Surely That Can’t Be Right: DC “Hate Crime” Report Finds Narrative Busting Pattern

Posted in Uncategorized on August 28, 2014 by FoolishReporter

As Ferguson, MO continues on a slow-boil in the wake of the shooting of alleged “gentle giant” Mike Brown, the Washington Times is reporting that the majority of “hate crimes” in Washington D.C. in 2013 consisted of black on white violence.

According to the Times:

D.C. police say that of the 18 race-based hate crimes in 2013, the majority of victims were white and the majority of suspects were black. The number of incidents was up from the 13 race-based bias crimes reported in 2012.

That simple fact is a narrative busting statistic for today’s governing and cultural elites. As we all know, the only way that racial hatred flows is from white people to all people of color. This narrative is so thoroughly entrenched that rapper Talib Kweli, who is estimated to have a net worth of $4 million, can say, with a serious face, to CNN anchor Don Lemon that “we live in a world that’s run by white supremacy.” (All while live in Ferguson, no less.)

The Times report notes that analysts of those D.C. statistics are trying their damndest to explain away the fact that the most reported hate crime in the city is black on white violence:

The low level of reported race-based hate crimes, including the small number in which minorities were victims, could be a sign that minority victims are reluctant to report crimes, said David C. Friedman, director of the D.C. regional office of the Anti-Defamation League.

“In many African-American communities and other parts of the country, no matter what the demographics of the police department are, there are levels of concern,” with coming forward, Mr. Friedman said.

Because, as Ferguson shows us, and as the Zimmerman/Martin case showed us, one has no chance of finding an audience when one can spin out the “racist White America hates all Black people” narrative.

As the Times report also notes, that at least for blacks, minority status no longer really applies in D.C., with that group making up 50 percent of the city’s population, followed by whites at 35 percent, and hispanics at 10 percent. Even with that in mind, the venerable Mr. Friedman insists that there *must* be more hate crimes happening, with the implication that it’s probably white people doing the hating and committing the crimes:

General mistrust of police among minority communities or language barriers among foreign-born populations could be reasons that victims don’t report, Mr. Friedman said.

“In the case of the District, there are very few hate crimes reported against Latinos and Asian-Americans,” he said. “But it would be wrong to conclude that there are none occurring.”

This, then, is an excellent example of elite “unreality”. In a 50 percent black city, the fact that blacks are committing the most racially biased crimes is likely incorrect, because that just can’t be the truth regarding one of the elites favored underclass groups. Blacks are the oppressed, not the oppressors!

Thankfully, the Information Age is slowly but surely eroding the ability of the elites to impose their unreality on the rest of us. As we saw in Sanford, FL two years ago, and as we’re seeing in Ferguson, MO now, the elite’s unreality regarding the plight of blacks, specifically young black men, has suffered a heavy dose of *actual* reality. The unfortunate part of this dynamic is that both the elites and their favored vaisyas don’t react well when reality finally does intrude upon their carefully crafted unreality.

All I can say to that, for the most part, is, LOL.


Anarcho-Tyranny in the UK

Posted in Uncategorized on August 28, 2014 by FoolishReporter

A scandal of epic proportions was uncovered in the UK this week, in a city called Rotherham. For those unfamiliar with the story, it’s basically one in which people in positions of authority routinely looked the other way over the course of a decade of the systemic abuse of mostly white British children by Pakistani Muslim immigrants. The reason for looking the other way? Fear of being called a racist. 

This episode is illustrative of the anarcho-tyranny fostered by the current system of power in Western countries. Anarcho-tyranny, for those unfamiliar with the term, describes situations in which massive breaches of the law (and/or common sense) are ignored, while mostly harmless infractions are met with the absolute maximum of state power. 

In Rotherham, obviously the anarcho part is the fact that a specific community was able to continuously take children and abuse them for years. The tyranny part comes in when investigations into this situation found that two fathers who had successfully tracked their children to these dens of sexual depravity ended up being arrested when they showed up and demanded their children back. 

Another element of the tyranny came in the form of the same group of people in power, who were, again, letting this systemic abuse occur under their watch, deciding that a couple who supports Britain’s UKIP (think along the lines of a British Tea Party, in some respects) party were unfit foster parents, and removing the children from the home. 

