Jeez, chill man

A lot of people in politics and the media are scrambling to normalize what just happened to us, saying that it will all be OK and we can work with Trump. No, it won’t, and no, we can’t. The next occupant of the White House will be a pathological liar with a loose grip on reality; he is already surrounding himself with racists, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists; his administration will be the most corrupt in America history.

This man has a Nobel Prize.

How did this happen? There were multiple causes, but you just can’t ignore the reality that key institutions and their leaders utterly failed. Every news organization that decided, for the sake of ratings, to ignore policy and barely cover Trump scandals while obsessing over Clinton emails, every reporter who, for whatever reason — often sheer pettiness — played up Wikileaks nonsense and talked about how various Clinton stuff “raised questions” and “cast shadows” is complicit in this disaster. And then there’s the FBI: it’s quite reasonable to argue that James Comey, whether it was careerism, cowardice, or something worse, tipped the scales and may have doomed the world.

No, I’m not giving up hope. Maybe, just maybe, the sheer awfulness of what’s happening will sink in. Maybe the backlash will be big enough to constrain Trump from destroying democracy in the next few months, and/or sweep his gang from power in the next few years. But if that’s going to happen, enough people will have to be true patriots, which means taking a stand.

And anyone who doesn’t — who plays along and plays it safe — is betraying America, and mankind.

Seriously, chill.

Has he given his wife the keys to the blog or something?

60 thoughts on “Jeez, chill man”

  1. Did Krugman watch a different election to the rest of us?

    Or are his ideological filters so powerful that he really saw it that way?

  2. OMG, the media said that Clinton’s issues “raised questions” and “cast shadows”.

    Whereas Trump was Literally Hitler. And objectively racistmisogynisthomophobic….

    But no, the media didn’t do enough to downplay Clinton and to destroy Trump…

  3. Not only is it hysteria, but the most absurd lies too. The media helped Trump? Eh?

    A serious segment of the Left have become completely deranged over Trump’s victory. They were fairly mad to begin with but this has really pushed them over the edge. We are talking serious long term mental health issues here, the start of a psychosis.

  4. How much more evidence of the twisted evil of the left is needed?

    The man is a fucking nutter.

    They must be purged. Not killed as the scum of socialism would do were circs reversed (sooner or later) but utterly separated from any power or any chance of power over others.

  5. Krugman may have a Nobel, but mostly all he uses it for is bludgeoning anyone who disagrees with anything he says, and most of his outpourings seem largely disconnected with reality.

  6. Yet more proof that advanced levels of stupidity can only be achieved by the very clever.

    Where do you start? Trump’s administration may turn out to be the most corrupt in history, but you’d have to be pond life to vote Clinton on that basis.

    As for “Wikileaks nonsense”, coverage was minimal, there being too little time (and the FBI story took most of the time there was).

    Clinton should not have been standing for the Democrat nomination. That she was able to has been partly explained by “Wikileaks nonsense”.

    The entitled, babyish, tin-eared attitude of self-perceived “betters” like Krugman explains the rest.

  7. Rob,

    I think many on the left have actually been driven insane by Trump. They scream hysterically that he was a Nazi before he was elected, now they have to face choosing to accept perhaps he isn’t that and admit they where OTT, or double down into deep cognitive dissonance.

    The pain of the former is simply too much for them to bare.

  8. What others have already said, but:

    Every news organization that decided, for the sake of ratings, to ignore policy and barely cover Trump scandals while obsessing over Clinton emails

    What? Which fucking universe does Krugman inhabit? Or does he think we’re all so stupid that such ahistorical revisionism will past unnoticed?

    All I saw in the media was Trump this, Trump that, Trump the other as the MSM desperately tried to make something stick. Front page articles about how a tower with his name on in Canada is facing a lawsuit, endless squawking about his “grab ’em by the pussy” comments, there was no end to it. And conspicuous by their absence were articles which acknowledged the seriousness of Clinton’s cavalier attitude to information which Secretary of State.

    They are lying: they were lying before and they’re still lying. That’s all they know, it seems.

  9. And then there’s the FBI: it’s quite reasonable to argue that James Comey, whether it was careerism, cowardice, or something worse, tipped the scales and may have doomed the world.

    In July or in November?

  10. So Much For Subtlety

    David Moore – “I think many on the left have actually been driven insane by Trump.”

