for a city that wins the U.S. “Murder Capital” award (eg Baltimore, D.C. or Detroit, recently New Orleans). But 42 is the national rate for South Africa. However, the problem is not blacks, here or in Africa or Europe; the problem is not Hispanics or Muslims either; the problem is always and only whites, and their destructive illusions.
Mark E. writes:
This is not one of your finest posts. You write so much so well that is so valuable, and then you throw in this junk. It’s like the hot dog on the kiddie menu at a fine restaurant. Do you ever wonder how many potentially open minds you drive away from your site and all the rest of your arguments with this kind of thing?
How does this story prove anything about, allegedly, “what’s wrong with blacks”?
And then why are all the follow-up posts about South Africa? Relevance, anyone? So, the U.S. is just like South Africa? Well, there’s some patriotism and national pride!
You are not smearing all blacks with the same brush, but your reader sure is when he says “they will revert to what they have always been”? That so? OK, what have whites “always been”? When white sports-fan mobs commit mass mayhem, are they reverting to what “they have always been”? Or is that their hidden blackness showing itself?
So if this is “how blacks are,” because they are black, then why did Hobbes call man’s life “nasty, brutish and short”? And what of Swift’s Yahoos?
What does “intelligence” have to do with virtue? What does “race” have to do with virtue? What does “genetics” have to do with virtue?
Why does Jesus never say, “Blessed are the more intelligent”? Nor, “Suffer the genetically superior to come to me”? Why did Jesus not recruit his disciples from amongst the learned Scribes but from the lower orders? Why did Jesus associate with criminals—whores, thieves?
Here is a recent news story, from the same geographic area as Rotterdam NY, reported on the same day as your post here about this horrific mugging, this one about a woman arrested for snorting cocaine off her baby’s stomach and having sex with men and smoking crack while her children were in the car. Not as bad as the horrific mugging of the old lady, perhaps; but then again, perhaps some may agree, worse in its own way.
Guess what “race” this woman is? Guess what socio-economic class she is from? And what do we know about this woman’s level of “IQ”? Can we make any inference about where on the “bell curve” is this woman’s level of testable “intelligence”? (The answers are: white; her father is a wealthy racehorse owner; nothing; no.)
Can we tell by looking at her picture that she is a “criminal type”? No. (Sorry, there is no picture of her online or I would have included it.) Rather, to look at her, one would never know. (Other than the fact that the photo was taken shortly after her arrest and her face shows it.)
Being “smart” is the No. 1 liberal value today. Clinton is “smart” (like me!), but Bush is “stupid” (like all those other fundamentalist hayseed dimwits I am constrained to call fellow citizens). Therefore, Clinton is better than Bush. QED. Liberals are better because they are smarter, don’t you agree? Given what you say here, how can you not?
There is nothing conservative or traditionalist or Christian in the over-valuation of IQ and “intelligence”—or of “race”—as determinants of moral conduct or any other cardinal virtue. I need no studies or statistics to assert, with perfect confidence, that lower intelligence is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of criminality and wickedness. And neither is “race.”
And by the way—Why is it that when you write about blacks it is all about “race”; but when you write about Muslims it is all about belief? In other words, why are you a “racialist” about blacks, but a pure “propositionalist” about Muslims?
LA replies:
First of all, I see where Mark’s misunderstanding of my post comes from. It’s in my phrase: “[L]et us for once be honest about the specific nature of the left end of the black bell curve, shall we?” That makes it sound as though I’m speaking of the IQ bell curve and saying that all blacks with low IQ are dangerous criminals. That was not my intention and I’m sorry for giving that impression. By bell curve I meant a cumulative bell curve relating to a complex of qualities and behaviors: intelligence, law abidingness, restraint of impulse, morality, and so on. By left end of the bell curve I meant the worst segment of the black population. I should not have used bell curve in this context.
To reply to Mark’s specific objections, I was not equating IQ with virtue, and have never done so. I have never used phrases such as “genetic superiority.” I have never spoken of one race being “superior” or “inferior” to another. I have never spoken of racial differences in any way as to suggest that whites are especially virtuous. I have repeatedly written about the depravity in the white population as well. I do, however, say that there are intrinsic racial differences in civilizational abilities. Perhaps Mark has not read my article, “My views on racial differencesd in intelligence,” where I show why I believe this.
Mark is greatly simplifying my position (though, as I pointed out above, I gave him grounds for doing so) when he suggests that I have said that IQ or intelligence or race are “determinants of moral conduct or any other cardinal virtue.” I have never said anything like that. I have never said that white people because they are white are more virtuous than people of other races.
