Monthly Archives: August 2016

Jim Crow was ended in the mid-1960s with the CRA (1964), the VRA (1965), and the FHA (1968). At the same time LBJ began the War on Poverty. The crack epidemic exploded from 1984-86. The ADAA was enacted in 1986, ramping up the War on Drugs (which, though started in the 1960’s, had been minimal up until this point).

Crime

Homicides of black men exploded in the 1960’s, slowly dropped in the 1970-80’s, and plummeted in the 1990’s, after the US started throwing them in jail en masse. (The top line is black men, the middle is black women, the two grey lines are whites). (I couldn’t find comparable data on violent crime in general, everything I found only went back to the 70’s).

The black incarceration rates began to grow among younger black men in the 1960’s and among all black by the late 1970’s. The black prison admission rate (different from the incarceration rates) was in a slight but steady decline from 1945 to about 1970. It exploded in the late 1970s (prior to the ADAA).

Economics

Poverty rates for blacks (Figure 1.2) declined from ~67% in 1947 to ~35% in 1969ish. At about 1970, they leveled off until the early 90’s, and dropped through the 1990’s (as welfare was reformed and more were imprisoned). They rose slightly through the 2000’s.

Labour force participation for black men declined by over 10 percentage points in the 1970’s. (Figure 5.3)

Black median family income rose steadily prior to 1970: doubling from 1950 to 1970. From 1970 until the 1990’s black family incomes remained steady and did not grow.

Black business districts thrived under Jim Crow restrictions which prevented competition from whites. During and after desegregation, black business districts declined as competition opened up and young middle-class blacks left for greener pastures.

Family

Prior to 1970, both black men and women were more likely to be married than their white counterparts. Following this, marriage rates dropped.

The black illegitimacy rate exploded starting in the mid-1960’s until the mid-1950’s, where it evened out. One major cause has been the decline (from 30-40% to prior to 1965 to < 10% since 1980) of shotgun weddings (Figure 2). The percentage of premarital birhts has doubled since the early 1960’s (Table 1: 36.1 to 76.9). The percentage of black children in single-parent households has doubled since 1960 (although, this trend is universal). Family intactness has plummeted since 1950, far mree than among whites.

****

During segregation, blacks had relatively intact families, relatively functional and safe communities, and were seeing strong economic growth. Following desegregation (and the War on Poverty), crime and the resultant incarceration, exploded, the black family collapsed, and economic growth stalled. This collapse was only halted after the welfare reforms and mass incarceration of blacks of the late 80’s and early 90’s.

Middle-class blacks abandoned traditionally black neighbourhoods, while lower-class blacks stayed behind, while the War on Poverty incentivized vice. The minority of middle-class blacks have generally benefited from greater opportunity but the stats above speak about happened to blacks and black communities on the whole.

I wonder: if you asked blacks if they’d be willing to live in neighbourhoods and socialize apart from whites in exchange for lower crime, less imprisonment, better economic prospects, and stronger families, how they respond?

Lightning Round – 2016/08/24

Civilization and dysgenics.

The priest-warrior conflict.

Protecting the consumers.

White privilege and race relations.

Lesbos and immigration.

A response to Searle.

Visual pwnage.

Israel is the top cuck point.

Chimpanzees, the Congo, and war.

Sam Francis on masculinity.

Trump: A little too bright.
Related: Conservatives don’t get it.

How PAC’s murdered the Tea Party.

America was never a nation of immigrants.

On the Gini coefficient.

A review of the Master and the Margarita.

Surrender.

The condensed red pill.

Feminist witch hunts are rape.

Game: the gateway drug.

The tax gap.

Of course Hillary is ill.

The unruly coalition.

The implacable enemy.

The media contacts VD.

Wright comments on the Hugo winners.
Related: VD’s comments.
Related: The Morlocks Morlock.
Related: More Hugo thoughts.