Here in the US, we’re experiencing our own forms of anarcho-tyranny. Just think of the fact that illegal immigrants in California are now allowed to obtain a license to practice law, while children who take a piece of food and make into the shape of a gun are suspended/expelled immediately from school for such a heinous act. 

This is the end game of our current political paradigm. Destruction from without and from within, aided and abetted by those in power. And when serious problems arise, those in power don’t have the balls to do what’s right, for fear of having an inconvenient label attached to them. 

Good times. 

Culture Clash: The Arab World vs the West

Posted in Uncategorized on August 22, 2014 by FoolishReporter

via the UK's Telegraph

via the UK’s Telegraph

ISIS’ beheading of American photojournalist James Foley has had the Western world in an uproar this week, with some parts of American society already calling for another incursion into Iraq to set them straight (this time will work, really), while the Brits find themselves in the unfortunate position of realizing that the man in the video of Foley’s beheading apparently speaks with a British accent

ISIS’s actions, along with the Western response, once again show the deep divide between these two cultures. In fact, the divide can probably be best summed up with comparing two popular proverbs produced by the two cultures in the last couple of centuries: 

I against my brothers; my brothers and I against my cousins; my brothers, my cousins and I against the world. — Pashtun Proverb


Liberty, equality, fraternity! — Slogan of the French Revolution 

In looking at those two slogans, a fundamental difference in world views is pretty easily seen.  The Pashtun proverb implies a world view in which the people who matter don’t extend much further than extended family. There are clear differentiations on who’s accepted and who isn’t, and, accordingly, it’s implied that equality is not an ideal being pursued. On the other hand, the French Revolution’s phraseology implies a world view that sees the whole world as part of the speakers in-group. Equality and fraternity imply an open arm and open-minded approach to the brotherhood of man, rather than the distinctly delineated groupings of the Pashtun proverb. 

ISIS beheading of Foley is, in many respects, taking that Pashtun world view and applying it to the real world. They are clearly stating that Westerners are not a wanted part of the Caliphate they are attempting to build, and that Western intervention in their continued pursuits is most definitely not welcome. The Western take on the situation is also certainly illustrative of the French Revolution slogan, with our bewildered and angry responses certainly representative of our “brotherhood of man” ideology of recent decades. 

Unfortunately, due to the pervasiveness in Western culture of “blank slate-ism”, in which we are one of the few cultures in the world that truly believes we’re all the same, we’re likely to either continue to be horribly upset by groups like ISIS and their actions. And even more unfortunate is the fact that the answer for many seems to be that another military incursion will finally fix our Arab brothers into accepting Western values and democracy. 

Good times. 

/Pol/ suggests a strategy for the DE/Nrxn

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on July 22, 2014 by FoolishReporter

There was a recent and lively thread on regarding the Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction, with many of the posters seeming to be positively inclined to the movement. One post (h/t Mike Anissimov) posted one of the most succinct breakdowns of what exactly the DE/Nrxn/Rxn are all about:

– Recognition of human biodiversity; differences in the sexes and in the races deserve social policies that reflect this, equality is a lie

–Hierarchy is natural, both as a human psychological need for authority and as a reality that civilization needs organizers

–Religion as a socially eugenic and stabilizing force cannot be ignored; most people cannot live without it, and the state must recognize this by either instantiating a state religion or otherwise encouraging a single religio-cultural makeup for society

–Particularity; different peoples and cultures deserve different nations and forms of government, the ideal of one world government is impossible and/or insane

–Sovereignty is conserved; someone will have power, so society needs to be structured so as to minimize struggles over this power/free riders and corrupters of this power. Monarchy is merely one proven historical method to achieve a society with next to no politics; others are conceivable

What say you?




Early antiracist warned of perils of multiculturalism

Posted in Human Biological Diversity with tags , , , , , , , , , on July 8, 2014 by FoolishReporter

Peter Frost has an excellent paper over on his blog,  “Negotiating the gap: Four academics and the dilemma of human biodiversity”. The most interesting part of the paper, for me at least, was on Claude Levi-Strauss, a French anthropologist who Frost characterizes as a “leading postwar writer on antiracism.” Levi-Strauss was motivated by the fact that his Jewish heritage had “cost him his teaching post” in 1940, and also by his experiences in his fieldwork in Brazil, in which “he saw first-hand the dispossession of native peoples in the name of progress.”  And while he may have started out on the side of antiracism and multiculturalism, Levi-Strauss, as early as 1952 realized that there were dangers down the path of multiculturalism and its corollaries. From a pamphlet he wrote for UNESCO:

There are [cultural] contributions that are systemic in character, i.e, corresponding to the specific way each society has chosen to express and satisfy human aspirations as a whole. These ways of life are undeniably original and irreplaceable, but since they represent so many different choices that are exclusive [to each society] it is hard to see how a civilization could benefit from another one’s way of life, unless it renounced being itself.

