« Why do the poor live in cities? | Main | The least-black states »

March 29, 2011

Comments

Good analysis, but if you're thinking about the future you've got to take into account the 50+% illegitimacy rate of Mestizos, Puerto Ricans after they reach the US and start spawning subsequent generations of kids.

Also, incarceration rates are affected by deportation, as well. The US goverment spends enormous sums of money deporting Hispanic criminals to their home country after they've completed their sentence, so that means that they're not here to be incarcerated again. If we could exile millions of criminal blacks back to Africa it would drastically reduce criminality here, and certainly improve the gene pool of the remaining US blacks.


Criminality and law and order are two different things. Inter-ethnic conflict is a serious threat to peace even if it is not a matter of random thuggery.

This is true from my experience. I live in a majority hispanic city and I walk around at night with little fear as long as it is not the worst part of town. I would not feel safe in a black city no matter what part it was.

Having said that I am shocked at the number of Hispanic women who are single mothers and who embody prole behavior. Getting knocked up at 16 and going on welfare carries no shame in this community, but as you mention this is at least partially due to the times we live in. Especially in California. Hispanics today are by and large fatherless and absorb prole behavior that is rampant in America today.

It would be interesting to see what Hispanics were like in the 40's compared to today, when the social norms put pressure on people to not go on welfare and get knocked up at 16

You are too gullible, Half Sigma. There are several flaws in Ron Unz's analysis, and his thesis was debunked by several people back when the article was first published. While Hispanics are obviously much less crime-prone than blacks, they are still commit about 50 percent more crime than whites.

Jason Richwine's critique of Unz's analysis was particularly effective. See these posts:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/model-minority/

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/more-on-hispanics-and-crime/

http://blog.american.com/?p=11109

http://blog.american.com/?p=11237

See also this round-up of responses to Unz's piece: http://conservativetimes.org/?p=4723

To make it a fair comparison, they need to look only at American born hispanics and American born whites.

What effect does competition with Hispanic labor have on black crime rates? Immigration-control neo-liberals (like Mickey Kaus) point out that tight labor markets decrease crime and that's best reason to decrease immigration. Not sure what the evidence is, one way or the other.

My personal experience with Mexican-Americans and immigrants confirms this article. San Jose (Silicon Valley) has a huge Hispanic population to go along with its Asian population. The nightclubs in downtown San Jose have mostly Asian and Hispanic patrons in them. I have always felt safe and comfortable when visiting downtown San Jose's nightlife. Also, a recent article cited statistics that San Jose has the lowest crime rate for any city of its size in the U.S.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that much Hispanic violent crime is either gang-related, among acquaintances, or domestic. The sort of crime that engenders the most public fear, namely random, stranger-on-stranger street crime, is not a Hispanic "specialty." Another thing to keep in mind is the possibility that the existence of high-profile Hispanic gangs like the Latin Kings and MS-13 make Hispanic crime seem worse than it really is.

"To make it a fair comparison, they need to look only at American born hispanics and American born whites."

Yes. As pointed out by Richwine in the articles I linked to above, American-born Hispanics commit a lot more crimes than first-generation Hispanics.

"The conclusion is that, as long as non-black Hispanics are taught good values and kept away from the bad influence of American blacks, they don’t pose an imminent threat to law and order. "

So how do you explain the continent of South America?

Going from this article, you're basically one step away from liberal creationist unfettered immigration.

Very disappointed to see you champion this.

And I'm glad someone linked to the many refutations of the original article.

"So how do you explain the continent of South America?"

South America is really not that much of a hellhole, One. Perhaps you mean Central America?

I'm not sure if the Jason Richwine articles mentioned this, but a large number of criminals (not including illegals) were deported from 1998 to 2007.

"From 1998 to 2007, 816,000 criminal aliens were removed from the United States because of a criminal charge or conviction. This is equal to about one-fifth of the nation’s total jail and prison population. These figures do not include those removed for the lesser offense of living or working in the country illegally. The removal and deportation of large numbers of criminal aliens may reduce immigrant incarceration rates because many will not return and re-offend, as is the case with many native-born criminals."

http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime

I think Unz' article, while flawed, is one of the best analyses of hispanic immigrant crime in a semi-mainstream publication (shows the sorry state of our media). He himself acknowledged later that he had erred in adjusting pre-adjusted stats though:
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/03/09/ppic-data-on-hispanic-incarceration/
Unz himself has an interesting bio with similarities to Lars Von Trier. He used to be a fairly standard issue neoconservative (claims to have received his political education through "Commentary"), his current lambasting of neocons and publishing in LewRockwell(!) of P.O.W conspiracy theories seems like compensating.

