The benefits of private school

A nerdy white kid at a mixed-race middle school accidentally hits a girl (of unknown race) with a basketball during gym. The girl has a gang of her male friends (of unknown race) beat up the nerdy white kid as he walks home from school, causing severe injuries.

That’s as much as I want to speculate about what happened. At Larry Auster’s blog, there is more detail along with some comments which I would consider unnecessarily mean-spirited.

This is why you should send your kids to private school.

Maybe there's also a lesson here about unathletic kids and gym class.

* * *

It has been brought to my attention that Muneton is a Spanish surname.

From the picture, the kid looks caucasian. He has a typical American first name. He's reported to be an "honor student" (although everytime I see a kid reported as an "honor student" I think of the book Bonfire of the Vanities).

A commenter thinks the kid is “Hispanic,” but he may not be any more Hispanic than Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo (in other words, having a single distant ancestor from the Iberian Peninsula).

* * *

Even if the kid is Hispanic, as a white-looking Hispanic with a white first name who gets decent grades in school and is not good with controlling a basketball, he was probably looked down upon by the black kids as being too white.

* * *

Commenters say I should leave black-on-white crime to more mean-spirited blogs, and I generally agree, but I also see this story as being about why the tri-state area sucks, because you can't just send your kid to any school. You have to move to a very expensive neighborhood to get away from NAMs, or send your kids to private school.

I'm surprised that there's a middle school in Englewood that's only 2% white, because I thought Englewood was an expensive place to live. It's right across the George Washington Bridge from New York City, and I've seen houses there which are extremely expensive and populated by rich white people. Apparently, all the rich white people who live there know to send their kids to private school. The people I know who lived in Englewood did send their kid to private school: the Dwight Englewood School which Brooke Shields and Mira Sorvino attended.

* * *

Test Test writes:

Not everything is about race. A pudgy kid who hits the popular girl with a basketball is likely to get beat up in any school. The thing that makes this incident stand out is that he was severely beaten. But similar incidents have happen in all-white communities; last year, some white teenagers were arrested for posting a youtube video of themselves beating a female classmate.

Everyone's going to think we're racist if we start saying things like "those **** NAM's haven't evolved one bit since they got that monkey-like slave DNA" every time a white-looking Hispanic boy gets beat up. There's the truth--that affirmative action is detrimental to society--and then there's racial epithets that make us all look bad.

Comments

[9879987879]

absolutely correct - and to tie in to your discussion of why NYers are unhappy, think about this. If you live in NYC OR you live in any middle income neighborhood within easy commute of NYC the public schools are full of NAMS. So you have stress in your life - either stress to get your kids in to private school or stress your kids are with NAMS

Actually, I have to refer to an earlier post - basically for the average person, choosing to live in NYC is like an average female choosing to date alphas. living in NYC is exciting like dating alphas is exciting but in the end it is a higher risk exercise. Read the below -

basically the analogy is :
living in dallas = becoming a registered nurse = dating dependable provider betas

living in NYC = going to law school = dating alphas
living in manhattan = o

he decision of a young woman to go to law school is very similar to her decision to spend her 20's pursuing alphas.

In both cases the young woman can select the safe stable route or she can enter a tournament and either come out way ahead or way behind.

Let's say that you are a woman who is in college. You have B++ looks and B++ IQ. If you go down a path to become a registered nurse, you are very very likely to at the age of 25 be making $40 an hour. Over the course of the rest of your life, you are likely to be able to earn $40 an hour and work as many or as few hours as you want. In other words, being a registered nurse allows you the flexibility to work 60 hours a week when you want the extra income and work 20 hours a week when you only want to work part time.

On the other hand, if you go to law school you have a shot (a small shot) at winding up with a job that pays you multiples of what you would earn as a RN. But most likely you wind up making much less (or being pushed out of the labor market completely, given the massive over supply of lawyers)

So the decision to go the law school route is a decision to enter a tournament.

Similarly, if you carefully avoid dating "alphas" and spend all your time hanging around with stable, dependable "betas" you have a very good chance of marrying a stable dependable man of similar IQ and similar looks who also makes $40 an hour.

In most of the USA, a young woman and a young beta both married at 25 both making $40 an hour (if both work full time that is $160k a year of gross income) are solidly in the upper middle class. More importantly, they can save enough of their income that they can stay in the upper middle class for life.

This is a safe, stable route for a young woman. This is the route that her "grandmother" would urge her to go down

However, we all know there is peer pressure that influences the young woman to instead pursue alphas and "PUAs" and as a result she is likely to ignore the betas. She enters the tournament to snag an alpha. Most likely she will reach 30 unmarried and bitter. But by entering the tournament she has a chance (small chance) of snagging an alpha.

My point is that the media highlights the female winners of the tournaments. Peer pressure pushes young women to enter these tournaments. The decision to enter the tournament to land an alpha and pass up the betas is just as irrational as the decision to enter the tournament for a big high paying law job and ignore the safer registered nurse route.

Usually the safe stable route is better than the "tournament" route

[David]

What is mean spirited here, Half Sigma, is the brutal beating of this white honors student by a gang of 11 savages, who are almost certainly black. What is the probability that this child will hate pretty much all black people forever?
Beside that, any commentary by white people and Asians frustrated by the lack of will to maintain a reasonable degree of peace and order in their cities is small fry. If anyone were to take it on themselves to rid the world of these turbulent wolves, and I were on the jury, I'd not convict them.

[John Doe]

The kid is Hispanic (though Caucasian). They had a town-hall meeting on Monday night where the "Hispanic Community" came out to discuss the black on Hispanic violence in the school.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/Police_Severity_of_assault_may_cause_Englewood_boy_to_lose_some_eyesight.html

"The approximately 100 people who gathered at Liberty School heard Beatriz Lopez recount a story about how two black students assaulted her 12-year-old son in a school bathroom last year.

Lopez said her son has since recovered. She also praised school officials for their response. But Lopez said she felt compelled to bring it up as an example of the kind of threat that faces Hispanics.

“There are a lot of people who have been in similar situations,” she said afterward."

Or it just might be that David isn't Hispanic but the Hispanics are equally pissed off at black violence.

[John Doe]

Presently, I live in Miami. It's a very fun place for a young couple with a decent income to live. The beaches, nightlife and such. However, when we decide to have kids we'll be out of here. Period. We'll move somewhere where I don't need to shell out $1,200/month for a private school just to keep my kids safe and away from the NAM population.