At the same time, low IQ does correlate with criminality and other negative behaviors. Since Mark seems unfamiliar with the facts about IQ, I strongly recommend that he read The Bell Curve, especially Part II where the authors, while not referring to race at all, show how IQ correlates with a vast range of socio-economically significant behaviors. This is must reading on the subject of IQ.
Mark asks why I am a “racialist” about blacks but a “propositionaist” about Muslims. I guess he means why do I emphasize Muslims’ beliefs, and blacks’ race? Obviously because we’re dealing with two different phenomena. Mideastern Muslims are racially different from us, as are all non-European peoples, but the difference that most matters in the case of Muslims is the difference over religion. Islam is sui generis. It represents an eternal threat to us. And therefore I say that Islam has no place in the West. I have never said that black people have no place in the West. But blacks are racially different from whites, they do have lesser civilizational abilities than whites, and therefore the more blacks there are in relation to whites in a society, or the more power blacks have, or the more whites accommodate black sensibilities or seek to make racial outcomes equal, the more the society is going to go downhill. My position on race relations in Ameica is that whites need to be the majority and to behave as the majority, as I wrote in my article, “What is European America?”
So, if I was not doing the things Mark accuses me of doing in the blog entry to which he objects, what was I doing? I was describing a specific, identifiable human type: blacks who are physically powerful, mentally deficient, and morally depraved. This is not all blacks, it is not a majority of blacks, it is not a large minority of blacks. It is, however, a definite and signficant subset of the black population. They are primitive, violent predators who are only kept from killing us by the presence of police and prisons. We see them on the street. They stare out at us every week from the pages of crime stories in newspapers. It is a reality in our society. In a white-and-black society, such as South Africa or the United States, this is an ever-present threat and danger.
Whites used to be aware of this threat and this ever-present potential of black mayhem, and they took it seriously. The whites of South Africa handled it by a system of racial superiority and separation. That collapsed, and now the life of whites in South Africa is as described in the article by Anne Paton; a life lived under the constant terror and frequently reality of black robbery, rape, and murder, which was not the case before. The United States handled it through segregation and racial discrimination. That ended, and now the whole society is prey to black predators, which was not the case before. These are facts. I don’t think it’s immoral to state these facts. What I think is immoral is to ignore and suppress them.
As I wrote in January 2007, when the news of the Knoxville atrocity first came out, in which a young white couple, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, were kidnapped off the street by a band of blacks, taken to a building, raped and tortured for several days, and finally murdered:
Could this have happened in pre-1960s America? No, and especially not in the South, because white society was frankly on guard against this very sort of thing, and held the black population under a rule and a discipline. That rule went too far, especially in the Jim Crow laws that required racial discrimination. But how tragic and ironic that because of white racial discrimination against blacks, and because of racial atrocities by whites such as the murder of Emmett Till, whites in a fit of liberal guilt went to the other extreme, erasing the consciousness of racial realities altogether, and thus rendering themselves, and especially their young women, naive and innocent and helpless before black savagery. For decades, black murderers and rapists have been committing violent crimes against whites that in numbers and in pure savagery are orders of magnitude beyond anything that whites ever did or remotely imagined doing to blacks in the 1950s. Yet, far from taking measures to stop this racial phenomenon of black predation of whites, white society doesn’t even recognize its existence.
Ben W. writes:
Since I wrote the post Mark E. is referring to, I will respond as well.
First, Mark E. writes, “Why did Jesus associate with criminals—whores, thieves?”
Let’s be careful how the word “asssociate” is used. Jesus spoke to them to convert them—the operative word is “repentance,” not to convene with them. “Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand” was his message. Not a convocation or assembly or association of pimps and whores. He didn’t buddy up to them to maintain them in their current state.
How do blacks “revert?” Their current behaviour in South Africa is a reversion to a pre-civilized state of being in spite of the fact that they now hold governmental power. They existed in a certain state of being prior to Western civilization (which is based on law and order) and they are now reverting to a pre-Westernized order of civilization.
What is the relevance of South Africa? It was assumed that once blacks were released from the system of Apartheid, their behaviour previously constrained by white power would now become a shining example of humanity behaving responsible and intelligently once freed from shackles. Not quite … in fact quite far from that liberal myth …
How does this equate with the U.S.? There is an article by an eminent black economist and journalist bemoaning the fact that schools in Detroit have been turned into police stations because black students are roaming the halls violently. In both cases, the common denominator is race—specifically the black race. Anyone not seeing this must be wilfully blind!
Intelligence definitely does correlate to morals. The Book of Proverbs is full of statements equating morality with wisdom. Intelligence is a quotient of wisdom. Mark E.’s smug assertion that intelligence doesn’t determine morality is not biblical at all. The love of God and man is predicated on knowledge—“know my statues,” “know my laws,” “know Me,” “if you had known my father”—the list is endless. In fact the Book of Isaiah states that in the end, “they will know Me and knowledge will flow just as the seas cover the earth.”