A lot of the Hispanic violence seems domestic or gang related. Street crime isn't much of an issue among the immigrants from Mexico. I think the incarceration rates are much higher among the second generation, but even then I don't know if street crime is a serious issue. There are a lot of places in California, New Mexico, and Texas with large 2nd/3rd generation Mexican populations and low crime rates.

My theory is that Hispanics are low IQ (risk factor for crime) and low testosterone (risk factor against crime). So they don't act more criminally then whites because their testosterone is lower, but they don't act like a model minority either because their mean IQ is not high. People don't appreciate how testoserone differences explain quite a bit of interracial variance in violent crime rates.

PRs and Dominicans used to commit a lot of street crime, but their neighborhoods are a lot safer now.

I think HS is right that Hispanic crime rates are much more variable than those of blacks. Hispanics seem, by culture/mentality, to be more followers than leaders and are sort of submissive at times. Blacks, in contrast, are more independent minded and seem more defiant.

OneSTDV: the most criminal-prone South American countries (Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela) have a high black population percentage.
While there is political instability, heavily Indian/mestizo higher Andean nations (Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia), "light" mestizo Chile & Paraguay, and white Argentina & Uruguay are much less violent than northern South America and Brazil.

Johnny T, I agree about the personality differences between races, but it's not clear that testosterone is the only or the main driver of this. I think that the when natural selection favors aggressive behavior, then testosterone is selected for along with other factors which increase aggressive behavior, which is why you see the correlation.

Apparently none of you guys live in Los Angeles which is Hispanic gangbanger central. I've lived here all my life and remember quite clearly the dark days of the late 80s-mid 90s when gang activity was at it's worst. The great majority of the gangs here are still Mexican and El Salvadorean. I clearly recall being harassed by cholos(Latino gangbangers) and fearing for my life while walking to school, so I find the assertions here laughable. A lot of the poor migrant workers probably don't commit serious crimes but the reason is obvious, they don't want to get deported. I'm sure crime rates of African and West Indian immigrants are low as well. I would love to know how you explain why you can't walk the streets of Mexico City or Tijuana at night if you feel Hispanics are so aversive to crime. Btw, there are no blacks in Mexico to blame it on.

I know this is generally an anti-black blog, but blaming blacks for "poisoning" Hispanics?? Gimme a break. El Salvador is one of the most violent countries in Latin America and there are zero blacks there. Ciudad Juarez is the single most violent city in the Western Hemisphere and I doubt you'll find a single black that lives there. The percentage of blacks in Venezuela is way smaller than the percentage of Mestizos, trust me, it ain't black committing all the crimes in Venezuela.

As for Brazil, the crime has much more to do with the absurd distribution of wealth with a small elite class making more money than most rich Americans with everyone else living in favelas and an anemic middle class with little general social mobility. Concentrated poverty breeds violence. Around the turn of the 20th century when impoverished whites inhabited the slums and tenements of New York City, it was extremely violent and white ethnic gangs were rife. When I read some of the stories of violence there you'd think we were talking about Watts. And these were 100% white people.

If violence rates all come down to number of blacks, then explain to me why of the 10 countries of the world with the lowest murder rates, 6 of them are black countries:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-lowest-murder-rates.html

Hispanics are fine, in general, but they do much much better under white rule. When a town goes full Hispanic, it tends to go downhill. Most of the good towns, like San Jose and others in Northern California, still have high IQ people in charge, and a decent meritocracy in place, whereas LA does not.

Hispanics are not going to be our future Nobel winners and scientists, but given that these groups of people are on the decline around the world, we could have a lot worse filling up America. So long as we can retain our meritocracy they will make good farmworkers (needed) and good skilled worksmen in general. With them, it's not like we're taking in a ton of dependents, as is the case in Europe...