With the appearance of ISIS in Iraq, or the suddenly re-framed “refugee” crisis here in America, to the flood of African immigrants continuously overwhelming various European port cities, it’s hard to deny that Levi-Strauss had a strong point. In Iraq, the nature of that society always meant that the chances of Western liberal democracy taking root were highly unlikely, and ISIS could certainly be characterized as some fragment of Iraqi society deciding to not “renounce” itself. Here in the States, California became a majority Hispanic state this year, and arguably is representative of our society renouncing itself in the name of multiculturalism. The resurgence of “far right” parties in Europe shows some hope, however, that Western society and culture isn’t quite ready to renounce itself.

Levi-Strauss was ahead of the curve, as Frost points out, when in the early 1970’s, Levi-Strauss “had become convinced that the emerging world system would eventually liquidate all cultures, and not simply those of the Upper Amazon.” Levi-Strauss had also come to believe that anti-racism was “moving away from its role of defending the dispossessed and the marginalized, becoming in the fact the very thing it had once denounced,” according to Frost.

And then Levi-Strauss did something fairly remarkable in 1971, in a speech to UNESCO. This speech and the event he was speaking at were to kickoff the International Year for Action to Combat Racism, ironically enough. Levi-Strauss boldly declared his beliefs that run in the face of our politically correct egalitarianism, scoffing at the idea that “the spread of knowledge and the development of communication among human beings will some day let them live in harmony, accepting and respecting their diversity.”

More from that speech:

Nothing indicates that race prejudices are decreasing, and everything suggests that after brief local lulls, they resurge elsewhere with increased intensity. Hence the need felt by UNESCO to periodically restart a fight whose outcome seems at the very least uncertain. But are we so sure that the racial form of intolerance results primarily from false ideas that such or such a population has about the dependence of cultural evolution on biological evolution? Don’t these ideas simply provide an ideological cover for more real conflicts based on the desire to subordinate and on the relative strengths of rival groups?

According to Frost, Levi-Strauss also expounded on the idea that cultures can certainly mix, but should keep some distance, lest they both disappear completely. More recently, a group of researchers at the New England Complex Systems Institute found that social cohesion is greater when there are clear boundaries, be they political or cultural, between groups. Their theoretical model successfully predicted where peace would be found within a locality with various groups, and where violence would be found within a locality between groups. As that group wrote in their abstract, “Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups,” which seems to echo Levi-Strauss’s thoughts of 43 years ago:

[Humanity] will have to relearn that all true creation implies some deafness to the call of other values, which may reach the point of rejecting or even negating them. One cannot at the same time melt away in the enjoyment of the Other, identify oneself with the Other, and keep oneself different. If fully successful, complete communication with the Other will doom its creative originality and my own in more or less short time. The great creative ages were those when communication had increased to the point that distant partners stimulated each other but not so often and rapidly that the indispensable obstacles between individuals, and likewise, between groups, dwindled to the point that excessively easy exchanges would equalize and blend away their diversity.

Interestingly enough, Levi-Strauss was bold enough to declare that cultural differences may exist at the innermost levels of human beings, something that Nicholas Wade has been getting excoriated for recently, when he made similar assertions throughout his most recent book, “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History.” This late review of Troublesome basically used 1700 words to say anyone who’s interested in these ideas and theories are racist degenerates. (But what else is new). Back to Levi-Strauss:

We cannot insist too much on one fact: although [natural] selection has allowed living species to adapt to the natural environment or to better resist its transformations, with humans the environment has cased to be primarily natural. Humans derive their distinctive characteristics from technical, economic, social and mental conditions that, through the operation of culture, create an environment specific to each human group.