    I think we are also seeing the death of Anglo-America. The US has long been dominated by people who were of British origin and, as much as they may have disliked Britain, shared common values. They played up and played the game – and lost like men. Immigration has meant that group has got smaller and smaller. America is now being run by people from other ethnic groups. People who do not share the British tradition of losing with dignity and grace.

    Hence the hysterics. The question is whether they really believe it. I tend to think that they do and they don’t. They may get caught up in the emotion, like children having a temper tantrum, but they will be fine in a few minutes. The key is whether they do anything stupid while in the tantrum.

  11. ‘There were multiple causes, but you just can’t ignore the reality that key institutions and their leaders utterly failed.’

    It was an election; people voted. Institutions failed? Hmm . . . call the FBI.

  12. Sticks and stones … – and we get THREE CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justices, not to mention control of the House, Senate, Execute, and the nine Supremes. Ain’t life a Bitch! Ain’t enough drugs to take me higher and more ecstatic than I am. And people claim there is no God, heaven, or hell! Yet, how do you explain the hell you socialists(liberals), Marxists, and communists now find yourself? Never seen such boohoos in all my life. Man up!, you limp- wristed wusses!

  13. Hillary lost because Democrat voters preferred not to vote at all, rather than vote for her.

    The numbers tell the story.

    Clinton lost because her own party deserted her.

    Other than demagogues like Keugman featured prominently in the American media, do Democrats really believe Trump is a son of Satan bent in destroying their lives and everything they live for too? Of course not. Because if they did, they would have saved themselves and the whole planet and voted for Clinton. But they did not vote for her.

    Clinton lost because her own party deserted her.

    Numbers, please.

    Trump won about 60 million votes, almost exactly the same as McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2912. Consistent, huh?

    Clinton also won about 60 million votes. Obama in 2008 won nearly 70 million, and in 2012 Obama won more than 66 million. The contrast is clear. Clinton lost between SIX MILLION and TEN MILLION Democrat votes.

    Why? All we hear is the demagoguery from people like Krugman, Elizabeth Warren, and even Obama himself. But they’re blithering, they’re not facing the truth. Are there no truth-tellers among the Democrats? None?

  14. Tim Newman;

    “What? Which fucking universe does Krugman inhabit? Or does he think we’re all so stupid that such ahistorical revisionism will past unnoticed?”

    I read a book by Krugman that deleted the entire 70’s. The decade of the 70’s would have completely discredited the argument he was making, ahistorical revisionism is very much his thing.

  15. Sure Krugman is (acts as) a demagogue and liar, but in the mean time he is getting a fat paycheck from The New York Times. An idiot he is not.

  16. ” in the mean time he is getting a fat paycheck from The New York Times”” – which is owned By Carlos Slim, who has become the richest man n the world from running monopolies in Mexico.

    Hmmmm, why might the NYT be opposed to Trump?

  17. “I think we are also seeing the death of Anglo-America. The US has long been dominated by people who were of British origin and, as much as they may have disliked Britain, shared common values. They played up and played the game – and lost like men. Immigration has meant that group has got smaller and smaller. America is now being run by people from other ethnic groups. People who do not share the British tradition of losing with dignity and grace.”

    This may be true, but most of the screaming is coming from entitled whites. They’ve been acting like this since the 60’s. It’s worked for a long time, but as people are gradually becoming immune, they have to keep ramping it up until it all explodes in their face.

  18. He doesn’t have a Nobel Prize. He holds a counterfeit Nobel Prize, as is fitting. Herr Dokkktor Professor KKKrugman is a KKKunt.

  19. So Much For Subtlety

    Cal – “This may be true, but most of the screaming is coming from entitled whites.”

    Yeah but not entitled Whites of British origin. Entitled Whites of other origins. Not much of Krugman’s family claims descent from the UK. Nor much of Ezra Klein’s. Nor Matthew Y.

    “It’s worked for a long time, but as people are gradually becoming immune, they have to keep ramping it up until it all explodes in their face.”

    With Stephen Bannon it is remarkable. As Breitbart points out, they have thrown everything at him – accusations of racism, antisemitism, sexism, everything. It has not worked. There has never been an administration that would not have folded under this sort of pressure before.

    It is partly, I think, due to the alternative media. The groups that control the mainstream media have been shown to be impotent. The websites and bloggers talk back to power. They cannot serve as gate keepers any more. It may also be due to the failure of the neo-Cons. Trump is largely rejecting their policies, which have failed anyway, and so they are marginal within the Republican party these days. He doesn’t care what they think.