Moreover, I have a feeling that this might turn out for the better. If the US does not fill up, it will fill up eventually, unless we have some super anti-borders lobby, which we don't. Africa's population is burgeoning and continues to grow. Our white population is flat and will start a steady decline soon. If the same was for Latin America, our liberals would begin demanding we take in millions of African refugees. Instead, we're already taking in lots of Asians and Hispanics so there is little demand there, except some Somalis, who come and cause a ton of problems. People may think this is mad talk, but I say we will the nation up as quickly as possible with Asians and Hispanics, who aren't pro-black, so that when Africa's population is bursting from its seams at 3 billion, we'll be much more capable to say that we have no more space, rather than a declining population around 230 million...

What's important is to keep high IQ rule in place. Hispanics can succeed as a sort of workingmen caste, but they'll need stronger morals than the current generation is developing...

Chris:

Comparing murder rates around the world can be misleading because some countries may report less-than-reliable statistics. Burkina Faso may report a very low rate, but I would be most hesitant to trust their numbers.

Unz's article on Hispanic crime was flawed. Jason Richwine found that Unz miscalculated the data.


http://blog.american.com/?p=11109

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/100224_nd.htm

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=4723


BTW, while white Mexicans (about 3% of the population of Mexico) might have low crime rates, Amerindians and Mestizos (90% of the population of Mexico) do.

"If violence rates all come down to number of blacks, then explain to me why of the 10 countries of the world with the lowest murder rates, 6 of them are black countries:"

I'll explain it once you tell me how they arrived at those numbers. There are no proper statistics collection agencies in most African countries, nor are there victim surveys.

BTW, that map is wrong about European homicide rates, too -- Finland actually has one of the highest homicide rates in the EU.

Unz's article on Hispanic crime was flawed. Jason Richwine found that Unz miscalculated the data.


http://blog.american.com/?p=11109

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/100224_nd.htm

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=4723


BTW, while white Mexicans (about 3% of the population of Mexico) might have low crime rates, Amerindians and Mestizos (90% of the population of Mexico) do.

That should have read:

While white Mexicans (about 3% of the population of Mexico) might have low crime rates, Amerindians and Mestizos (90% of the population of Mexico) have high crime rates.

Family members of mine in Southern California have had to move because of mestizo gangbangers.

In terms of crime, Amerindians/Mestizos seem to be somewhere in between blacks and whites:

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html


And many of these Amerindian/Mestizo countries have low average IQs. Lynn put them at:

Equador, 80
Guatemala, 79
Mexico, 87
Puerto Rico, 84

That said, even if Amerindians/Mestizos were the smartest and least violent people in the world, it still would be genetic suicide to let them immigrate here.

See:

"Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is It Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?"

Frank Salter (Max Planck Society)

Population and Environment, Vol. 24, No. 2, November 2002.


Reprint: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/egi

"Comparing murder rates around the world can be misleading because some countries may report less-than-reliable statistics. Burkina Faso may report a very low rate, but I would be most hesitant to trust their numbers."

"I'll explain it once you tell me how they arrived at those numbers. There are no proper statistics collection agencies in most African countries, nor are there victim surveys."

Lol, oh really? So your only counter-argument is that African governments are too dumb to count the murdered bodies? Mali is really littered with bodies but the black government just doesn't record it. You'll have to do better than that. Btw, all you have to do is google for example, "Is Mali safe" and you will read reports from people that live there or have traveled through the country saying quite clearly that it is very safe. While Ghana is not in that top 10 list, it is also reported as being a very safe and friendly country by Westerners that have spent time there. Gee get that, an African country filled with millions of blacks that is safe! Who would have thought!

Chris,

I took your advice. Here is what I came up with:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/sub-saharan-africa/mali/

On 4 February 2011 an Italian national was kidnapped in south-eastern Algeria near the city of Djanet, for which AQ-M have claimed responsibility.

On 8 January 2011, French authorities confirmed that two French nationals kidnapped from Niamey, in Niger, had been killed near the border with Mali.

On 5 January 2011 the French Embassy in Bamako was attacked by an individual using explosives and a handgun.

On 16 September 2010, five French nationals were kidnapped in the town of Arlit in Niger.

On 26 July 2010 the French government confirmed that French national Michel Germaneau, who was kidnapped on 22 April near Arlit in north-western Niger, had been murdered.

On 28 December 2009, a group of Saudi Arabian nationals were attacked near the village of Djambala in Niger, close to the Mali border. Four of the group died in this attack.
On 18 December 2009 an Italian couple were kidnapped by an armed group in south eastern Mauritania 18 km east of Kobonni on the road to Mali.

On 29 November 2009 three Spanish nationals were kidnapped whilst travelling in a convoy on the road from Nouakchott, the capital of Mauritania, to the northern city of Nouadhibou.

On 25 November 2009 a French national was kidnapped near the city of Gao in Eastern Mali.

On November 14, 2009, there was an attempted kidnap in Tahoua, Niger, by heavily armed individuals against employees of the American Embassy.

A group of European tourists were kidnapped in the area of the Mali-Niger border on 22 January 2009. A British national who was part of this group was later murdered.

On 14 December 2008 two Canadian diplomats were kidnapped 25 miles outside of Niamey and held in Mali.

"That would be unnecessary. The WISC for children was re-normed in 1974. The study participants took the test in 1985. Even when the Flynn effect is accounted for, we are talking about a mere 3 IQ points. It doesn't effect the results at all."

But they didn't use the renormed revised WISC (WISC-R), they used the original which was normed in 1947 (published in 1949). Their norms were obsolete by roughly 4 decades, giving IQ scores roughly 10 points too high.

"The problem here is that it doesn't match Moore's study at all. In Moore's study, mulatto children adopted into middle class black homes averaged IQ scores of 105.7, whereas Negroes averaged 102.9."

After correcting for inflated norms, mulattos in middle class black homes averaged about 96; higher than blacks who averaged about 93. Mulattos scoring higher than blacks reared in the same environment is consistent with the genetic hypothesis. But the gap is small which is to be expected because genetics have much less influence on IQ at that age.

"On the other hand, mulattos adopted into white middle class homes averaged IQ scores of 116.5 whereas Negroes adopted into white middle class homes averaged scores of 118."

Adjusted for inflated norms, mulattos adopted into white middle class homes averaged IQ scores of about 107 whereas blacks adopted into white middle class homes averaged scores of about 108. This contradicts the genetic hypothesis in that both groups scored above the white average and blacks scored a touch higer than mulattos, however the kids are very young and their IQ's probably reverted down to the black and mulatto national averages as they got older and the effects of home environment vanish. Sample size is also very small (only 9 blacks and 14 mulattoes raised in these white middle class homes) so sampling error is to be expected.

"Interestingly, the result of Moore's study is consistent with the results of another strictly controlled study by Tizard, Cooperman, Joseph, & Tizard in which the environment was held constant with black, white, and mulatto orphans being raised from birth in a enriched residential nursery. The IQ tests given at age five showed an average IQ of of 108 for Negroes, 106 for mulattoes, and 103 for whites."

That study also had a very small sample size, involved the children of black immigrants who are above the black mean, and who were also tested at an extremely young age where the social environment looms large. Also, black children mature faster then white kids, so an IQ test at that young an age is of limited value.

"Out of the three studies thus far attempted of this nature, two agree wholly with the notion that poverty and the intellectually crippling environment which accompanies it is the cause of low IQ test scores, and one is too chock full of confounding factors to be of any scientific use. I think we should use the best studies we currently have available to draw our conclusions."

The Scarr Weinberg study is the best study in that it has the largest sample size and was the only study to follow up on the children post-puperty (when the black-white IQ gap fully develops and the effects of family environment begin to diminish). The only problem with the Scarr Weinberg study was that the black kids were adopted later than the whites and mulattoes, but the study is still excellent for comparing unmixed whites with hybrids. All three studies agree that a stimulating environment can raise the IQ's of mulattoes above the white average during childhood, but the Scarr Weinberg study shows that it will sink to the mid 90s post puberty. The Scarr Weinberg study however needs to be replicated though before HBD gains acceptance.

I also wonder how many more studies have been done but didn't publish when the results failed to confirm ideology.

The 'bad white' phenomenon is because you have 'tribal whites', means Scots and Irish who never culturally developed past the tribalism that we usually use to characterize the blacks.

W. Va has a lot of these, so do the other states.

negroes are criminals because they are stupid racist bums because 80% are borne out of wedlock to woman who's iq is less than 100.these bastards never see a real black male who works every day,they have no role model other than gang bangers so they go down the trail to negro college.take a look at the drop out rate for negroes and mexican type indians none of them care anything about education when they can blame whitey for all there problems.it is the commies democrats in congress who destroyed the black family with the welfare plantation.

The comments to this entry are closed.