Among early humans, biological evolution may have selected for pre-cultural traits like capability to stand upright, manual dexterity, sociability, symbolic thinking, and ability to vocalize and communicate. It was culture, however, once it came into being, that consolidated these traits and propagated them. When cultures specialize, they consolidate and favor other traits, like resistance to cold or heat for societies that have willingly or unwillingly had to adapt to extreme climates, like dispositions to aggressiveness or contemplation, like technical ingenuity, and so on. In the form these traits appear to us on the cultural level, none can be clearly linked to a genetic basis, but we cannot exclude that they are sometimes linked partially and distantly via intermediate linkages. In this case, it would be true to say that each culture selects for genetic aptitudes, that via a feedback loop, influence the culture that had initially helped to strengthen them.

Even in 1971, Levi-Strauss was able to intuit that some part of human groups differences lay somewhere in our genes. While this message seems to get lost for those who come into human biological diversity cold, it is one that the best and the brightest in the field repeatedly tend to point to: Its a *mixture* of genetics and environment, and in some things, may likely be skewed heavily towards genetics, while in others, the pendulum swings the other way, with the environment playing a more significant role. (Although, again, as the research continues to advance, the arrow seems to point more and more towards genetics for many things, at least in my understanding.)

Levi-Strauss, much like Lothrop Stoddard, recognized that ultimately, despite the best constructed arguments of the Marxist left and the egalitarians, the biological reality of race and populations would have a critical role to play in contemporary society. As Frost writes of Levi-Strauss’ perception of the situation, “governments will carry on an ‘ideological struggle against racism,’ in the naive belief that the rising tensions are being fueled by increasing ignorance.”

…the path that mankind is going down is building up tensions such that racial hatreds provide a pretty poor picture of the regime of heightened intolerance that may become established tomorrow, without even having ethnic differences to serve as a pretext. To circumvent these perils, those of today and those, ever more redoubtable, in the near future, we must persuade ourselves that their causes are much deeper-rooted than those causes that may simply be put down to ignorance and prejudices. We can place our hope only in a change in the course of history, which is much harder to bring about than progress in the course of ideas.

According to Frost, eight years later Levi-Strauss recalled his 1971 speech at another conference, this time calling antiracism a “trap”:

I believe we have fallen into traps…When UNESCO organized in 1971 the year against racism, I was asked to deliver the opening speech. So I said to myself: “No, all the same it’s not possible. We can’t go on year after year repeating nice sentiments and telling ourselves we’re going to further the progress of humanity this way.” And so instead of doing the same thing, like what I had done in 1952, I decided, and I assure you with no ulterior political motive, that I was going to do the opposite. I was going to show that the problems of nature and nurture, were, after all, problems that existed, that it was not absolutely forbidden to look into them, and that it was not by affirming in the most sterile way that there were no differences between human groups and individuals that we would further the progress of humanity.

But, as Frost points out, an honest and open examination of human differences “was not to be.” As already mentioned earlier, Nicholas Wade has essentially been smeared as a degenerate racist for even positing such things in 2014. Hell, just this past weekend I was subjected to a Twitter assault about HBD and it’s allegedly racist applications to promote the idea of group hierarchy and therefore, superiority and inferiority. Thankfully, the always awesome HBDChick jumped into the conversation with a perfectly short and beautiful summation of HBD:

Let’s just hope we can truly learn her point as a society, before it’s too late.



Eugenics, American Style

Posted in Uncategorized on July 5, 2014 by FoolishReporter

Eugenics is an idea that holds a particular revulsion to the modern world. In the wake of the worst abuses of the idea in World War II, serious thought concerning who should reproduce, and how much, has essentially become a taboo topic. Be that as it may, it’s fairly easy to see that, at least within an American context (and in some respects, true for all modern, Western liberal democracies), there are two eugenics programs that have been running in our society since at least the middle 20th century. One is a positive eugenics program, mostly unintentional, while the other began as a deliberate negative eugenics program, and has survived because of it’s supporters ability to hide its ugly past. We’ll take a look at both in this post.

Positive Eugenics 

A sorting process has been taking place since the mid-2oth century, and was well documented by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein in their book, The Bell Curve. More and more people are coming to recognize that this process has taken place and has had a powerful effect on our society. Whether it’s the derogatory SWPL term (Stuff White People Like) to the Dark Enlightment/Neoreaction’s term of “The Cathedral” to the scholarly term of the “cognitive elite”, there has been, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a positive eugenics program within American society over the last 50-60 years. We’ll let the aforementioned Murray describe the first time this group became known within the greater, popular culture. From Murray’s 2012 book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010: 

On September 27, 1987, ABC premiered an hour-long dramatic series with the cryptic title thirtysomething. The opening scene is set in a bar. Not a Cheers bar, where Cliff the mailman perches on a bar stool alongside Norm the accountant and Frasier the psychiatrist, but an airy room, perhaps attached to a restaurant, with sunlight streaming in through paned windows into off-white walls.

The room is crowded with an upscale clientele gathered for drinks after work, nattily uniformed servers moving among them. Two women in their late twenties or early thirties wearing tailored business outfits are seated at a table. A vase with a minimialist arrangement of irises and forsythia is in the background. On the table in front of the women are their drinks — both of them wine, served in classic long-stemmed glasses. Nary a peanut or a pretzel is in sight. One of the women is talking about a man she has started dating. He is attractive, funny, good in bed, she says, but there’s a problem: He wears polyester shirts. “Am I allowed to have a relationship with someone who wears polyester shirts?” she asks.

She is Hope Murdoch, the female protagonist. She ends up marrying the man who wore the polyester shirts, who is sartorially correct by the time we see him. Hope went to Princeton. She is a writer who put a promising career on hold when she had a baby. He is Michael Steadman, one of two partners in a fledgling advertising agency in Philadelphia. He went to the University of Pennsylvania (the Ivy League one.) 


In the remaining forty-five minutes, we get dialogue that includes a reference to left brain/right brain differences and an exchange about evolutionary sexual selection that begins, “You’ve got a bunch of Australopithecines out on the savanna, right?”

Murray points out that the culture depicted in thirtysomething was one that “had no precedent, with its characters who were educated at elite schools, who discussed intellectually esoteric subjects, and whose sex lives were emotionally complicated and therefore needed to be talked about.” Murray notes that the male characters were climbing the social ladder by “flair and creativity” and not by being “organization men.” Meanwhile, the women were “conflicted about motherhood and yet obsessively devoted to being state-of-the-art moms.”

In short, thirtysomething was a cultural reflection of the patterns that Murray and Herrnstein had described in The Bell Curve. Cognitive stratification has been increasing for some time now in America, and that stratification has been refined by the university system. In terms of eugenics, the best and the brightest are able to find each other and, accordingly, they pair off with each other, in a process known as “homogamy.” Current data show that this process is certainly noticeable (more from Coming Apart): 

The reason that upper-middle-class children dominate the population of elite schools is that the parents of the upper-middle class now produce a disproportionate number of teh smartest children. For example, one of the basics for having a decent chance of getting into an elite school is a high SAT score, with “high” defined as at least 700 on the SAT verbal and SAT math. Among college-bound seniors who took the SAT in 2010, 87 percent of the students with 700-plus scores in the math and verbal tests had at least one parent with a college degree. Fifty-six percent of them had a parent with a graduate degree. This is not a function of coaching — the dispassionate studies of coaching show average gains of only a few dozen points — but of ability to do well in an academically challenging setting…The children of the well educated and most affluent get most of the top scores because they constitute most of the smartest kids. They are smart in large part because their parents are smart.

More on homogamy:

As the proportion of college graduates increased, so did the possibility for greater educational homogamy at the top, as college graduates found they had more potential marriage partners who were also college graduates. Drawing on the extensive technical literature and the CPS, sociologists Christine Schwartz and Robert Mare examined trends in “assortative marriage” as it is known in the jargon, from 1940 to 2003. They found that homogamy has increased at both ends of the educational scale — college graduates grew more likely to marry college graduates and high school dropouts grew more likely to marry high school dropouts.

This all seems well and good. The best and the brightest are able to find each other and then marry each other. Positive eugenics without any sort of external force to make it happen. Except for one little problem:

From the Bell Curve... even in the early 90s, the best and the brightest weren't having children.

From the Bell Curve… even in the early 90s, the best and the brightest weren’t having children.

And more recently:

The trend continues to this day. The best and the brightest aren't having very many children, while those at the lower end of the distribution curve are having a fair amount of children.

The trend continues to this day. The best and the brightest aren’t having very many children, while those at the lower end of the distribution curve are having a fair amount of children.

Many have attempted to explain this phenomena, with the most common view being that it appears to be a natural pattern and/or feature of modern, liberal democracies and capitalist economies. I myself think that it may lie largely with the fact that those exposed to 8 years or more of higher education become fully indoctrinated into the Frankfurt School/Critical Theory/Feminism/Marxism view of the family: That it’s an outmoded form of social organization, typically characterized as an oppressive, heteronormative system that needs to be smashed into a million pieces for some victim group to be liberated.