The Birth of a Rapist/The Rape of a Nation.

Lawful gun owners commit less than a fifth of all gun crimes.

Sailer in the Washington Post.

The big 6: the Olmecs.
Related: China, treasure ships, and eunuchs.

Lightning Round – 2016/08/18

Right-wing intersectionality.

What talk of tradition really means.
Related: Conservatism is a feeling, not an ideology.

The West should consider Christ’s victory.

One man, one vote, one time.
Related: The decline of white America.
Related: Where did the London British go?
Related: New Jersey enjoys the fruits of tolerance.

Gazing at the black Madonna.

Detroit vs. Hiroshima.
Related: Gentrification or revitalization.

The soldier of industry.

Off-shoring and “our” economy.

A letter to Ukraine.

The forest and the Faustian soul.

The will to not power.

Common Core explained; it is sabotage.

Elite conversion to Islam.

The peasants are revolting.

Where to for the conservative media?

Progressivism and the left coalition.

The political economy of Starship Troopers.

Politics as gossip.

The evil of innocents abroad.

Why don’t we evangelize the rich?

The fruits of cuckservative Christianity.

Why women sleep with chads.

Vox debates marital rape.

The smart girl penalty.

The thousand cuck stare.
Related: On Caplan and Shapiro.
Related: Ben Shapiro is glad you hate him.

On human evolution.

Danes live better in the US.

Don’t you know who I am?

Pity the millennials.
Related: Boomers learned nothing.
Related: The stock market is too small for boomers to retire.

The SJW narrative sale.

How you can identify a sociopath.

How to identify the brainwashed.

How to surrender to the cops.

On stopping power.

Reality TV and the fall of civilization.

The Indus Valley civilization.
Related: Norte Chico.

H/T: NBS

Competing with Porn

No woman they could meet at the coffee shop or on the church camping trip could possibly compete with these perfectly toned, perfectly undemanding models.

That quote comes from a First Things article (H/T: CC) about men who game instead of work and get married. This claim that women are competing with porn comes up a lot from feminists, women, and conservative commentators. I know this particular commentor is male, but I’ve seen it many times before from females as well.

This claim always stuck me as odd. Why would real women, living beings of flesh and blood divinely molded to be beuatiful, think they’re competing with digital masturbation aids? Even odder, why do so many women think this is a difficult competition and that they are losing to a collection of moving pixels?

Let’s unpack it.

The first thing this claim presupposes is that the only method of competition for men women have is sex. Porn provides sexual release and little else; by making the claim women are competing and losing to porn, one is making the claim that women have nothing to offer but sex. Supposing (falsely) for a moment porn provided a far superior sexual experience to actual sex, there are still many areas a real woman could compete where a video and a fleshlight, or even a full-fledged futuristic sexdoll, couldn’t.

This gets back to what I’ve mentioned before. A real women can offer many things beyond sex that no porn could hope to match: kindness, sympathy, comfort, joyfulness, beauty, encouragement, submissiveness, softness, feeling like a man, a warm home, a good meal, a family, etc. These all require inner beauty, which feminism is actively trying to destroy. With feminine virtues being all but destroyed, sexiness is all that’s left. The tough, independent, argumentative, “intelligent”, high moxie, career-oriented failed-man-with-tits has nothing to offer a man but sexiness.

I can see feminists fearing competition from sexbots, but conservatives and Christians should know better, and teach their young women feminine virtues that will attract a man.

This claim presupposes is that porn is competitive with real sex with a real woman. While I’ve mentioned before the incentives against marriage and that masturbating into future sexbots may be superior to normal masturbation, no sex, or sex with unattractive fatties, all things being equal sex is better than masturbation by a very wide margin. There might be a couple addicts out there who prefer porn, but the vast majority of men would rather have sex.