    What is interesting is that the Democrats are considering Keith Ellison as their leader. Someone with close ties to Farrakhan, a history of being pro-Palestine and anti-Israel. This too is a historic defiance of the old media.

    In the Sixties the Democrats could not keep North-Eastern liberals, Blacks and Southern Whites in the same party. The Democrats dumped the Southern Whites. I would have thought that they would have kept the Jewish community as long as possible. But presumably growing numbers of Blacks, the dominance of people like Edward Said on campuses, and immigration from outside Europe means the Jews are finding the Democrats more hostile than before.

    Either way we are seeing the centre of Western politics collapse. The main parties are moving to the extremes. That may not end well.

  20. “This may be true, but most of the screaming is coming from entitled whites.”

    Excellently observed!

    It’s not about America being run by other ethnic groups, but by other cultural groups. The culture we’re talking about started with the French Revolution and fellas like Robespierre (white guys), Marx/Engels (white guys), Stalin/Hitler (white guys), Alinsky and the post-modern feminist rabble (white guys and gals), and so on.

    They always find other groups to hide behind. The poor. Women. Blacks. Gays. The disabled. Immigrants. And so on. but the ethnic group causing the problems is privileged white Europeans.

    The idea, of course, is that their equally white European opponents spend all their time and effort attacking the stalking horse group (who are just some some random persecuted minority who obviously are delighted to finally get some support and blind to the consequences of allying themselves with such people), and ignore the real enemy.

    It’s a clever tactic, and works very well. When the backlash comes, it’ll be the human shields that face the brunt of it. They made damn sure it would explode in somebody else’s face.

  21. I do wonder how long this wank-fest will continue among the left wing media and light-weight left wing ‘comedy’.

    The latter, having made a mediocre but no doubt lucrative career on the BBC over the last decade based on nothing more than “Cameron and Osborne? They are Toffs!!!” are now set for at least a further four years of making their specially bussed in Guardian reader audience laugh like seals by stating that “Donald Trump? He’s a billionaire!!”

    Does anyone know any worthwhile radio stations that are more talk than music because BBC radio 4 and 5 are just no-go areas at the moment?

  22. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “The culture we’re talking about started with the French Revolution and fellas like Robespierre (white guys), Marx/Engels (white guys), Stalin/Hitler (white guys), Alinsky and the post-modern feminist rabble (white guys and gals), and so on.”

    Can you explain to me what Hitler is doing in that list? What culture does he share with people like Marx?

    “but the ethnic group causing the problems is privileged white Europeans.”

    300 White women are raped every day by Black men. Zero Black women are raped every year by White men. How is that the fault of White people?

    “It’s a clever tactic, and works very well. When the backlash comes, it’ll be the human shields that face the brunt of it. They made damn sure it would explode in somebody else’s face.”

    And we are back to irrationality. I am sure you pride yourself on being free of bigotry but this is a Blood Libel worthy of the best paranoid conspiracy theorists. Indeed if you said it about Jews you might be talking to the Plod.

  23. “Does anyone know any worthwhile radio stations that are more talk than music because BBC radio 4 and 5 are just no-go areas at the moment?”

    Radio 4 Extra is ok. They have loads of old radio comedy and dramas on, which I find are generally much better written than todays ‘F**k the Tories’/ ‘isn’t diversity great’ shite. I remember a couple of years ago, the announcer gave a warning before Hancocks Half Hour came on that: ” Attitudes were different in the 1950’s, so don’t expect it to be too PC”
    Radio 3 is quite good, provided they’re not playing 20th C music.

  24. “Can you explain to me what Hitler is doing in that list? What culture does he share with people like Marx?”

    They’re both socialists. The only difference was Hitler was a national socialist, while Marx was about international socialism.

    “Zero Black women are raped every year by White men.”

    Don’t be silly.

    Black on white is 13.7%, White on black is 10.4%. It’s certainly not zero. But it’s actually nothing at all with black/white (skin colour genes have no effect on aggressiveness or criminality), it’s a lot more to do with poor/rich, and cultural attitudes to law and order.

    Again, it’s confusing ethnic groups with cultural ones. The problem is the cultural group, but it gets turned into an ethnic issue in order to make the people who oppose it look like racists and bigots.

    ” Indeed if you said it about Jews you might be talking to the Plod.”

    Said what?