Since it appears that Mark E. wrote out of his sense of fairness to blacks (is this fairness ever reciprocated by them?), his statement that “then you throw in this junk” could be equally turned on itself. Why does Mark E. throw in his junk?
An Indian living in the West writes:
Theres a problem with urban blacks in the UK as well from what my friends tell me. Probably just as much as in America. New Cross in South London is now almost completely black from what I hear. See this and this.
Do not let people who are easily offended by difficult questions influence you into not writing about these issues. These issues need to be raised and discussed frankly and honestly. They should not be a taboo subject.
LA replies:
Thank you for the encouraging words.
Ben W. writes:
One thing that I failed to convey is that Mark E. uses a form of “moral equivalence” argumentation when he brings up the issue of white mob action (“when white sports-fan mobs commit mass mayhem”). This is not equivalent to killing. We were discussing the murders being committed in South Africa and the use of knives and guns in American schools. A hooligan white sports mob (in itself not excusable) does not selectively and consciously kill (nor carry deadly weapons). Overturning a car is not the same as murder. There are degrees of seriousness.
“Moral equivalence” argumentation is a rhetorical ploy used for example in equating Israeli self-defense with Muslim terrorism.
Also Mark E.’s refusal to acknowledge the relationship between civilization and race is a harmful attitude in defense of Western civilization. Western civilization is not a freakish accident of history but a long and noble attempt by societies to bring chaos and anarchy under control. The Bible acknowledges this nobility; Paul asserts that the state is a God-ordained institution (and this was said in his day about Rome and Roman law). So there is a lineage from Rome (from Greece) to Western Christian civilization that is being undone in the name of tribal primitivism (a refusal to acknowledge intelligence, history and civilization).
I forgot one additional note about knowledge and morality. The Biblical commandment reads in part, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy mind…” Paul told the Galatians that he feared that they were going to be deceived—which is an aspect of mind and knowledge (he says “Know ye not?”. So there is a tight correlation between knowledge and morality.
Finally I find no problem in assigning animalistic behavior to people. Paul says somewhere that he “escaped those beasts in Ephesus”—the mob that was after him. Even the apostle Peter likens some people to pigs who have returned to their swinish behavior.
LA replies:
I think Ben is overstating the connection between knowledge and morality. He almost sounds as if he’s equating IQ with the knowledge spoken of in the Bible. Yes, true knowledge, knowledge of the good, is connected with morality. And people who are greatly deficient in intelligence, with very low IQs, will have trouble understanding basic moral concepts. But leaving aside those with very low intelligence, isn’t it the case that all people have the same basic capability of morality?
Michael K. writes:
Exactly what is Mark E. implying when he refers to your post on black crime as “junk”? What’s his point? That blacks on average are not far more violent and criminal than whites? Is he so estranged from reality that he actually believes this? I suggest that he read “The Color of Crime” series from AR.
Or is he saying that even if blacks on average are far more violent and criminal than whites, it’s “racist” to point this out because whites also commit violent and other serious crimes and most blacks aren’t violent criminals.This is like arguing that since women and girls also commit violent crimes, it’s “sexist” to observe that males on average are far more violent and criminal than females. Does Mark E. believe that it’s evil, bigoted, immoral, and “hateful” to observe this salient and indisputable reality. And if not, why?
In fact, as noted in “The Color of Crime,” blacks are as much more violent and dangerous than whites as males are more violent and dangerous than females. Put differently: with the exception of rape and violent sexual assault, race is as crucial a determinant of violent and predatory crime as sexual differentiation.
Proportionally, if blacks are 10-11 times more likely than whites to commit murder (with males committing roughly 90% of black homicides), and males are 9 times more likely to commit murder than females, that means that black males are roughly 80-90 times more likely to commit murder than white females. And so, too, with aggravated assaults, muggings, armed robberies, etc.
But if blacks commit violent crimes at 10 times the white rate and black females commit some 10% of such offenses, that means that black females on average are roughly as violent and criminal as white males and that inner-city black females (such as the two mentioned in your post) are far more violent and criminal than white males generally!
Now compare blacks to “Asians,” i.e., Orientals such as Japanese, Koreans, Chinese. Proportionally, black males are probably 200-300 times more likely to commit violent crimes than Oriental females, yet black females are more violent and criminal than Oriental males!
What more proof do you need that blacks as a group are singularly violent, and that this distinctiveness is largely congenital.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 03, 2007 12:22 AM | Send