Porn is an inferior substitute good for sex. If porn is competing with women over providing sexual release to men, something is definitely wrong. The most likely explanation is that there is no competition, because the man’s sexual needs aren’t being provided for in this because he can not obtain a wife or girlfriend (or in marriage, because his wife is not providing). Relatedly, he might have been burned in this area by women (or his wife) in the past and have given up on trying to obtain sex. The next most likely is obesity, men many might choose porn over sex with someone fat if fatties were all he could get or if his wife was fat. After that, it’s that the man is a perverted porn addict.

In neither of the first three cases are women competing with porn: they’re either not competing or they’re competing with their own poor habits. I think the last case is likely rare; I know of few men who would choose porn over even an average young girl for sex, 3DPD jokes aside.

Next, the claim of “perfectly-toned” girls, is missing the mark. From what I am given to understand (I can’t remember where I read it, possibly 28 Sherman), the porn business model has been moving away from toned, big-breasted, blonde bimbos for a while now. Porn is trending towards “amateur” girls-next-door and the personal cam-girl business model. Even the higher-end prostitution model is moving away from simple paid sex to the girlfriend experience.

Men’s fantasies are orienting less towards hot sex with unattainable bombshells and more towards intimacy with a normally pretty, seemingly attainable girl. The competition, if it exists, is not over just the penis, but over the heart as well. Which brings us back to the point made on the first assumption. Women can compete on a lot more than just being hot, and if not being “perfectly-toned” disqualifies them, then they are lacking feminine virtue that would make them marriageable in the first place.

Finally, while no women can be “perfectly undemanding”, their demands can be reasonable and in line with what they bring to the table. Porn demands nothing, but it also gives very little: temporary, unfulfilling sexual release. As partially listed above, there is a voluminous list of things a woman can bring to the table that porn simply can not do. With the amount extra they can provide a man, they can easily demand a reasonable amount. If they disincentivize themselves out of the marriage market by being too demanding (or more accurately, too demanding in the wrong areas) to such an extent that porn, with the primary virtue of being “undemanding”, can compete and win against them, they are, again, lacking the feminine virtues which would make them marriageable.

All this too say, porn is degenerate and a blight on modern society, but the thought that real women are in competition with it bears little resemblence to reality. If women are losing to porn, it is not porn that is beating them, but themselves. The only way the vast majority of real woman can possibly lose to porn to the vast majority of men (ie. those who are not the small portion who are porn addicts), is because they have abandoned the feminine virtues that would make men desire them more than hollow masturbation and pictures on a screen.

Porn is a vastly inferior substitute good for sex. Women have a strong advantage in attracting men unless they price themselves out of the market or abandon the virtues that would make them marriageable in the first place.

Lightning Round -2016/08/11

Church, mannerbund, militia.

Spain’s cautionary tale.
Related: Towards civil war.

Going for the throat.

Natural and artificial.
Related: Social constructs.

A nation’s future in one number.

Trump has intrinsic geopolitical value.
Related: Trump, Hillary, and who we are.
Related: Commentary on Trump.
Related: Yes we Khan… send them back.

How small-scale, but intense action works.

Americanism is expanded Anglo-Saxonism.
Related: Lovecraft’s prophecy.

Why the alt-right isn’t wrong.
Related: The alt-right as an antidote to neocon warmongering.

Ideological inertia in institutions.

Social media is a state tool.

The horror of rising wages in Hungary.

Japan shifting right.

End of Jewish rule.

Quick student loan forgiveness program.

There is no such thing as moderate Islam.

New Jersey enjoys the fruits of tolerance.

NRx and the orthosphere.

The West should consider Christ’s victory.

The pope is not the pope.

Let them go their wicked ways.

Today’s women are yesterday’s prostitutes.

The smart girl penalty.

Before patriarchal fire and writing.

Feminist Atlantic waxes conservative on men’s gender roles.

The stock market is too small for boomers to retire.

The bait-and-switch confusopoly economy.

The philosophy of failure.

The value extractors.

Is martial law coming?