    Do you mean like this stuff about Jews…? “Yeah but not entitled Whites of British origin. Entitled Whites of other origins. Not much of Krugman’s family claims descent from the UK. Nor much of Ezra Klein’s.” I think Krugman’s family were Polish Jews, not sure where Klein’s family comes from but I think the surname is Dutch/German, so I’d guess German Jew. You have a complaint to make about German Jews…?

  25. Whereas Trump was Literally Hitler. And objectively racistmisogynisthomophobic….

    But no, the media didn’t do enough to downplay Clinton and to destroy Trump…

    And in the process, delightfully having precisely the opposite effect to that desired.

  26. Bloke in North Dorset,

    Andrew C,

    “Does anyone know any worthwhile radio stations that are more talk than music because BBC radio 4 and 5 are just no-go areas at the moment?”

    I create my own radio station from podcasts, there’s some excellent ones out there. Here’s a few to start with:

    Economic Rockstar
    Economics detective radio
    Wake up call podcast
    Hayek program podcast
    Planet money
    Freakonomics

    Look up Gimlet Media, they did one called startup about how they set up their business including how they raised finance and now have loads of programs.

    Radio 4 still have some good ones, more or less, law in action, analysis and briefing room.

    For politics there’s the FT, new statesman, spectator and spiked.

    You can find many more on just about any subject and my experience is that most are quite professional.

  27. And Dan Hodges has lost the plot on Teh Twatters too.

    Over a fecking foreign election.

    I think he needs to go take a long holiday somewhere with no internet…

  28. ‘Hillary lost because Democrat voters preferred not to vote at all, rather than vote for her.’

    Or they voted for the 3rd party candidates. Can’t say the 3rd parties took votes from Hillary, rather they provided a place for the people put off by Hillary.

    I have a friend who is a long-time Democrat. He confessed that he couldn’t vote for Hillary, so he voted instead for one of the 3rd party candidates. Can’t remember who; it surely doesn’t matter.

  29. Just imagine you, me or her over there spouting this sort of insane (and yes, insane is the right word) bollocks had Hillary won.

  30. “key institutions and their leaders utterly failed”

    Only if he thinks the role of national institutions is to ensure a Democrat wins the presidency, and that’s a pretty skewed view of the world.

  31. Niv, your link doesn’t say anything about rape that I can see. What it does talk about is violent crime more broadly, and the upshot is truly astonishing : “A black is 27 times more likely to attack a white and 8 times more likely to attack a Hispanic than the other way around. A Hispanic is eight times more likely to attack a white than vice versa.”
    That’s the kind of stat that can change the mind of rational people.

  32. The Democratic Party is going to implode in an orgy of blame, recrimination and infighting and purges.
    Sanders appears to be an early target, I haven’t seen anyone blaming Hillary yet but it is coming.
    They will lurch the wrong way for 2018 and another round of purges will take place, the Dems will be dead in the water by 2020
    I am going to put a tenner on Trump being a two term President.

  33. “Niv, your link doesn’t say anything about rape that I can see.”

    Hmm. Yes, you’re quite right. Good catch. It appears Google reinterpreted my search for ‘rape statistics’ as a search for ‘crime statistics’. It’s annoying when it tries to be too helpful.

    It’s still stupid to think there are “zero” white-on-black rapes.

    “That’s the kind of stat that can change the mind of rational people.”

    It might if they’re daft enough to be fooled by confounding variables.

    Crime is primarily caused by poverty and cultural resentment. Poverty changes the balance of risk-benefit when considering crime. The poor have less to lose, and more to gain (relative to what they currently have). You’re stuck in a gang-infested hellhole, with no education, no job, no prospects of getting one, and you’ve got bills to pay. Crime is a high-risk, high-payoff, low effort activity, and even if you get caught, prison isn’t all that much worse than your current situation.

    The influence of poverty affects black and white people the same way (having seen quite a few white criminals, the culture and attitude is virtually identical). The problem is that a lot more black people are poor, which is why it shows up in the statistics correlated to crime. It’s simply the most easily identifiable label you can attach to poor people.

    Part of the problem is self-identification, too. The pervasive belief in ‘black culture’ that the system is racist leads them to give up hope. There’s no point in even trying to better yourself if the system is rigged against you. So culture leads to poverty and poverty leads to crime.