There is no way I would stick my kids in public school in any major American city. None. We'll stay in the South so the suburbs of Dallas or Austin are our best bet. Cheap housing and good public schools (or even better, cheap and excellent private schools). Low taxes, excellent business climate, loose gun laws.. What's not to love?

I am completely indifferent to blacks now. I had deep sympathy for them (blame my university education). But I've been mugged by reality. This situation will never improve. I'm over it.

[sabril]

I am familiar with Englewood, New Jersey. Basically the white families in Englewood send their children to the private school on the east side of town (Dwight Englewood). The NAM families send their children to the public school on the west side of town. (Dwight Morrow)

That said, there are plenty of towns in Bergen County with decent public schools, i.e. few or no NAMs.

The NAMs of Bergen County are concentrated in 3 towns: Englewood, Hackensack, and Teaneck.

Basically I think Halfsigma is going too far when he urges people to send their children to private school. As long as you avoid NAMs, and in particular blacks, it's not so bad.

[Eddie the Hawk]

The third worst thing to happen to America was the importation of Africans via the slave trade. The second worst thing was Lincoln not sending them all back when he had the chance. The absolutely worst thing is the government subsidization of and media blindness to the black savage culture.

And yes, HBD does not mean every black is dumber and more violent than every white person. But it does mean for every Thomas Sowell there are a million parasitic and sociopathic thugs and welfare pimps. It is not sustainable.

If truth is racist, then it's time to stop being worried about being labled a racist.

[Turambar]

Extremely unlikely that the kid is white. From here "Students tab"
http://www.greatschools.org/cgi-bin/nj/other/543#toc
the school is 2% white and 34% Hispanic. Meaning that there are probably 2 or 3 white kids in the whole grade.

Also from that site, the district spends $21K per pupil per year. Yikes!

The schools web site home page features a drawing of a grimacing Obama flexing with the slogan "Yes We Can!" which perhaps set too combative a tone for some of the students.
http://jdms.epsd.org/home

What I find disturbing is the idea of 11 on 1. Who raised these kids? The tough egg contingent when I was growing up acknowledged settling things with fists was perfectly viable but only one on one. Maybe 2 on 1 if the other kid was older and bigger but a gang jumping one person would have been considered the height of bad manners.

For that reason I feel these tots should be locked up for the rest of their lives at this point.

[dk]

987.....
I know 2 RNs....none are making 40/h and both are well over 25...the whole nursing=$$$ thing is a little overwrought....kinda like comp sci if you have specific in demand skills/certs your doing great but if your a b student from a b college with a generic comp sci degree your not going to be making 80k...note I have no personal ex with comp sci this is just what i have heard on the grapevine.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"It has been brought to my attention that Muneton is a Spanish surname.

From the picture, the kid looks caucasian."

15% of Hispanics in the US are white.

The percentage of white Hispanics is higher if you exclude illegal alien Hispanics and only count Hispanics legally in the US.

[Stopped Clock]

Just because youre a NAM doesnt mean other NAM's will protect you. Hispanics in black-heavy schools have it as bad as whites. This doesnt surprise me at all.

[E-sizzle]

"came out to discuss the black on Hispanic violence in the school."

If the perpetrators were black, I'll guess it's not going to be considered a hate crime.

If the perps were white, I'm assuming the MSM would be pounding this into us by now, hoping to inform us of the wave white on black hate crime.

[follow_the_link]

the cbs story auster links to specifically says he is hispanic. and that one of his attackers was hispanic.

[sabril]

"You have to move to a very expensive neighborhood to get away from NAMs, or send your kids to private school."

That's not necessarily true. For example, Leonia is just south of Englewood; has very few NAMs (but lots of Koreans); and is not too pricey.

Granted, it would be cheaper to live in Wyoming.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"The second worst thing was Lincoln not sending them all back when he had the chance."

Well, Abe couldn't send them back because he got shot soon after the war ended.

And speaking of the 1860's, could somebody tell me why the hell the radical Republicans gave blacks citizenship instead of sending them back to Africa or somewhere in Latin America? Wtf were they thinking?

[Twain]

Even the suburbs are changing. I grew up in an area with just about zero minorities and now it's changing so much. It's not as bad as some areas, but there are many more nams. Everywhere you went in the 70's in my area was all white.All the stores, fast foods outlets etc were staffed by white Americans born in the US and now it's completely different.

[Truth]

I wonder if HBD will ever become mainstream in the USA?

So many aspects of modern life are ruled by it (where to live, where to send your kids to school, where to shop at night, etc.), yet policy makers act as if they know nothing about it.

My guess is the USA is already too diverse to ever accept HBD, regardless of the evidence. Accepting HBD would be too radical since it would tear apart the whole concept of a single, unified country.

Instead, people will spout PC "truths" in public but will mostly self-segregate and be racist in private (this is already happening).

Appropriately enough, this is the Latin American model of race relations.

[OneSTDV]

"Commenters say I should leave black-on-white crime to more mean-spirited blogs"

I don't get this at all. What is mean-spirited about the truth?

I'm actually quite shocked you're saying this. I don't understand that statement at all. Is it "mean-spirited" to avoid living in heavily black areas? Is it "mean-spirited" to advise a woman not to walk in the ghetto at 2 a.m.?

I can't believe I'm about to say this: But those kind of statements are found on anti-racist sites, not HBD ones like yours. I'm very disappointed that you would make such a comment.

[DAJ]

Has this site become VDare: take an event (supposedly) involving black perpetrators and use it to besmear and malign the entire black race?

David Alexander, Vim, and the other millions of blacks who never have blinded a white kid should take full responsibility for these eleven miscreants.

[Eddie the Hawk]

DAJ,

No one is laying the blame of black group averages on individuals who do not share those characteristics.

But if we lived in a world where white males committed violent crime at eight times the rate of other races, I would likely have feelings of shame but definitely understand if those other races were able to do basic math and didn't turn a blind eye to certain biological truths. And if they got tired of the claim that giving those whites just a little more government assistance (other people's money) would make it all better.

[Sheila Tone]

I predict the kids will turn out to be mostly or all from families on public assistance. This will not be reported, nor will it be reported (because it's not public record) how many of them are or have been in foster care.

An inverse indicator of a public school's quality (IMO) is how many students receive free or reduced-price lunches, and I think it's public information.