But there you have it: American society, and more broadly, modern societies that resemble America, have an unofficial positive eugenics program that’s been quietly running in the background for a number of decades now. But, as pointed out, a significant issue with our positive eugenics program is that well… people don’t make enough children. (Japan is perhaps the most startling example of this.) Can this be corrected? Perhaps. As Gregory Cochran pointed out in a comment on his blog recently:

That said, if one were willing to select very strongly, you could create a population with a very high IQ in one generation. Take the SMPY kids and drop them on an island. Better yet, inculcate some sort of ideology that teaches that having kids is maximally cool, instead of what they’re taught by our current society, which is that breeding is low-class.

Negative Eugenics:

The negative eugenics program in the United States started in the early 20th century, when eugenics itself was a popular field among some of the best and brightest of the time. Try as they might, today’s left can’t erase the ugly history of the some of the issues and organizations they hold dear in the abortion/birth control debate. One of the most well-known examples is Buck vs Bell, in which state-enforced sterilizations were the issue. As Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes so succinctly summarized in his thoughts on that case:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

Holmes concluded his argument by declaring that “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Margaret Sanger, that beloved heroine of the contemporary feminist left, also had similar motivations in her push for birth control among various groups. From Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: 

Under the banner of “reproductive freedom”, Sanger subscribed to nearly all of the eugenic views discussed above. She sought to ban reproduction of the unfit and regulate reproduction for everybody else. She scoffed at the soft approach of the “positive” eugenicists, deriding it as mere “cradle competition” between the fit and the unfit.

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief issue of birth control,” she frankly wrote in her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization. (The book featured an introduction by (H.G.) Wells, in which he proclaimed “We want fewer and better children…and we cannot make the social life and the world-peace we are determined to make, with the ill-bred, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens you inflict on us.” Two civilizations were are war : that of progress and that which sought a world “swamped by an indiscriminate torrent of progeny.”)

Sanger also sought to make sure that blacks ability to reproduce was tightly controlled by birth control:

In 1939 Sanger created the previously mentioned “Negro Project,” which aimed to get blacks to adopt birth control. Through the Birth Control Federation, she hired black ministers…doctors, and other leaders to help pare down the supposedly surplus black population. The project’s racist intent is beyond doubt. “The mass of significant Negroes,” read the project report, “sill breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes…is (in) that portion of the population least intelligent and fit.” Sanger’s intent is shocking today, but she recognized it’s extreme radicalism even then. “We do not want word to go out,” she wrote to a colleague, “that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of theiir more rebellious members.”

Of course, with Roe v Wade, our negative eugenics program was able to kick itself up a notch. Some have commented on the effects of Roe v Wade, most notably a drop in crime that seemed to follow that landmark Supreme Court decision. While I’ve never read Freakonomics, I’m given to understand that they very gingerly put forth the theory that the legalization of abortion at the federal level helped reduce crime because, well, the least fit to be having babies were now able to have an abortion, saving society from future criminals. An interesting idea, to be sure, although I’ve also read other theories that are a bit more milquetoast, mostly along the lines that after the wild and unruly 60s and 70s, and, to a lesser extent, the 80s, a balance was restored when “getting tough on crime” became an acceptable public policy position again.

Regardless, there has been a negative eugenics program proceeding apace since its mostly racist inception in the early 20th century. The Guttmacher Institute, a decidedly pro-choice organization, has these statistics to share regarding current abortion rates among various groups of women:

  • Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic women have higher rates of abortion (40 and 29 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, respectively) than non-Hispanic white women do (12 per 1,000).[32] The higher rates reflect the fact that black and Hispanic women have high unintended pregnancy rates (91 and 82 per 1,000 women, respectively), compared with non-Hispanic white women (36 per 1,000 women).[26]
  • Women with family incomes below the federal poverty level ($18,530 for a family of three) account for more than 40% of all abortions.[32] They also have one of the country’s highest abortion rates (52 per 1,000 women). In contrast, higher-income women (with family incomes at or above 200% of the poverty line) have a rate of nine abortions per 1,000, which is about half the national rate.