    But it’s completely the wrong way of thinking about it. By confusing culture with ethnicity, you fail to address the real causes of poverty and crime (and therefore fail to reduce them). You’ll never get people to reform their culture so long as everyone believes you’re only talking about race. Race isn’t changeable; culture is. And you wind up getting the people who are just concerned about crime labelled as racists. That’s handy for the Marxists who use it as a stick to beat white conservatives with, and it results in the conservative backlash being directed against the blacks, who are still to a large extent the victims in this. (If you keep kicking a dog, it bites. Bad dog!)

    The crime problem is cultural groups, not ethnic ones. The culture war is between cultural groups, too. There are people of all races in them, and as noted, a lot of the loudest screeching is by young privileged whites from the coastal elites at their liberal universities.

    Hispanics and blacks can be Republican, too. If you can make the argument for why the conservative policies are actually in their best interests, you could fix the problem, and then the more the merrier. But you’re not going to persuade any of them to listen to you while you’re ranting about “America is now being run by people from other ethnic groups. People who do not share the British tradition of losing with dignity and grace.” This apparently being applied to the German/Polish Jews, of all people. Sheesh…

  34. I keep saying it, the Left are mentally ill.

    If a person creates their own reality whereby the world is run by Lizards, and they must go around beheading them to save humanity, then we lock them up as severely mentally ill, and a danger to others and themselves.

    When the Left create their own reality whereby Trump is akin to Hitler and the biggest danger to humanity since Genghis Khan and deserves to be assassinated (as several people have publicly suggested)……….crickets.

    Its getting to the ‘danger to themselves and others’ stage with this now – the Left could quite easily start a civil war the way they are going on.

  35. “If a person creates their own reality whereby the world is run by Lizards, and they must go around beheading them to save humanity…”

    Everyone creates their own reality.

    It’s the belief that only one’s own group perceives reality truly, and the opposing group are deluded and mentally ill that leads to such atrocities as the Soviet tactic of locking up right-wingers in mental hospitals. It’s the sort of thing that leads other people to keep dribbling on about “purges” of their ideological opponents.

    Everyone perceives the complex modern world through cognitive filters originally designed to figure out which trees have the bananas in them and which are hiding the lions. These filters are optimised for speed over accuracy, and have all sorts of well known cognitive biases associated with them.

    And *everyone*, liberal or conservative, uses the same basic hardware – the African Plains Mark 1 – to perceive reality. If you think your picture of the world is true, it’s *you* that is deluded. *Everyone* has cognitive blindspots they can’t perceive.

    We therefore all need a diversity of viewpoints, and to talk to people with *different* blindspots to help us see into ours. We need people to argue with, to make sure our arguments really stand up to scrutiny. An island without predators evolves Dodos, and an intellectual monoculture without intellectual opponents breeds dogma and disaster.

    Yes, the leftist SJWs are getting increasingly unhinged. But you can’t oppose them with the same tactics and just change the policies/goals. It’s the tactics that are dangerous. As the Democrats have just realised, the problem with granting yourself unconstrained executive power is that eventually your opponents get voted into power. Never give government or society any power you wouldn’t want your ideological opponents to be able to wield.

    In particular, be vary careful about declaring people to be mentally ill and in need of confinement, unless you’re willing to give the SJWs that same power when they next get elected.

  36. Sticks and stones … – and we get THREE CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justices, not to mention control of the House, Senate, Executive and the nine Supremes. Ain’t life a Bitch! Ain’t enough drugs to take me higher and more ecstatic than I am. And people claim there is no God, heaven, or hell! Yet, how do you explain the hell you socialists(liberals), Marxists, and communists now find yourself? Never seen such boohoos in all my life. Man up!, you limp- wristed wusses!

  37. Niv you are making stuff up now. The link you provided already disproves your theory by explicitly discussing how Hispanics in the same situation make very different choices.

  38. “The link you provided already disproves your theory by explicitly discussing how Hispanics in the same situation make very different choices.”

    Hispanics are raised on a culture of making a living in the land of opportunity – they sneak into the country specifically to do so. The blacks are raised in a culture of despair as ex-slaves in a still-racist society. Their cultural situations are very different.

  39. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “They’re both socialists. The only difference was Hitler was a national socialist, while Marx was about international socialism.”

    And yet Robespierre wasn’t a socialist at all. There is an intellectual line from the French Revolution to Stalin but there isn’t much of one to Hitler.

    “Don’t be silly.”

    Did you really cite a alt-right site? Way to go Niv. Let me cite a more reputable source:

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26368

    To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005. (Go to the linked document, and under “Victims and Offenders” download the pdf file for 2005.)