[zzz]

African-Americans have probably "worked harder" than any other ethnic/cultural group in the history of North America. And they don't have a whole lot to show for it. Unlike you yuppies, who probably don't do any real work for a living.

What I dislike most of all are "successful" African-Americans who often assert "hey, the system works, you people just have to work harder!"

Stupid yuppies. Nobody thinks you're cool, you know? Send my regards to Patrick Bateman and the rest of the misfits.

[Sheila Tone]

Yep, I was right: 63 percent of Janis E. Dismus Middle School students are on free lunch, compared with 2 percent of Englewood students overall.

http://www.cyberhomes.com/schools-englewood-nj-07631/janisedismusmiddleschool/52793.aspx

[Sheila Tone]

"What I find disturbing is the idea of 11 on 1. Who raised these kids? The tough egg contingent when I was growing up acknowledged settling things with fists was perfectly viable but only one on one. Maybe 2 on 1 if the other kid was older and bigger but a gang jumping one person would have been considered the height of bad manners. "

Turambar, I don't want to get lumped in with the Stormfront crowd but this type of gang-stomping against an individual is typical of young, poor, blacks and Hispanics today. It's a perfectly acceptable strategy for girls as well as boys who wish to avenge a perceived slight. Usually the victims are other poor blacks and Hispanics, so maybe that's why it's not discussed as much as you might think it should be. And I don't think it's a new thing. I know white people in their 50s and 60s who talk about seeing it happen when their schools were integrated.

[Saxon]

"Has this site become VDare: take an event (supposedly) involving black perpetrators and use it to besmear and malign the entire black race?"

You mean the way the entire White race gets routinely maligned for all the ills (real AND imagined) of the Black and other 'races of color'???

[Test Test]

Not everything is about race. A pudgy kid who hits the popular girl with a basketball is likely to get beat up in any school. The thing that makes this incident stand out is that he was severly beaten. But similar incidents have happen in all-white communities; last year, some white teenagers were arrested for posting a youtube video of themselves beating a female classmate.

Everyone's going to think we're racist if we start saying things like "those **** NAM's haven't evolved one bit since they got that monkey-like slave DNA" every time a white-looking hispanic boy gets beat up. There's the truth--that affirmative action is detremental to society--and then there's racial epethets that make us all look bad.

[Haumea]

In a nutshell: Englewood, upto no good?

"Instead, people will spout PC "truths" in public but will mostly self-segregate and be racist in private (this is already happening).

Appropriately enough, this is the Latin American model of race relations."

Well, it's also the Spanish model of race relations.

America is different however, as the individualism meme is powerful here unlike anywhere else. I suspect it will prevail in the coming years, replacing the identity group paradigm of recent past.

Sufficient examples of exceptional NAMs will be rolled out and glorified, while group privileges are radically slashed.

Count on it -- America ain't S. America.

[sabril]

"David Alexander, Vim, and the other millions of blacks who never have blinded a white kid should take full responsibility for these eleven miscreants. "

At a minimum, they should understand and accept that white parents reasonably prefer not to live in the same school district as them.

[Mark in Ark]

The situation will have to get worse before it gets better. We need chaos and massive amounts of violence like Yugoslavia, or else it will just be another Rio de Janeiro, without the beaches.

[J. L.]

"'It has been brought to my attention that Muneton is a Spanish surname. From the picture, the kid looks caucasian.'
15% of Hispanics in the US are white. The percentage of white Hispanics is higher if you exclude illegal alien Hispanics and only count Hispanics legally in the US."

Correct. The terms "Hispanic" and "Latino," while not being entirely artificial, tend to describe a group of people so broad that they have limited purpose as descriptive terms for HBD purposes. There are white, black, indigenous American, mulatto, and mestizo Hipanics/Latinos. And the percentage of which racial category is present among any given Hispanic/Latino group varies with regard to which national subgroup one is talking about (i.e. Chileans and Argenitnes are overhwelmingly caucasian, Mexicans largely Mestizo, etc.).

[Andrew Ryan]

I used to live in Cliffside Park and my wife lived in Englewood. We wasted a lot of time looking for condos using Foxton's (now bankrupt, I think) which sold for only a 3% commission but no realtors. The problem is if you're not familiar with the area (i.e. me) you waste time looking up properties in NAM areas. The only tipoff is when they would suggest you do a "drive-by" (ironic) before they would send someone out to open the place up for you.

Anyway we looked at a place in Englewood and it was owned by a nice African guy moving to Atlanta to start his own business. But the area was 100% black, so no thanks. Definitely on the wrong side of the tracks in Englewood so to speak.

Many white Americans, like me, spend enormous amounts of their salary to buy their way into majority white neighborhoods and school districts. In New Jersey you need to spend 300K+ just to get into a <25% black town/school district.

I'd be better of in Alabama, where my co-worker lived in a white suburb outside of Birmingham. He said the cops used to sit at the bottom of the exit ramp and any car with blacks in it was immediately pulled over and told to go back to Birmingham. That's good old-fashioned racism there! (Family Guy reference)

[Andrew Ryan]

Duh. Previous post should read "and my wife WORKED in Englewood". Haven't finished my coffee yet.

[Shawn]

Unless a parent has a real high-paying job in the city (in which case private school is the best option) the most sensible thing for most parents is it simply move to a White neighborhood and send their children to a White public school. That will at least get them out of diversity.

[sabril]

"But similar incidents have happen in all-white communities;"

This is basically the "whites commit crime too" argument.

Nobody denies that whites commit crimes, it's just that the disparity between black crime and white crime is not small. On the contrary, blacks commit a wildly disproportionate amount of crime.

Not only that, but the more savage the crime the greater the disparity.

For example, the rate at blacks commit rape is a lot higher than that of whites. But when you subtract off acquaintance rapes, spousal rapes, and so forth, and just look at vicious attacks by strangers, the disparity is shocking.

To the point where you can read about vicious crimes and be 90 to 95% confident that the perpetrator is black without being told.

Also shocking is the sheer percentage of blacks who engage in serious crimes.

[dearieme]

"A pudgy kid who hits the popular girl with a basketball is likely to get beat up in any school." Is it really that bad in the USA?

[Wade Nichols]

"and then there's racial epithets that make us all look bad."

You're worried about "racial epithets" making "us" look bad? I don't get your logic - a bunch of black kids beat up a hispanic kid, and you're worried about "us" looking bad?

This "thinking" reminds me of an article in the Village Voice years ago. It was the time that a group of U.S. soldiers were killed in Somalia, and their bodies were savagely dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. The idiot who wrote the article in the Voice was concerned - not about the soldiers or their families, he was worried that "white people" would see the television footage of the Somalians savagely dragging the bodies through the streets and doing all sorts of nasty things to those bodies, and that "white people" would therefore think all sorts of bad things about Somalians, and by extension, black people.

Well, duh!

This is the typical dopey thinking that makes white liberals look like the idiots they are. Whenever incidents such as the "Jena 6" happen, white liberals start falling all over themselves to make sure the rights of the "Jena 6" are protected, and that they are getting Freihofer's chocolate cookies and cable TV every night along with a bedtime story and a tuck in.

[Black Death]

Undiscovered Jew -

Here's something about how Lincoln really felt about blacks. He didn't think they should be slaves but also didn't think they could live side-by-side with whites:

Emancipation without colonization presupposed social and political equality of the races. As Lincoln frequently said in response to Douglas’s taunting, he was opposed to freeing the slaves and making them the equal of whites. While in principle Negroes were entitled to the enjoyment of equal rights, Lincoln insisted that those rights could never be fully available in the United States. His words in the Charleston debate in September 1858 are well known: “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not and have never been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, not of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race…I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.” (Basler, III, 179) The clincher for Lincoln and his audiences was the fear of amalgamation: if one kept the two races apart there would be little chance for mixing.

....

Lincoln favored emancipation and expatriation - sending the freed slaves off to Latin America or Africa. He never believed that they could coexist peacefully with the the white population.

The Radical Republicans manipulated the freed slaves to take control of the Southern state reconstruction governments after the war. They passed laws denying civil rights to anyone who had anything to do with the Confederate government. So virtually all whites were excluded from the political process. Only the blacks could vote or hold office. If the blacks had been expatriated, there would have been no one left for the Radical Republicans to control.

[Peter A]

"This is why you should send your kids to private school."

No, it's why you should raise your kids in New Hampshire, Vermont, or Utah.

[Yawner]

"Commenters say I should leave black-on-white crime to more mean-spirited blogs"

OneSTDV is exactly right.

What is mean-spirited about the truth?

The more people use shaming language to deny the truth, the more undeniable the truth is. If you can't beat your opponent on the facts, beat your opponent over the head with his "mean spiritedness".

[CC]

Before we get all demographic, I'd like to note a few more points re the viciousness of the attack away. (1) Turambar makes a great point about the sheer lack of manhood displayed by participating in an 11:1 attack. (2) What are the odds the victim didn't get kicked in places other than the head, like, e.g. the chest, stomach, back, and, uh, maybe the groin? Suffer significant damage there? Can we get a medical view on the results of that kind of damage at that age? (3) If 'several' bones in the victims face were broken by kicks to the head, then aren't we also talking brain damage; possibly that which might be recoverable, but, still, the boy was also mentally growing. Isn't there a fairly high cognitive pricetag here too?

So, in civil terms, I'm guessing this was basically a multi-million dollar attack, which, I'm also guessing, neither the perps nor their entire families (including extended), could provide recompense for. By contrast, Abner Louima settled with NYC for $8.75 million. Wiki. This poor kid can't even get more than CBS news and a school bake sale so far.

[DAJ]

Undiscovered Jew typed: "And speaking of the 1860's, could somebody tell me why the hell the radical Republicans gave blacks citizenship instead of sending them back to Africa or somewhere in Latin America?"

I am assuming that you are of Jewish (and particularly Ashkenazi Jewish) descent. If I err, then you have my full apology. Now, the bulk of Ashkenazi Jews immigrated to America in the late 1800s through early 1900s, a full century or more after the bulk of black Americans' ancestors*.

Is it not somewhat strange that the descendent of relatively newer immigrants would begrudge the presence of descendents of far older immigrants? It is akin to a black American moving to Iran and his great-grandson bemoaning the existence of the long-dwelling Iranian Kurdish minority. No? Instead of directing your anger to black Americans or older white Americans (like Lincoln or Radical Republicans like Charles Sumner), you should perhaps direct it towards your ancestors, who knowingly immigrated to a nation with a significant black population. I intend no disrespect to you or your ancestors.

The above premise is not to suggest that you avoid analyzing demographic crime data and commenting on the resultant social ramifications. Black Americans indeed lead the nation as a group in the commission of violent crime, and their neighborhoods and schools are relatively less inviting than others. Yet, I find the irony of your quoted assertion unsettling.

*Let it be known that I am glad that Ashkenazi Jews immigrated to the United States and am appalled by the rhetoric of anti-Semites. Were you Italian, Polish, Vietnamese, or a black with recent Haitian ancestors like David Alexander, I would have made the same comment.

[Shabazz X]

Posted by: CC | December 24, 2009 at 02:10 PM

I'm very upset by your bigoted comment. The attack was committed yes, by African Americans, but racism, intolerance, hatred, and oppression by whites made them do it. Reperations would be a start in making things better. They are owed anyway and would help correct the injustice African American suffer under every day. And Happy Kwanzaa. Amandla!

[Sheila Tone]

"At a minimum, they should understand and accept that white parents reasonably prefer not to live in the same school district as them."

I'd be perfectly happy to send my white kids to school with the children of either David or "Vim." They're educated, thoughtful professionals. That will not be the case with the parents of these gang-stompers.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

I'm going to take Sigma's side over OneSTDV, but not because reporting constantly about black on white crime is "mean spirited".

While I agree that the facts about black on white crime should be reported, I don't think it is sensible for blogs to overly focus on individual crimes on an everyday basis because blogs that do that become boring and repetitive. One can get the truth out about black criminality by getting the word out about black crime statistics rather than reporting on every single black on white crime committed in the US.

After one has absorbed the crime statistics there is not much reason for an individual to always be digging up and reporting every black on white crime on their blog because they won't have time to address any other topic - and I say this as someone who favors voluntary eugenics in order to keep the black underclass under control.

There's only so many times one can write blog entries on individual crimes before the novelty of what you are writing about wears off.

Secondly, constantly reading about black on white crime becomes overly morbid and constantly thinking about any morbid issue - whether or not the issue involves race - isn't generally good for you.

It is much more interesting and insightful to look at HBD from a macro-policy perspective rather than become overly focused on individual level stories.

[Truth]

"I'd be perfectly happy to send my white kids to school with the children of either David or "Vim." They're educated, thoughtful professionals. That will not be the case with the parents of these gang-stompers."

This is all fine and dandy, but those type of blacks are a small minority.

The reality is most blacks are too violent/stupid to go to school with.

Even middle class blacks have children that are dumb and violent (due to regression to the mean).

[Marlo]

Well, the original article posted by Auster was revised and it appears that the person who threw the first punch was Hispanic himself. Auster has admitted to jumping to the wrong conclusion (that it was racially/ethnically motivated) before getting all of the facts.

It's already been mentioned that the Hispanic label doesn't denote race, ancestry or even ethnic group membership. Its simply a linguistic term that encompasses a wide variety of people. Although the kid looks completely white, it's quite possible that he has some black or other non-white ancestry, considering that most Hispanics in the tri-state area are Caribbean.

That wouldn't make it okay to beat someone up over such a trivial matter, of course. But since we're on the subject of black/hispanic "hate crimes", it's worth noting that Hispanics committ far more crimes against blacks than the other way around. If we include the number of mestizos who're often classified as white, then the actual number of hispanic on black crimes is likely much greater than what's reflected in government statistics.

Being black myself, this makes me a bit uneasy around certain Hispanics but it doesn't make me dislike them as a whole. But that's just me...I know most people react to fear with anger and hatred, so I don't hold that against you guys honestly. That's pretty much the foundation of "scientific" racism and prejudice in general. And it's actually quite natural to feel that way.

I think the HBD community knows that their pet theories on race, intelligence and crime are for the most part, not supported by scientific research; On an intellectual level, they know that they're wrong but on an emotional level, they just can't let go of their beliefs. That fear of "the black race" is so strong that they'll stop at absolutely nothing to convince themselves and anyone willing to listen that their beliefs are somehow grounded in reason and objective inquiry.

I have to I agree with the guy who said that it's time to stop worrying about being labeled "racist". HBD is concerned with emotions, beliefs, speculation, politics. Not with science. So why the heck should any of you be scared of being called "racist" for thinking the way you do? It's about obtaining power through identity politics, not becoming apart of mainstream academia.

Stop wishing that you'll someday be regarded as scientists and accept the fact that your ideas are all political. Nothin wrong with that :)

[sabril]

"I'd be perfectly happy to send my white kids to school with the children of either David or 'Vim.' They're educated, thoughtful professionals."

There are also many blacks who are NOT educated professionals but are also not criminals.

But either way, there's the problem of statistical regression. The children of middle class blacks -- and even educated professional blacks -- tend to have a lot of problems compared to the children of whites.

To be sure, it's less of a potential problem with educated professionals.

[JHP]

"One can get the truth out about black criminality by getting the word out about black crime statistics rather than reporting on every single black on white crime committed in the US."

No dice, Josef S...Oddly enough, every single (and amazingly rare) story of white crime against a black is played over the media loudspeaker repeatedly. No reason why we can't have equality. And plenty of made up stuff (like Tawana Brawley, the horrid racist thingy done to "Prof." Constantine up at Columbia, etc...) gets trumpeted as well. Really nasty stuff like the Wichita Massacre was buried and nobody knows why.

"Secondly, constantly reading about black on white crime becomes overly morbid and constantly thinking about any morbid issue - whether or not the issue involves race - isn't generally good for you."

Yeah, the truth hurts! May also keep you or someone you care about from being raped, mugged, beaten up or shot dead for fun too.

And Peter A mentions Vermont. Ah, Vermont...Vermont has very "lax" gun laws and a very low diversity. You'd think liberals would avoid the place, hell that's 2 strikes! Am I right?! Yet it is full of them. Thirdly, there is a very low crime rate. Now let's see...No diversity, lax gun laws and low crime. Do they go together? Why do liberals like the place? Guess we'll never know...

[Yawner]

TUJ, I don't think Auster reports on "every single black on white crime committed in the US". He focuses on the particularly atrocious crimes, on the media's abnormal reaction to these crimes, and on the suicidal refusal of white Eloi to defend themselves against black Morlocks.

The point of writing about such things constantly is precisely the opposite of achieving "novelty" - though the refusal of the MSM to address this issue means that it remains novel to read a frank discussion of black-on-white crime in the blogosphere. It most definitely needs to be emphasized that this is something that is *constantly happening*. You claim it is "morbid" and "bad for you" to focus on such crimes. Just the opposite is true! It is precisely the refusal to face the truth of something that is constantly happening that is bad for you. There are countless examples of white people who would be alive today if they were aware of the reality of black-on-white crime and took the proper steps to protect themselves.

You may not be interested in black-on-white crime, but black-on-white crime is interested in you, and is coming soon to a suburb near you!

From a macro-policy perspective, we'd be having a completely different debate about crime and punishment in this country if everyone was aware of, and acknowledged, the truth of the matter rather than sticking their heads in the sand for fear of being "overly morbid".

[DaveinHackensack]

"I'm surprised that there's a middle school in Englewood that's only 2% white, because I thought Englewood was an expensive place to live. I'm surprised that there's a middle school in Englewood that's only 2% white, because I thought Englewood was an expensive place to live. It's right across the George Washington Bridge from New York City, and I've seen houses there which are extremely expensive and populated by rich white people."

I grew up in Englewood, and went to public schools there for 10 years, so I can shed some light here. Despite being a small city (~25k residents) it has long been quite diverse racially and economically. There are extremely expensive houses in one part of the city, including some legitimate mansions/compounds (Eddie Murphy used to live in one of them). There is also a poor, predominantly black section. And there are a couple of sections that are middle class and mostly white though racially diverse. I grew up in one of those sections.

Overall, if memory serves, Englewood is about 50% black, but its schools have always had a far higher black population. There's a certain tipping point, I'm not sure what it is, where a black majority school becomes a nearly all-black school. The irony is that, I believe, Englewood's school system was among the first in the Northeast to integrate blacks.

BTW, there was a long, drawn-out court case related to the racial balance of Englewood's schools, particularly its high school. The neighboring town of Englewood Cliffs, which I think has few or any blacks and is quite affluent (it's where CNBC's studios are located) didn't have its own high school, and had a long arrangement where the town would pay Englewood and send its kids to Englewood's public high school (Dwight Morrow).

Once Englewood's high school hit the tipping point, Cliffs parents started paying out-of-pocket to send their kids to the excellent, all white and Asian, public high school in next door Tenafly. They wanted to sever their arrangement with Englewood and switch it to Tenafly, but Englewood sued Englewood Cliffs to stop them, claiming that Englewood would be harmed because losing the white Cliffs students would deprive Englewood's high school of the racial diversity those kids brought.

I don't remember exactly how that case got resolved ultimately, but I think it involved some lip service about magnet schools, and the end result was that Englewood's schools stayed predominantly black and Tenafly's stayed mostly white with a significant Asian minority.

Incidentally, there were plenty of fights when I went to school there -- you basically had to be ready to fight if you accidentally stepped on someone's new sneakers, or your shoulder brushed someone else's in crowded hallway or stairwell. Or even if someone took offense at something they heard (second hand) that you said*. But serious injuries were pretty rare. Back then (it seemed) fights were more about establishing dominance than really injuring someone. There were exceptions, but usually it looked worse than it was. Today it could be a lot worse typically, I don't know.

*I recall one incident where that happened with me, and I was informed that a certain Tyrone wanted to fight me based on some nonsense. I knew better than to try to talk him out of it, so when I went home for lunch that day, I brought my mouthpiece back to school with me, in its plastic case. I sat on a radiator waiting for him to come in to the class we shared, and as soon as he walked in, he dropped his books and started coming for me. I popped the mouthpiece in and we were off...

[Dam strate Marlo!]

I have to I agree with the guy who said that it's time to stop worrying about being labeled "racist". HBD is concerned with emotions, beliefs, speculation, politics. Not with science. So why the heck should any of you be scared of being called "racist" for thinking the way you do? It's about obtaining power through identity politics, not becoming apart of mainstream academia.

Stop wishing that you'll someday be regarded as scientists and accept the fact that your ideas are all political. Nothin wrong with that :)

Sum mo' Merry Christmas, Bruthas! An' less sientifik stuff...

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015117.html

[Marlo]

Thanks bruva :)

And here's some mo' less sientifik stuff...

http://whitewatch.wordpress.com/

Lots and lots of less sientifik stuff can be found there.

[Yawner]

If HBD isn't science, nothing is.

[sabril]

"HBD is concerned with emotions, beliefs, speculation, politics. Not with science."

I disagree. Fundamentally, science is about making hypotheses and testing them. "Natural intelligence is distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups" is a scientific hypothesis which can be tested and falsified.

And indeed, the evidence indicates that the egalitarian hypothesis is false.

[Wade Nichols]

"It's about obtaining power through identity politics, not becoming apart [sic] of mainstream academia."

You just gave us the definition of the "Black Studies" department at any given college/university in the United States!

[Marlo]

Sabril wrote:"I disagree. Fundamentally, science is about making hypotheses and testing them."

This is partially true. Science is about forming a hypothesis relating to something that can be defined objectively. I'm not sure if intelligence or race can be defined objectively. So the claim that "natural intelligence is distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups" doesn't qualify as a hypothesis.

Furthermore, no reputable scientist or layperson who understands the process of aquiring knowledge through science has made such a claim. Generally what they argue is that the black/white IQ gap is not genetically determined.

In the 1960s, cognitive scientists conducted a study in Wisconsin on black children at risk for developing mental disabilities. Half of the children recieved intensive intervention (special schooling, day care and etc.) and by age 5, these children had a mean IQ score of 110 while the control group averaged an IQ score of 83. This study was mentioned in Nisbett's book, "Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Culture Count".

Campbell and Ramey found similar results in 1994. In this study, black infants were given training in cognitive skills development that resulted in significant gains over the control group. It has also been demonstrated that adoption into white families has an impact on black children's IQ as well.

I mentioned these studies to show that my position, that the black/white IQ gap is not genetically determined, can be backed up with replicable findings. I'm also aware of the fact that by their teenage years, black children, regardless of socio-economic status and childhood development, tend to regress towards the mean.

Nonetheless, there's very little evidence that this is genetically determined either. To my knowledge, geneticists have not identified any genes that control cognitive functioning. It seems likely, however, that it's controlled by a fairly large network of genes. If true, then it's higly improbable that 'cognitive genes' would be distributed unevenly among black and white people, or white and asian people.

If we were talking about 4 or 5 genes, it would be somewhat reasonable to suspect that blacks and whites possess 'cognitive gene' variants in substantially different frequencies. I'm open to this idea, but I don't believe that it's true after wheighing the evidence.

But even it was true, and blacks addressed the problem by practicing eugenics and increasing their mean IQ, it wouldn't make "racist" white people like us any better.

From the early 1800s through the 1950s, it was a common practice among whites to riot and burn down "decent" black neighborhoods, where blacks (for the most part) kept to themselves and weren't concerned with anybody else. This occured in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1921, in Philadelphia in 1981 and the list go on...

It goes without saying that white Americans have a much longer history of participating in mob violence than blacks do. That's not to say that I don't feel a sense of guilt upon hearing of heinous crimes against whites, I just grow tired of the ridicilous comments that most blacks are conspiring to kill off the "white race" while the liberal media tries to cover it up.

It's a bunch of bullcorn :)

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"The point of writing about such things constantly is precisely the opposite of achieving "novelty" - though the refusal of the MSM to address this issue means that it remains novel to read a frank discussion of black-on-white crime in the blogosphere."

I'm not opposed to writing about black on white crime, just bringing up the subject every single day.

After you realize that blacks are genetically more violent there is no reason to keep bringing it up in every single blog post every day.

"From a macro-policy perspective, we'd be having a completely different debate about crime and punishment in this country if everyone was aware of, and acknowledged, the truth of the matter rather than sticking their heads in the sand for fear of being "overly morbid".

Actually, black crime has been decreasing because of

1) abortion wipping out 15 million blacks since Roe v Wade

2) Clinton throwing away 1/3 of the black male population in jail during the 90's

3) A decrease in the black birth rate to 2.0-2.1 over the past 15 years.

This proves my point that you get a better understanding of trends by looking at the overall stats intstead of obsessing over things at the individual level.

In other words, you wouldn't know that black crime has been falling rapidly if all you read is the thug report.

[sabril]

"I'm not sure if intelligence or race can be defined objectively. So the claim that "natural intelligence is distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups" doesn't qualify as a hypothesis.
"

Are you saying that all scientific research concerning race or intelligence is invalid?

Are you saying that "blacks are more likely than whites to have sickle cell anemia" is not a scientific hypothesis?

"Furthermore, no reputable scientist or layperson who understands the process of aquiring knowledge through science has made such a claim."

This sounds to me like a bit of a True Scotsman argument. But anyway, assuming it's true, so what?

"In the 1960s, cognitive scientists conducted a study in Wisconsin on black children at risk for developing mental disabilities. Half of the children recieved intensive intervention (special schooling, day care and etc.) and by age 5, these children had a mean IQ score of 110 while the control group averaged an IQ score of 83."

I'm a little confused. I thought that (according to you) race cannot play a role in scientific research. And what is this IQ you speak of?

But seriously, who did this study? I would like to look it up.

[sabril]

" my position, that the black/white IQ gap is not genetically determined,"

"Generally what they argue is that the black/white IQ gap is not genetically determined."

By the way, it seems to me there's a third possibility:

Which is that the black/white IQ gap is partly genetically determined.

If this hypothesis is correct, one would expect that black children adopted into white families would end up with IQ's higher than the black average but less than that of white children adopted into white families.

And as far as I know, that's exactly what one sees.

[J. L.]

Marlo said:
"It's already been mentioned that the Hispanic label doesn't denote race, ancestry or even ethnic group membership. Its simply a linguistic term that encompasses a wide variety of people."

I may be the commenter you were referring to with regard to the "Hispanic/Latino" label. ( http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/12/the-benefits-of-private-school.html?cid=6a00d8341bf6ae53ef0120a779764c970b#comment-6a00d8341bf6ae53ef0120a779764c970b ) I just want to clarify that I am, in fact, of the opinion that HBD is valid. My comment took issue with the "Hispanic/Latino" label as a descriptive term for HBD purposes, as it does not clearly designate a racial group. The terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" designate a large group of people who have in commmon only that they derive from cultures from which Spanish is the primarily language. As noted in my original comment, such cultures include a great variety of racial categories.

Marlo also says:
"I think the HBD community knows that their pet theories on race, intelligence and crime are for the most part, not supported by scientific research; On an intellectual level, they know that they're wrong but on an emotional level, they just can't let go of their beliefs. That fear of "the black race" is so strong that they'll stop at absolutely nothing to convince themselves and anyone willing to listen that their beliefs are somehow grounded in reason and objective inquiry."

I disagree. HBD is, indeed, strongly supported by scientific research. An excellent defense of HBD is found below in this article by Charles Murray:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007391

As for the concern over "racism," it is my contention that discussion of HBD should cease to be treated as a taboo subject for precisely the reason it merits discussion by intelligent, scientifically minded, rational people. To fail to do so abdicates this sensitive subject to those who are indeed mean spirited, and who are indeed hateful of people belonging to certain racial groups. It is better for this matter to be discussed openly by people with an objective of dealing with the problems and difficulties that HBD poses. To pretend that HBD is just an illusion, or that it is just a dirty prank by ill-willed people, is to stick one's head in the sand.

[Marlo]

"Are you saying that all scientific research concerning race or intelligence is invalid?"

If you define races as genetically discrete populations, then yes. If race simply refers to a group with shared ancestry and/or physical characteristics, then maybe not. But even with this definition, it wouldn't be 100% accurate to say that blacks are more likely than whites to have sickle-cell anemia, since only certain groups of predominant sub-saharan ancestry are more likely to carry sickle-cell genes.

"This sounds to me like a bit of a True Scotsman argument. But anyway, assuming it's true, so what?"

You're the one who said that "egalitarians" (anyone who doesn't accept "HBD") make that claim.

"I'm a little confused. I thought that (according to you) race cannot play a role in scientific research. And what is this IQ you speak of?"

Again, it depends on what you mean by race...and I never said that IQ, as opposed to "innate intelligence", isn't measurable or variable across racial lines.

"But seriously, who did this study? I would like to look it up."

Rick Herber of the University of Wisconsin.

"By the way, it seems to me there's a third possibility:

Which is that the black/white IQ gap is partly genetically determined.

If this hypothesis is correct, one would expect that black children adopted into white families would end up with IQ's higher than the black average but less than that of white children adopted into white families."

It's a possibility, but there isn't much evidence for it. There is evidence that IQ is heritable to some extent, within the white population. But this only tells us that IQ is heritable to some extent, within the white population. It reveals nothing about IQ differences between blacks and whites.

So, it would be a mistake to disregard environment. For all we know, the IQ gap could largely be due to nursing differences, exposure to harmful chemicals in the womb or failure on the part of black mothers to effectively assist in the development of their children’s cognitive abilities early in life. This seems like the best explanation to me personally.

I'll consider the third possibility when you support it with a peer-reviewed source (something from a biological sciences journal, not Jensen or Rushton). Nobody knows the cause for sure, but if Sibril, The Undiscovered Jew, and the rest of the HBD community are sincerely concerned with scientific analysis, you should state what kind of evidence would make you change your mind.

No one here has done that, so it's kind of pointless to argue any further.

[sabril]

"it wouldn't be 100% accurate to say that blacks are more likely than whites to have sickle-cell anemia"

It's not a question of whether it's accurate, the question is whether it's a scientific claim or not.

"You're the one who said that 'egalitarians' (anyone who doesn't accept "HBD") make that claim."

Please show me where I said that. Please QUOTE me.

"Again, it depends on what you mean by race..."

How was race defined in the studies you have cited?

"It's a possibility, but there isn't much evidence for it. "

"I'll consider the third possibility when you support it with a peer-reviewed source (something from a biological sciences journal, not Jensen or Rushton)."

I have to laugh because this is just like the global warming alarmists' strategy. Why are people like Jensen or Rushton automatically excluded as possible authorities? Mainly because you disagree with them, it seems to me.

But please answer my question: Why are people like Jensen and Rushton automatically excluded as possible authorities?

Anyway, the very Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study you alluded to earlier supports the third alternative. Black children adopted into white homes ended up with higher IQ's than average blacks, but still lower than those of white children adopted into white homes.

[Haumea]

"Black children adopted into white homes ended up with higher IQ's than average blacks, but still lower than those of white children adopted into white homes."

IIRC, they ended up with IQ equal to average blacks for that geographic region (between 89 and 90), so there wasn't even any significant difference due to environment.

[sabril]

Interesting point Haumea. I should mention that I am loath to rely on the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study simply because it's ridiculous to limit the universe of evidence in this way.

Also, it cedes too much power to liberals who prefer to deny what's obvious to lying eyes. These same liberals who attempt to suppress and intimidate scientists who would research or discuss the intelligence gap, while at the same time citing the lack of research as support for their position.

The fact is that some things are sufficiently obvious as to be discernable from simple observation. Just from simple observation, one can see that (1) there is a large difference in intelligence between blacks and whites; and (2) the difference is both universal and intractable. The only reasonable explanation is that the difference is caused in large part by genetic differences.

[John]

"you should state what kind of evidence would make you change your mind."

1) If black children raised in adoptive white families had the same IQ as white children, that would change my mind.

2) If the IQs of black women who took good precautions with prenatal care had the same IQ as white children, that would change my mind.

3) If the IQ of black and mixed-race children was uncorrelated to the %black genetic admixture and only related to whether or not they were raised black, that would change my mind.

1 and 2 have been debunked. 3 has not been tested to my knowledge.

[sabril]

John, I concur with you. I would have said something along those lines except I missed that part of Marlo's post.

I would also change my mind if somebody showed me a repeatable, scalable, sustainable method of raising performance levels of blacks to those of equavelently chosen whites.

If would also see it as persuasive evidence if, after years of lavishing societal attention on improving the situation of blacks, the IQ gap closed substantially, i.e. to 7 points or less.

I would also see it as strong evidence if 1 or 2 black nations saw an increase in average IQ to 95 or higher without engaging in any eugenic type activities.

[Same Olde]

sabril,
Don't waste your time with certain people who leave comments. If it isn't fools like Jewish Atheist, it is clowns like Marlo. Never changes.

[Marlo]

Sabril wrote: "I have to laugh because this is just like the global warming alarmists' strategy. Why are people like Jensen or Rushton automatically excluded as possible authorities? Mainly because you disagree with them, it seems to me.

But please answer my question: Why are people like Jensen and Rushton automatically excluded as possible authorities?"

Authorities?

I'm not sure about you, but I'm not looking to any authorities to tell me what to think. I prefer to look directly at the findings and draw conclusions based on that. I'm wary of their research because they have a bad habit of making positive assertions and then excluding information that contradicts their claims.

"Anyway, the very Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study you alluded to earlier supports the third alternative. Black children adopted into white homes ended up with higher IQ's than average blacks, but still lower than those of white children adopted into white homes."

No, it doesn't support the third alternative. Even the authors of the Transracial Adoption study cautioned against drawing conclusions about genetic determinism and admitted that the study was methodologically flawed, namely because of the small sample size and the fact that the black children were adopted much later than the white and biracial children.

Unfortunately, this is the only study of its kind. The third alternative might gain some support if these results are replicated through a couple more transracial adoption studies at some point in the future.

But for now, it's worth noting that another study (conducted by Jack Tizard) found that black West Indian children, raised in the same environment as white (english) and bi-racial children, had a slight IQ advantage of the latter two. The IQ scores were 108 for black children, 106 for bi-racial children and 103 for white children.

John said: "1 and 2 have been debunked. 3 has not been tested to my knowledge."

They've been debunked, John? Really? A claim can only be 'debunked' when steady efforts to prove it wrong are successful. We have access to a single study....

An admittedly flawed one at that. There have been studies (Witty and Jenkins in 1934, for example) dealing with self reported ancestry and IQ. The study, which included a group of black students from Chicago, found that IQ score did not correlate with a person's amount of white ancestry. In fact, they discovered that of the 63 students tested, those with IQs of 140 or above actually had less white ancestry than their peers.

I'm not aware of any studies linking IQ and actual admixture proportions. Perhaps something will come about in the years to come.

Anywhoo, it's been fun talking with you gentleman...maybe I'll return sometime. I've learned a great deal from you all :)

[sabril]

"Authorities?

I'm not sure about you, but I'm not looking to any authorities to tell me what to think"

I think you misunderstood the question, so let me rephrase it: Why is work authored by Jensen or Rushton excluded as possible evidence?

"No, it doesn't support the third alternative. Even the authors of the Transracial Adoption study cautioned against drawing conclusions "

There's a difference between claiming a study as evidence and claiming it as conclusive proof.

But anyway, as I noted before, you don't need to look at peer-reviewed journals to be pretty confident that the black/white IQ (or intellignce) gap is largely genetic in origin.

Just simple observation will do.

Anyway, please answer my question:

Why is work authored by Jenson or Rushton excluded as possible evidence?

[R4P]

"But for now, it's worth noting that another study (conducted by Jack Tizard) found that black West Indian children, raised in the same environment as white (english) and bi-racial children, had a slight IQ advantage of the latter two. The IQ scores were 108 for black children, 106 for bi-racial children and 103 for white children."

Thanks for that, but at what age were these scores taken?

Its well known that black children mature at faster rates (walk earlier, lose 1st teeth earlier) , and also that childrens intelligence is highly malleable, with the genetic influence not clear until close to adulthood. So if Tizard's scores were taken from young subjects, then these results are entirely consistent with HBD. One of the trends in human evolution has been for longer and longer infant states, so it would be expected that the young of the trailing ends of H.sapiens would develop faster, initially.

The Minnesota Interracial Adoption study found that young black children did recieve an IQ boost at age 7, but that the subjects had regressed to the mean by maturity. And the authors of that study, in later statements, said they wanted to come out stronger in favor of a hereditarian explanation. But they needed to be published, so it is understandable.

[HS: The British West Indies is heaviliy populated with Indians from India, who have dark skin but are not "black" in the negro sense of the word. If these "blacks" had high IQs, it's probably because they were dark-skinned Asian Indians and not negroes.

See: http://www.movinghere.org.uk/galleries/roots/caribbean/migration/migrantgroups7.htm ]

[sabril]

"But they needed to be published, so it is understandable."

That's exactly why the question should NOT turn on the published literature. Liberals spend a lot of energy intimidating researchers and suppressing research they do not like. Then they turn around and cite the lack of scientific research as supporting their position.

The black/white intelligence gap is not something like secondhand smoke which needs to be studied very carefully in order to assess the health effect. Instead, it is more like the height difference between men and women.

Quite possibly, nobody has ever done a research study to see if women would grow to be as tall as men given the right environment. And yet every reasonable person accepts that the height difference between men and women is primarily genetic in origin. Why? Just simple observation and common sense.

Similarly, the black/white intelligence gap is universal both in time and in geopgraphical space. Moreover, none of the plausible alternatives (to genetics) has stood up to scrutiny.

There is only one reasonable explantion.