There have been two eugenics programs running in American society for quite some time now, one positive, one negative, as we’ve explored above. Unfortunately, due to our society’s sensibilities, we’ve essentially shut ourselves off from being able to discuss this issue honestly. I doubt many would disagree that the organic positive eugenics program described above is, in some respects, a good thing for our society. The best and the brightest reproducing certainly seems like it would be a net gain for society. Unfortunately, as we also saw, the best and the brightest typically don’t make enough children these days, and instead, are being outperformed by those not as genetically endowed with positive gifts.

The negative eugenics program, at least for me (I’m pro-life) exists in a murky gray world. From a dispassionate point of view, there are positive gains that have been made from that program’s continued operation. But, at the same time, there is something truly ugly and barbaric about that destruction of life, and the way in which those who most passionately support the issue, revel in it.

What would be really interesting to measure, somehow, is the interplay between these two programs. Along with this, it would also be fascinating to try and pinpoint the dysgenic/lower fertility feature of modern societies,a feature that seems to know no cultural or national boundaries.

Welp. Till next time.


FBD marriage as a way to avoid regression to the mean?

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on June 23, 2014 by FoolishReporter



Baron Guy de Rothschild in 1986

Baron Guy de Rothschild in 1986

While reading Robert Greene’s “The 48 Laws of Power” I came across an interesting passage regarding the Rothschild family, the rich and powerful family of bankers that many believe have been quietly influential in world affairs since they first rose to eminence in the 19th century:

In 1824 James Rothschild decided it was time to get married. This presented a problem for the Rothschilds, since it meant incorporating an outsider into the Rothschild clan, an outsider who could betray its secrets. James therefore decided to marry within the family, and chose the daughter of his brother Salomon. The brothers were ecstatic- this was the perfect solution to their marriage problem. James’s choice now became the family policy: Two years later, Nathan married off his daughter to  Salomon’s son. In the years to come, the five brothers arranged eighteen matches among their children, sixteen of these being contracted between first cousins.

“We are like the mechanism of a watch: Each part is essential,” said brother Salomon. As in a watch, every part of the business moved in concert with every other, and the inner workings were invisible to the world, which only saw the movement of the hands. While other rich and power families suffered irrevocable downturns during the tumultuous first half of the nineteenth century, the tight-knit Rothschilds managed not only to preserve but expand their unprecedented wealth.

The strategy pursued by the Rothschilds sounds awfully close to the idea of father’s brother’s daughter (FBD) marriage, a marriage pattern that was common for much of human history, and still holds sway in many parts of this world to this day. Depending on who you ask, places where FBD marriage have been the norm tend to be more oriented towards the family, the tribe and the clan. In these parts of the world, this type of marriage pattern means that ideas like Western liberal democracy will likely have a hard time taking hold (SEE : Iraq and Afghanistan and US efforts in both countries)

As HBDChick pointed out in a recent post, Iraq has remained a dominantly clan-oriented society, despite both Suddam Hussein’s 30 year authoritarian rein, and its replacement, the democracy installed by the United States in the last decade. I’m beginning to ramble a bit here though, so back to our original point:

HBDChick also had another interesting post this week, in which she shared passages from The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History; In Three Volumes – I. The author noticed that family prestige and eminence seemed to last about four generations or so, before they regress to the mean, ie. fall back into the bigger part of a normal distribution bell curve. What’s interesting is that Gregory Clark’s work, “The Son Also Rises“, seemed to find that social position is fairly heritable and stable among families. Having not read the book yet, but having seen a video in which Clark discusses his work, one of the more remarkable things he found while researching the book was that in wildly disparate societies, powerful families held tight to their power and position. Perhaps the most startling confirmation of this, according to Clark, was the fact that the same families held power pre and post-Mao in China.

It’s an interesting thought to think, and as Greene pointed out, that the Rothschild’s tactic of a derivation of FBD marriage seemed to keep them from regressing to the mean. It’d be interesting to find out how long this pattern continued within the family, although I can think of other instances where FBD marriage likely meant a family hasn’t regressed to the mean yet. (I’m thinking of the royal families of the United Arab Emirates and its city-states like Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Those places have been ruled by the same two or three families for generations. Their relative prosperity and stability in this day and age also seem to point towards some interesting conclusions as well.)

Welp, that’s it for now. Just an interesting thought, that would certainly be intriguing to study further, especially in different societies with different traditions regarding what’s acceptable for a marriage.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,543 other followers