The Trump media narrative.
Related: Listening to Trump voters.
Related: Journalists have dispensed with objectivity.

Gadsden flag declared racist.

Obscure deep-stater tapped to stump Trump.

Hillary’s handler.
Related: Hillary’s condition.
Related: Media cover.

The privilege of Bret Stevens and Fareed Zakaria.
Related: The lies of Bret Stevens.

Murdered DNC staffer may have been a whistleblower.
Related: More mysterious deaths around Clinton.

Lewis on reading old books.

H/T: Land

Moral and Natural Consequences

One common response I’ve seen from the Black Lives Matter on the shooting of Korryn Gaines was that she didn’t deserve to be executed for a traffic violation. Leaving aside the accuracy of that description, I’ve noticed that refrain from Black Lives Matter before, “he didn’t deserve death for [minor crime].” This is not limited to BLM, I’ve seen it many times before from many different people of differing ideologies describing different situations. People will often say, some person didn’t deserve a relatively harsh punishment for a relatively minor crime.

To deserve is to be worthy of something, either a reward or punishment, but measure of worthiness is left open. So in conversation people have to derive a measure from context. In the case of those arguing that Gaines didn’t deserve to die, they assume the measure of worthiness is some form of cosmic justice.

But moral worthiness is not the issue in many of these cases, but rather natural worthiness. Waving a realistic toy gun at or charging a cop may not be deserving of death in some cosmic moral sense, but it is the natural consequence, and they deserve it in that they created conditions that would likely result in the resutlting negative consequence.

There are two types of deserved negative consequences: moral/judicial consequences, where someone is punished because they have committed evil, and natural consequences, where someone is punished because that is the natural result of their actions.

Moral consequences are justice and justice is meted out by God and man. Justice needs an agent to be carried out and does not necessarily occur in nature. The rare times when nature hands out justice, we always refer to it differently, such as with phrases like poetic justice or karma, because we know that it is not real justice, simply natural consequence or blind coincidence.

On the other hand natural consequences are carried out by nature, of which man is a part. There is no moral dimension to natural consequences, simply the cold, hard law of cause and effect judging man with neither mercy nor pity.

A lot of people like to try to confuse these two forms of consequences, these two meanings of deserve, often for ideological purposes, occasionally because they are incapable of clear thinking. Often, those who see the reality of natural consequences and refuse to confuse the two, are called cold, mean, and/or evil by those who do not.

To help make this distinction clear, I’ll list some examples:

Does a child who runs into the road, morally deserve to be hit by a car? No, but they naturally deserve it because that is the natural consequence.

Does a man calling another man a ‘cock-sucking faggot’ or some other very offensive epithat morally deserving of being punched in the face? No, but he’ll get punched anyway and deserve it.

Does a women getting drunk and going to a strange man’s home means she morally deserves to be raped? No, but being raped is a likely foreseeable outcome and she naturally deserves it.

Does having promiscuous sex mean someone morally deserves to suffer and STD? Maybe not, but it is naturally deserved.

Does threatening, resisting, or being stupid around cops means someone morally deserves to be shot? Maybe not, but it is the most likely outcome and being shot is deserved.

Do French people morally deserve to be gunned down for voting in favour of immigration? No, but the naturally deserve the consequences of their choices.

So yes, Korryn Gaines deserved to die for her parking ticket. Maybe not in some cosmic moral sense, but she took took actions which would naturally result in her being shot, and the laws of nature enacted their punishment.

In all cases, the question is not of whether some impartial moral arbiter would condemn the person to a punishment in light of cosmic justice, rather it is a question of whether the person brought natural consequences upon themselves by committing causes that would result in certain effects.

Do not confuse the two. God and man care about your moral worthiness, your soul rests upon it, and justice is enacted by it. Nature does not care in the least about your moral worthiness, only your natural worthiness. Contravene nature’s laws and suffer, that is natural.