    In Table 42, entitled “Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender,” we learn that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape.) In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.

    The table does not gives statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear:

    In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

    What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.

    But it’s actually nothing at all with black/white (skin colour genes have no effect on aggressiveness or criminality)

    How do you know? What is your evidence? Blacks have a murder rate about ten times that of Whites in the US. Blacks in Switzerland also have a murder rate about ten times that of Whites. I am willing to bet Blacks in the UK do to. There is no such thing as a law abiding peaceful Black community. They do not exist. All down to culture is it?

    “Said what?”

    Said that the Western world’s politics were run by a secret cabal of Jews who were pushing racially charged lies to stay in power.

  40. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “The blacks are raised in a culture of despair as ex-slaves in a still-racist society. Their cultural situations are very different.”

    What are the Blacks of Jamaica and South Africa raised on? What are the Blacks of Sweden raised on?

    How was it racism and despair that caused Rudy Guede to rape and murder Meredith Kercher? Someone brought up in a society with no history of slavery, adopted by a wealthy family, what was it precisely that made him do it?

  41. A black is 27 times more likely to attack a white and 8 times more likely to attack a Hispanic than the other way around. A Hispanic is eight times more likely to attack a white than vice versa.”

    The Hispanic:White ratio is not far off what you would predict if Hispanics and Whites committed crimes at the same rate against random races. There are five* or so Whites for every Hispanic, so you would expect the rate to be about five.

    Allowing for the fact that Hispanics are younger and poorer, which is a strong predictor of violent crime, that ratio of eight to one isn’t remotely surprising. It would suggest that for people of equal age and equal wealth that Hispanics commit such crimes at little, if anything, over the White rate.

    You can’t make that argument for Blacks. Since they are now outnumbered by Hispanics their ratios should be much lower.

    There’s more to it that that, obviously, but as a figure intended to shock “eight times as likely” doesn’t do it for me once we allow for relative population size, age and wealth.

    (* depending on how you count “White”. The ratio might be as low as four or as high as six.)

  42. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “It’s still stupid to think there are “zero” white-on-black rapes.”

    Take it up with the FBI.

    “Crime is primarily caused by poverty and cultural resentment.”

    Says you. What is your evidence?

    “You’ll never get people to reform their culture so long as everyone believes you’re only talking about race. Race isn’t changeable; culture is.”

    What makes you think that culture is changeable? Where is the evidence that it is possible?

    “Hispanics and blacks can be Republican, too. If you can make the argument for why the conservative policies are actually in their best interests, you could fix the problem, and then the more the merrier.”

    Could you? But the problem is that Blacks consistently vote against their interests. They do not care what argument the Republicans make. They will not vote for them. They will not “act White” when a large part of their cultural identification is hating Whites. Republicans have been trying outreach for a long time and it has not worked. It cannot work. Racial hatreds are too deep – and besides, White people have money. All Black politics is basically a polite form of mugging. White people have money and they have to hand it over if they want to live.

  43. ‘Blacks have a murder rate about ten times that of Whites in the US.’

    Drill down a little more: it’s black men. Black women don’t have a proclivity for murder.

  44. So Much For Subtlety

    Gamecock – “Drill down a little more: it’s black men. Black women don’t have a proclivity for murder.”

    Nor do White women. But I am willing to bet the gap between Black women and White women is proportionately greater than that between Black men and White men.

  45. “Can you explain to me what Hitler is doing in that list? What culture does he share with people like Marx?”

    Hm: a Rhineland-Palatinate German and an Austrian German. What culture could they possibly share? Difficult.

  46. ‘But I am willing to bet the gap between Black women and White women is proportionately greater than that between Black men and White men.’

    The rates are too low for statistical analysis.

  47. “And yet Robespierre wasn’t a socialist at all. There is an intellectual line from the French Revolution to Stalin but there isn’t much of one to Hitler.”

    Robespierre’s parliament was the origin of the term “left wing”. Liberty, equality, fraternity…

    What difference do you think there was between Hitler’s and Stalin’s economic policies?

    “Did you really cite a alt-right site? Way to go Niv.”

    I didn’t look. Your claim didn’t seem credible to me. I assumed it would be a widely available statistic. I Googled for something on the topic, and picked the first one that gave numbers and a citation to DOJ statistics. I didn’t spend time on more than a cursory check just to confirm that the number for white-on-black wasn’t zero.

    I’ve got no problem citing alt-right sites, if they cite the original sources. But I screwed up by not checking the background to the numbers as thoroughly as I should, because I was in a hurry, throwing off a quick response to a claim I didn’t think was worth spending any time on. I ought to know better, and I’ll try to pay a bit more attention next time.

    “The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.”

    No, it says it’s based on a sample size of under 10. I can see why someone would think what you claimed – the table is confusing – but that’s not what it means at all. The FrontPage link to the document is broken, so you can see the original report here.

    It’s referring to the * annotation on the numbers – if you look at table 42, you’ll see that there are a lot of stars and some of them are on bigger numbers. For example, three lines further down it says that black-on-black robbery with injury was 100% *. It doesn’t mean there were less than 10 cases, it means they checked a smaller sample and there were less than 10 cases in that category to determine the estimate.

    They tried to interview about 79,000 people of who 84% responded (about 67,000), and then (putting it simply) multiplied by 300,000,000/79,000 = 3,800 to get the estimated number of victimisations. (They actually apply a bunch of adjustments to account for their sample having a different distribution of race/sex/age to the general population, non-responses, and so on. Methodology is discussed on p130-138.) About 12% of the 67,000 would have been black, which is about 8,000.

    Since they estimate the number of black victims of rape and sexual assault to be 36620, we can divide by 3,800 to find the approximate number of cases this is based on, which turns out to be 9.6. Since it’s not starred it must actually be 10 or over, and I’m guessing those adjustment factors or my rounding errors brought it down somewhat.

    In other words, they identified about 10 cases of rape or sexual assault of black women, they were all black-on-black, and concluded from that that the rate for white-on-black was 0.0%. But they put a * next to it to say “Don’t trust this number.”

    Incidentally, we can do the same for the white victims as well. 111,490/3,800 = 29, about 9.7 white-on-white, about 12.9 black on white, about 4.1 asian-on-white, and 0.7 unknown. I’m assuming they’re not whole numbers because of those demographic adjustments.

    Note also that the definition of ‘Sexual assault’ is as follows:

    Sexual assault – A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats.

    So we might be talking about a bunch of black guys saying unpleasant things to white girls. Who knows?

    However, I will concede that it’s a lot more lopsided than I expected, and it’s an interesting question as to why. Thanks for the information. I like learning new stuff.

    “How do you know? What is your evidence?”

    Partly because statisticians have been revisiting the issue frequently ever since the era of eugenics. My favourite example I think was in Freakonomics, where they cited some study on black kids adopted by white parents. The black kids raised in white families had the same academic success rate as the white kids.

    But mostly it’s a matter of biology. There are several different genes for pigmentation. Why pick on the one for skin colour? Eyes can be blue or brown. Hair can be red, brown, black, or blonde. There once was another theory that blonde-haired, blue-eyed people were genetically superior to all others, and a lot of the early work in eugenics was devoted to proving it. The results all fell apart on closer examination.

    Indeed, the very concept of ‘race’ fell apart. Different genes vary in different ways across the population, and frequencies merge smoothly into one another at the boundaries. If you picked blood group, for example, you would get a different categorisation of humanity to picking ectomorph/endomorph, which would be different again from nose shape, or brow shape, or length of fingers, or any other genetically determined characteristic. Every single gene that comes in multiple variants constitutes yet another way to categorise people into ‘races’. Blood group identifies a separation between human lineages that goes back to before we split from Chimpanzees! Will the real ‘race’ please stand up?

    And genes for skin pigmentation don’t on the face of it seem to have much if anything to do with brain structure. There are lots of genes – about 20,000 protein-coding ones. Why pick on this particular half dozen? It makes no sense – unless you particularly want it to.

    “Said that the Western world’s politics were run by a secret cabal of Jews who were pushing racially charged lies to stay in power.”

    I said that?! Remarkable! I missed it entirely.

    I don’t think there’s anything “secret” about the SJWs.

  48. “The black kids raised in white families had the same academic success rate as the white kids.” That is so wildly out of line with other results in that field that I suspect one or more of:

    (i) The authors of the book made a mistake.
    (ii) The authors of the study were mistaken, or
    (iii) There was something deeply unrepresentative about the adopters and/or the adoptees.

    As someone alluded to recently, when Harvard academics adopt, they go for Chinese babies not ghetto babies. Why do you suppose that is?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *