How Many Blacks Are “Ghetto Blacks”?

Frank Smith asks:

Robert, in your opinion, what percentage of blacks are ghetto blacks?

That question is almost impossible to answer because it is so hard to define. I have had Blacks tell me that it is only 20% of Blacks who are ghetto, but it could well be more than that because so many Blacks are so maddeningly hard to define. The truth is that many Blacks have both Civilized* and Ghetto* components to them. At times they are what I would call Civilized and at other times they are Ghetto. Others drift in and out of Civilized and Ghetto modes. A lot of the Blacks around here are like that.

And there is the definition of what is Ghetto. Ghetto is really nothing more than Street Black Culture. Where I live, a very large % of Blacks are involved in Street Black Culture, especially the younger ones.

What is the dope smoking, heavy drinking retired Black schoolteacher neighbor of mine? She acts pretty ghetto, but she was a schoolteacher for many years. One daughter just graduated from college and another is now away at college on a scholarship. Another one has pimps and thugs for boyfriends, gets beaten by her lovers, has worked as a prostitute, and can speak Ebonics for an hour without my understanding a single word. She can also behave in a civilized fashion if she wants to and was recently enrolled in a surgical assistant program.

The Black girl next door is a Jehovah’s Witness, but she knows how to speak jive. Her best friend was an Hispanic gangbanger. Her boyfriend now is a good-looking young Black man who looks like a typical hood but is said to be a decent guy.

The Black handyman is a great guy, a good hard worker, but he is a real Black with a very thick accent. At times he can speak top notch jive and Ebonics.

Truth is around here, most of the Blacks act ghetto to one degree or another.

“Ghetto” and “Civilized” are best seen as “modes” that many US Blacks negotiate back and forth between, sometimes during discreet periods and at other times in the course of an hour or a day. Others mix both Civilized and Ghetto modes together at the same time in a mosaic. Some ascend to Civilized, while others descent to Ghetto. The same person may make this journey many times.

When Blacks are a minority as they are in my town (4%), heavily ghettoized Blacks have their ghetto behaviors substantially modulated by the presence of large Hispanic or White majorities, who encourage them to aspire to more Civilized behaviors while encouraging them to tone down the more ghetto behaviors. If the Black % in this town went up by a significant number, many of these local Blacks would probably act less Civilized and more ghetto, since ghetto behaviors seem to increase with the % percentage of Blacks in a community as the lowest common denominator rules and Blacks egg each other in a race to race to the bottom and there are few positive role models to aspire to or to police bad behaviors.

*In this essay, I use Civilized to mean the opposite of Ghetto behaviors. A Black person acting Civilized would display minimal ghetto behaviors and would be describe by Whites as behaving well within the context of what we think is decent behavior. And Ghetto, well, you know what that is!

The Camp of Saints

Repost from the old site.

A very nice, but somewhat dated (though the situation has probably only gotten worse), review of The Camp of Saints, one of the most hated books ever written. The link is on the execrable Free Republic, and the author of the review is a libertarian fool. Looks like Jean Raspail, the author of the book, was some kind of rightwing nut too.

They both blame “socialism” for causing such horrible living conditions, along with starvation and mass and early death and disease, that afflict the Third World. This is truly bizarre. Even autarkic Albania nearly doubled life expectancy from 1946 to 1980, though it was not very successful in other ways.

Almost all of the true Third World nightmare states are operating under some kind of capitalism, usually a particularly ferocious.

That socialism is good for life can been seen in the figures of Sri Lanka and India. Because India lacks Sri Lanka’s infant mortality figures, India suffers about 2.7 million dead babies every year. Those are some real numbers for you Black Book of Communism clowns to chew on. Sri Lanka’s great figures can be attributed exclusively to a mature socialist system there (Sri Lanka is a member of the Socialist International).

Everywhere we look we find the same thing, with some aberrations such as North Korea. One thing Communists in general did and do a great job of, other than a few disruptive periods, was putting enough food in everyone’s stomach. This is also something that capitalists everywhere and at all times have done poorly, ranging from deficient to just plain disastrous.

Almost every Communist country ate vastly better after Communism than before. Cuba currently has the lowest malnutrition rate in Latin America, and the UN says they have beaten it altogether. Even Costa Rica has 7% malnutrition – so much for Latin American social democracy. That Communism or socialism “causes mass starvation everywhere it has been tried” is surely one of the vicious and stupid of the anti-Communists’ lies.

Anyway, ignoring the libertarian delusional thinking, the review is a good one, and the Spaniard author notes that it is taking place as we speak, with boats patrolling the shores off the coast of Europe for flotillas pouring out of West Africa towards Europe. Boatloads of Kurds landed on the Riviera and then poured through the streets of Marseilles a while back. Those are scenes right out of the book.

The book has been dismissed as racist claptrap, but that is not entirely true. Raspail was non-racist enough to suggest that Western civilization was a cultural concept and not a racial one. I currently live in Greater Tijuana, now extending 500 miles north of Mexico into California. Only an Hispanic or the most deluded Leftist would see this transformation of a White working class town into just another Mexican city as positive.

I have nothing against US expats, but I never intended to become one. Instead the foreign country came to me, and nobody asked me to vote on it either – instead, it just got shoved down my throat and I was told to lick my lips and say thanks. The US-Mexico border in some important ways no longer really much exists.

Raspail conflates immigration with illegal immigration, the same way the Leftist illegal immigrant lovers do. Legal immigration to the US, other than refugees, is hardly a problem. We vet them very carefully, and few get into trouble. We need to limit it for environmental reasons, but other than that, the real massive damage is being done by illegal immigrants and increasingly their offspring.

Here in California, once a city goes over 60% Hispanic, it is pretty much wrecked in the eyes of any sensible non-Hispanic. We are even starting to see some guilt-riddled Hispanic Flight, with more well-to-do and self-preserving Hispanics fleeing Hispanic-destroyed towns for Whiter suburbs.

Over 60% Hispanic and a city starts getting dirty, trashy, run-down and falling apart. Crime explodes, especially petty theft, but really all types. Gangs are everywhere and so is graffiti. School failure and dropout rates go through the roof. It’s a chaotic and somewhat dangerous mess, but I guess maybe illegals like it that way, because they are just reproducing the Mexico they fled.

This unfortunately titled Usenet post sums it up quite well. What the policeman describes is reality that any honest Californian understands oh so well. He’s not hallucinating. This is basically par for the course in this state.

Particularly poignant was the destruction of the wages and lifestyle of good honest working class Americans, a devastation outrageously championed to the hilt by the entire US Left. It’s hard to imagine a position that is more hostile to working class Americans, but the Left has taken it up.

I don’t necessarily agree with the rightwing “illegals only come here for the welfare” crap in the post but the portrayal of a decent American neighborhood destroyed by Mexican illegals is gut-wrenching.

Mostly this is associated with the illegals and their nightmarish and oversized broods of children, who are growing up as an Underclass that rivals the Black one but is not nearly so pathological.

Hispanics, like Blacks, are splitting into two races. Blacks have already split and Hispanics will be next. There is an assimilated Black group that can be describes as relatively “non-Ghetto”. There is another group with a “Ghetto” mindset to this extent or that that extends tentacles to varying degrees down into the clusterfuck called the Black Underclass.

The Blacks that have left ghetto behind are increasingly disgusted with their ghetto brethren, and are for all intents and purposes just leaving them to twist in the breeze. I don’t blame them.

The same thing is starting to occur with Hispanics. In my town, there is a group of Hispanics that has grown up (usually) speaking Spanish and English and is comfortable in both languages. They tend to be lighter and to make more money, but that’s not always the case. They are just another group of Americans pretty much like the rest of us, and they are no cause for concern at all in most ways.

There is another group that, as noted above, resembles a much better behaved Black Underclass in too many ways. I figure these groups are going to split more and more in the future. Class generally trumps race any day of the week with anyone.

The illegals have just transplanted the poor and peasant societies of Mexico to America. Their kids have largely become the new Underclass described above. This group tend to be darker and to make less money, but once again, no hard rules.

When the book burners scream, rational people want to know why.

By the way, I agree with some of the commenters after the piece on the need to read the book critically, to say the least.

The reviewer also offers some interesting points on a uniquely Iberian point of view, especially in terms of defending Western civilization in Europe from various unwashed or barbarian hordes, and their disgust at the Northern Europeans for wimping out on defending the continent. They also lived under Islam for way too long, remember it well, and are not going back without a fight.

Contrast to the Continental Left that seems to think new majority-Muslim states in Europe will be glorious explosions of progressive expression.

Iberians and non-Iberians have some conflict, but a little conflict adds luscious spice to life, and those who refuse to act aggressively in defending their interests get bulldozed.

Fantastic Photos of Katrina Damage

Repost from the old site.

Of course, the entire Internet was full of incredible photos from Hurricane Katrina after the storm. One thing I have not seen much of, though, are overhead pics of the damage. Sometimes, to get a “bird’s eye view” of a situation, an overhead pic is capable of showing us tumultuous scenes in an entirely new way, a whole new perspective, so to speak – one which we can rarely grasp from the ground as non-flying mammals 5-6 feet off the ground.

The fantastic photos above were taken by a forensic dentist who was down in NOLA after the flood helping to identify bodies (in keeping with the Katrina death toll theme of this increasingly morbid blog). One of the things I found stunning about the photos above is how much water is still in NOLA, and how NOLA seems to have taken on some aspects of what we radical treehuggers call “re-wilding”.

In case you don’t know, re-wilding is a deep ecological concept that holds, rather quixotically, that mankind should begin “re-wilding” areas that had been previously seriously altered by human activities. Since re-wilding doesn’t have a positive effect on anyone’s bottom line, it hasn’t been implemented much. But we see signs of it anyway, though it is inadvertent.

For instance, I am told that some US inner cities are decaying so badly and consequently being abandoned by their human populations, that certain lots are heading back towards native vegetation.

Detroit comes to mind. About 20 years ago, I read that there were parts of Detroit where so many structures had been torn down that vacant lots outnumber developed ones. Purportedly, these lots were going back to something like native vegetation. At the same time, wildlife was supposedly returning.

Now, I figure if a US city is going to fall apart, it’s better to have vacant lots re-vegetate and have the real wildlife come back, as opposed to such “wildlife” as heroin addicts, criminals, crack dealers and addicts, homeless folks pushing shopping carts, etc. The non-human animals cause very little harm, cost society very little, and in general, have a positive impact on society, while the human wildlife above does the opposite.

With that in mind, take at look at the photos* above.

In the first photo, an entire street is devastated and is now surrounded by what looks like native forest. A vast green area, dotted with homes, lies in the distance. Through this verdant grassy plain flows a totally improbable river (Or is it an elongated lake?) which probably never existed before. The plain is spotted with equally improbable smaller lakes, sloughs, backwaters, etc.

In the second photo, what looks like riverfront homes have been devastated, Hiroshima-like. There really is nothing left. All that is left is the remains of a woodland, combined with sand where homes once stood.

The third picture has not really re-wilded, since this was a densely settled area of probably expensive riverfront homes. Yet possibly 70-80% of the homes are pretty much totaled. Trees seem to dominate the as houses seem to recede into the background. The effect is to transform a densely settled city riverfront district into something like a rural tract with homes on large lots.

A street winds through the homes that no longer exist – a street that can no longer be called a “residential” street. I can just picture a deer or coyote wending down that street. It wouldn’t seem out of place at all.

With that, I leave you, and I hope you all had a very nice Thanksgiving.

*These photos were originally huge – each about 2 to 3 MB in size. The photos themselves would have been about 12 inches across in actual size. It was rather messy, but the inimitable Photoshop was able to shrink them down to about 50-70 KB (a 97% reduction) with very little loss of quality, which I consider to be an amazing feat. We also enhanced the photos quite a bit, also with Photoshop.

A Thought Experiment Regarding Detroit

People say economics ruined the city. The remaining Blacks (keep in mind that Detroit is 90% Black) are seen as victims, stuck there and abandoned by a ruined economy, which they did nothing to cause.

Others say like commenter Ishmael that Detroit has a Black problem. Many of Detroit’s problems flow directly from the fact that it is now a 90% Black city.

Keep in mind that in the US, whenever any huge US city gets around 90% Black, it’s effectively ruined. In fact, most large US cities that are over 50% Black are pretty much thrashed in one way or another. Sure, there are plenty of suburbs, small cities and towns of various sizes that are heavily Black and seem to do ok. But once a large US city goes majority Black, something terrible seems to happen to it.

Let’s try a thought experiment: Suppose we had a Stalinist or Stalin-like dictator in the US dedicated to the common good and the greatest good for the greatest number. He would also be, like Stalin, utterly dedicated to the concept of what the right derisively calls “social engineering” on a mass scale.

Detroit now is the same under this Stalin-type dictator. US Stalin has had it with Detroit as nothing seems to work. He decides to transform Detroit. Whereas now it’s 90% Black and ~10% White, he decides to switch the figures around and make Detroit 90% White and 10% Black. Nothing else will change about Detroit. Everything else will remain the same, finances, economics, government, the whole mess. Those Whites will be effectively abandoned in the same ruined and wrecked city.

You still think it would be the same city? Would the 90% White Detroit act the same as the present day 90% Black Detroit?

I do not think so.

The Death of Johannesburg

Although of course I opposed apartheid, supported the ANC and the transition to democracy, let’s face it. It hasn’t all been peaches and roses, now has it? On balance though, I would say that it was the right thing to do. One man one vote is the only way to go. Apartheid, racist rule by a tiny minority, was just wrong, period, whatever benefits it may have had for whoever.

Sometimes doing the right thing causes more problems than doing the wrong thing. In that case, as a Western Christian, I would still say that we should do the right thing anyway for no other reason than to do the right thing. Doing the right thing is proper and correct in and of itself, regardless of whatever consequences flow from that decision.

Besides, the notion that Blacks lived in paradise under apartheid is highly dubious!

Reading through the comments, many of which are racist, one point keeps getting hammered home over and over. The nonracist side of me cringes when I hear it, but nevertheless, all arguments should be entertained in the quest for truth. Just because an argument is racist doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Sadly, racist arguments may indeed be correct even if the people making them are bad people.

The argument is that Blacks not only cannot create higher civilization in the first place on their own, but when handed a higher civilization created by another group (typically Whites) in a matter of time, a few decades or less, they pretty much unravel that advanced civilization and turn the place into a dirty, dangerous, chaotic, polluted, unhealthy slum. Those pictures in that video could be of Detroit, East St. Louis, Camden, Newark, Chicago’s South Side or Oakland.

Whether or not Blacks are civilization destroyers once they become a majority is an interesting question, but once one accepts the premise just for the purposes of argument, one still wonders at the reason.

One argument is IQ. However, the US Black IQ is ~87. That’s certainly high enough to create stable civilization. The African IQ is controversial. One paper says it is only ~69. In that case, civilization wrecking would seem to be par for the course. Yet a new study puts the African IQ at ~80.

I am not sure if that is correct, but if it is, that should be high enough to create a functional society. After all, the Moroccan IQ is 82, the Indonesian IQ is 79 and the Qatari IQ is 78. All of these peoples have produced more or less functional societies with ~80 IQ’s, so an 80 IQ should be plenty enough to create a working society.

Another argument is high testosterone. High testosterone may explain higher Black crime rates until age 33. Would Black crime alone in and of itself be enough to completely unravel civilization in that way we see in Detroit and in the video? Isn’t there more going on there than just crime? At any rate, Black women commit little crime, and after age 33, Black men’s testosterone is lower than that of Whites. Surely Black women and older Black males ought to be able to create functional societies as they don’t have testosterone to blame.

At the end of the day, the arguments just don’t seem to be make sense. The, yes, racist argument that Blacks are civilization wreckers in at least quite a few cases stings, but even non-racists must wonder painfully if it’s true. Yet that arguments put forward for why Blacks dismantle civilization seem to lack explanatory adequacy.

Even more painfully, let us suppose that Blacks have civilization dismantling properties. Are they doomed to do this forever and ever? Is there any hope for Blacks? Are admixed Blacks (mulattos, zambos, etc.) also likely to do this? If so, do they do it at the same rate or a lesser rate?

I’m sure that quite a few Black people like to live in chaotic, filthy, disordered, and dangerous places. On the other hand, we have Black commenters and authors on this site who are as repulsed by these places as I am.

Before attacking Blacks wholesale for dismantling civilization, let us keep in mind that the primary victims of Black civilization dismantling are Blacks themselves. Other races suffer from the downside of this unraveling at a dramatically reduced rate. As Blacks dismantle civilizations, they inflict an unbelievably horrific cost of suffering, pain, illness and death on their very own kind. That right there is as sad as a bottomless well. That Blacks are the primary victims of this entropic impulse makes it even more imperative that we get to the bottom of it.

Problems With the US Black IQ

The problem with the US Black IQ? In a nutshell, it seems too high compared to their achievement levels. To put it painfully, US Blacks act way dumber than they apparently are. I explain below.

A commenter writes:

I live in Georgia, and I don’t believe for a second that our local Negroes have an average IQ of 91.3. For one thing, that would make them smarter than the “Hispanics” (IQ: 87). Observation would indicate that the reverse is true.Furthermore, an IQ of 91 would make the American Negro only a couple points below the average Greek (93). A comparison of the accomplishments of the ethnic groups in question shows how unlikely this is.

Hell, I even doubt the more accepted estimate of 85, since it is difficult to believe that Arabs (83-87) and Persians (84), two groups which I respect a great deal, and which have contributed much to civilization, are in the same IQ range as the African-American.

Several months ago, I read two studies. One claimed that the average IQ of 85 for American Negroes had been an overestimate, and that the real IQ was around 78 or so. The other claimed that the Negroes here in Georgia, who evidently have significantly less Caucasoid admixture than Blacks in other areas of the country, have an IQ of only 71. These numbers seem quite likely to me.

As noted in the piece, the Black US IQ of 91 is for 13 year old’s only. It is not the correct score for adults. The correct score for adults is 85. I think it has risen lately to ~87. Let us be generous and say that US Blacks have IQ’s of 86.

The commenter says that a new study shows that US Black IQ is only 78. I do not believe that. The 85 score is quite robust over decades, though individual studies vary. The same study also found that Georgian Blacks have IQ’s of 71. It’s possible that Georgian Blacks have IQ’s 7 points below the Black average. That would give them IQ’s of 78, not 71. 71 is in African territory.

I have a friend who moved from Michigan (Detroit suburbs) to Georgia (Atlanta). She insists that Georgian Blacks at much worse than even Detroit Blacks, which is hard to believe. She also implied that they are stupider. Actually, the study linked here shows Georgian Blacks to have average IQ’s at age 13. Extrapolating out, Georgian Blacks have IQ’s of ~86.3. Michigan Blacks seem to have IQ’s of ~86.1. So you can see where impressionistic analysis gets you.

US Blacks display marked failures, lagging, inability to thrive, etc. which have been noted by many people for many years now. Even the Left talks about it, but they blame racism. There is no need to go over the details of these problems once again.

The commenter’s inability to believe that US Blacks have even IQ’s of 85 makes sense. Does it make sense intuitively that US Black 13 year olds are nearly as intelligent as Greek 13 year olds? Or even Hispanic 13 year olds? Not really.

The commenter incorrectly states the US Hispanic IQ as 87. Instead, it is ~90, and the second generation scores as high as 95.

The reason that the US Black IQ seems too high is that their failures seem to be great for a group with an IQ of 86.

Do Arabs, Persians, mestizos, Filipinos, Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians display the same kind of total societal collapse and failure to create any kind of livable society that see in the seemingly postwar burned out fall of the Roman Empire dystopias of Oakland, Detroit, East St. Louis, Newark, Camden and New Orleans. These are worse than slums. Most places that look like that have just been through a war. These places have the look of the collapsed societies of science fiction or history. We are looking at ruins, not civilization.

Most of the above groups tend to create livable cities and societies, though the slums of the Philippines and Latin America are pretty horrible, in general, these societies still function.

In other words, US Blacks seem to function at a much lower level than would be expected by their IQ’s. Compared to other world populations with similar IQ’s, US Blacks surely seem to have a sufficient IQ to create functional societies. That they cannot seems mysterious, so people start straw grasping to explain the unexplainable. Such as that the scores must be wrong.

The scores are not wrong, but there is something wrong with US Blacks. Compared to their IQ’s, they seem to be grotesque underachievers to say the least. Perhaps there are other biological reasons for US Black failure compared to groups with similar IQ’s, but I’m at a loss to find them. Without that, we are left with the conclusion that US Blacks are simply screwing up, and there are non-IQ and non-biological reasons for their hollowed out cities and societies.

A couple of points here. HBD types and racists like to point to the ghostly ruins of US Black cities and place all the blame on that famous 86 IQ. I hope I have demonstrated in this post that IQ score can’t possibly be the reason for such wrecks. There’s no reason that humans with an 86 IQ would inevitably lay waste to a city like that. That IQ ought to be sufficient to build a city as nice as Tripoli, Riyadh or Tehran.

Since no one can figure out other US Black biological factors to explain such things, we are left with sociological or cultural explanations. One explanation is that US Blacks are simply screwing up, and that these urban wrecks are by and large their own fault and doing. Not the fault of their genes, but the fault of their own poor choices. Unfortunately, this leads to rightwing “cut em off” thinking that as a socialist I find abhorrent.

Either that or we can blame society, but I’m getting a little tired of that.

The Reversion of Detroit

There are plenty of internet sites out there that show you the burned out Hellish wreckage that is Detroit, Michigan. Most cities that look like Detroit have just been through a war.

In the last decade, Detroit lost 25% of its population. It’s population is now as low as it was in 1910.

This video, Detroit Wildlife, by a French filmmaker, is very interesting. It shows a hopeful side to the terrifying human and structural wreckage of Detroit. For Detroit is reverting. In the early days, it went from an agricultural to an industrial center. Now it’s going back to its rural origins. Outside of downtown and between the tall buildings and the first ring of exurbs, much of the landscape is going back to nature. People are making urban gardens and starting to raise farm animals.

Forests are coming back, and so are the wild animals. The city of Detroit is now home to opossums, raccoons, rabbits, pheasants, foxes, deer and even coyotes. And I though the only animals in Detroit were the people!

Neoclassical Silliness on the Minimum Wage Again

Chuck is the latest proponent of neoclassical nonsense to grace our blog:

How much worse off would people in those countries be if their children couldn’t work? You can’t apply U.S. ideals to countries that aren’t as far along the economic life cycle as the U.S.

His first paragraph attempts to justify the total failure of the lack of minimum wage laws in the 3rd World to deal with the problems of unemployment or poor pay. He deals with this by not answering the question.

Meanwhile, Cuba has a minimum wage law and has full employment. In the US, there are indeed states in the US South that have no minimum wage laws. I’m not sure what the means in terms of what employers can do, but those states have the worst pay and working conditions in the US.

In fact, you will see an excellent correlation in the US and around the world: Everywhere there is no minimum wage law, you have terrible pay and working conditions, and in many places, you also have mass unemployment. The working man is getting fucked. Countries that have minimum wage laws, on average, tend to have better treatment of workers and better pay.

Lack of minimum wage laws is bad for workers!

Once again, we see the enemies of the workers, the neoclassicals, claiming that they are out to help their worker buddies. It’s a lie. Why would our enemies want to help us? The neoclassicals are the agents of Capital and the rich. They want to get rid of minimum wage laws because that’s good for capitalists. It’s good for capitalists and bad for workers. Workers in the developed world won’t work at a shit job that doesn’t even pay enough to survive. Indeed, the minimum wage itself is barely even enough to survive on. Some say it’s low that you can’t survive on it. I’m not sure if that’s true, but if you can barely survive on a minimum wage, how could you survive on a sub-minimum wage?

Thomas Sowell, a Black neoclassical economist, says that we should get rid of minimum wage laws so ghetto Blacks could have jobs. But the jobs did not leave the ghettos because of minimum wage laws! They left because the ghetto Blacks destroyed the neighborhood, mostly through crime, and all of the businesses fled. There are jobs in those areas, but many young Blacks do not want to work for them. They barely want to work for minimum wage. They consider that chump change. They make a Hell of a lot more money selling dope, which is why they do it.

“Crowds and the People Inside Them,” by Alpha Unit

New Alpha Unit. This post is about the anti-Jewish Crown Heights riots in New York when mobs of Blacks rampaged through the streets, sometimes yelling, “Heil Hitler” and attacking the Orthodox Jews who lived there. There is a lot of resentment towards Orthodox Jews in New York.

As a Dominican friend of mine who lived there once said, “They’re tight and they treat non-Jews like shit.”Unfortunately, that’s a pretty accurate portrayal of Orthodox Jews in New York.

Orthodox Jews were the landlords of his building and the other buildings around there.

He spent a lot of time investigating the auctions that the city of New York had every year to lease out city property. After intensely studying the issue for a long time, he finally came away convinced that the auctions were rigged. During the tenure of Mike Bloomberg, my friend said that 70% of the auctions were closed bids, and all went to Jewish bidders. Bloomberg was waging ethnic warfare for the Jews against the non-Jews on New York in a fraudulent and corrupt bidding process.

When a Catholic, Rudy Giuliani, came in, the situation reversed. Now 70% of the bids were closed bids going to Catholics, typically Italians, but also Dominicans and others. The Jews and Catholics of New York were waging a totally corrupt, Third World style ethnic warfare on each other all the way from the very top down.

He said the Orthodox Jewish landlords were well known as slumlords. They never fixed anything and they, in general, treated non-Jews like crap. That’s not necessarily a slam at Jews in general, but it’s a slam at the Orthodox. The classic anti-Semitic stereotypes are most prominently displayed in the often racist behavior of the Orthodox. In my experience, the more assimilated and less religious the Jew, the less these classic stereotypes and racist behaviors are evident.

During the Crown Heights riots, the Blacks were said to be angry about the Orthodox Jews buying up property in their neighborhood. Black anti-Semitism is a new thing, and it’s very complex. I don’t pretend to understand it well, and an analysis of it goes beyond the scope of this post. A lot of this stems from Jews running stores in the ghettos where they charged high prices and were often overtly suspicious of Black customers or treated them poorly.

The high prices are possibly due to the costs of running a ghetto store. Due to high crime, security needs and large-scale theft of merchandise probably add to the cost of doing business. Blacks are treated suspiciously in ghetto stores frankly because so many of them steal, act bad and sometimes do even worse things.

High levels of ghetto-TNB (Typical Negro Behavior)* lead to ghetto store owners treating all, most or many Black customers poorly. The treatment is probably reciprocated. It’s important to note that not just Jews have been guilty of this behavior. First Jews, then Koreans, Arabs, East Indians and other ethnics have run ghetto stores. Many have packed up and left due to high theft or violent crime.

The Jewish behavior above has been mirrored precisely by all of the other groups running these stores.

It was against this background that the lamentable and tragic Crown Heights riots occurred. Many Jews still smart when they think of these riots.

*A sarcastic, humorous, and not altogether true, expression for the worst stereotypical Black behaviors. The word “nigger” is usually substituted for “Negro,” but I’m trying to avoid being offensive here. I don’t think that “TNB” really is typical Black behavior, or at least I hope not. It’s mostly just a snide synonym for “ghetto” behaviors.

When in crowds, people do things that they wouldn’t do if alone. A crowd is a kind of organism with a life and death of its own.

The saying goes that there is safety in numbers. There’s also danger sometimes.

I’ve never cared for being in crowds myself. Once when I was eighteen, back in the late seventies, I went to a concert with some friends – it may have been my first time going to a concert. They were two friends I had made my first semester in the dorm.

I liked the concert – I think it was Bruce Springsteen – but I remember being separated from them afterward for some reason. Being in large crowds is overstimulating as it is for me, so I was trying not to be too frustrated while trying to get past all these people and scanning the entire place for their faces.

And then I saw one of them. She saw me, too. I was still finding my way down from my seat, and she was standing in the middle of the arena floor. She raised one of her arms high so I wouldn’t lose sight of her. And she kept her arm raised the entire time I made my way down.

When I finally got to her, she smiled, like it had been no big thing. She really was one of the nicest people I ever met, although I think another reason she was so mellow is that she was high. I just know that if she hadn’t done what she did, it might have taken forever to find her. Or I might have given up trying to.

My instinct is to get the hell out of a crowd as soon as I can. And this is why I don’t understand why people will mill around in a crowd even when it’s obvious that something really bad is either about to happen or has just happened.

People who study crowd psychology note that one of the things that happens to you in a crowd is a loss of individuality. This may sound obvious, but it can have serious ramifications. Once something bad starts to go down in a crowd, who you actually are ceases to matter, in a way. You are essentially anonymous.

If two sides, for example, are going at it in a crowd, there is a strong likelihood that you are going to be seen as “one of them.” It might not matter that you are just an innocent bystander. If you’re perceived to be “one of them,” you might get hurt. Or, in your sudden anonymity, no one will really care who you are. You could get hurt just being in the way. Once a crowd is in this state of arousal, you are in danger.

Some of the people who’ve been tear-gassed or beaten by police during riots weren’t rioters. They were innocent people caught up in that situation. They were reporters, some of them, there to record the event. Once police batons start flailing, it doesn’t matter what your intentions were if you are perceived to be a part of some unruly mass.

Some of those hurt or killed during the student protest at Kent State University in 1970 weren’t protesting. They were kids going to or from class. The bullets flying that day didn’t make any distinctions.

Back in 1992, Reginald Denny was an innocent guy driving a truck when he pulled up to an intersection in Los Angeles, where, unbeknownst to him, there was a riot in progress. The rioters attacked the truck, then dragged him out of it and beat him nearly to death. It didn’t matter who he was to his assailants. He was “one of them.”

Something else working against you in a situation like this is “diffusion of responsibility.” If people are inclined to engage in antisocial acts and are surrounded by like-minded individuals, the odds are in favor of antisocial behavior. Everybody is familiar with this; it happens in lynch mobs and other kinds of spontaneous groupings.

The flip side of diffusion of responsibility is that if you do get hurt in a crowd, there is a very good chance that those who witnessed it won’t come to your aid. Not because they’re just cold-blooded human beings, but because they’re actually going to be unsure if they should! They’re going to be checking everybody else’s reactions to tell them whether or not it’s a good idea for them to get involved.

Two little black kids were accidentally struck by an out-of-control car back in August of 1991, in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights. One of them was killed. The car, part of a motorcade, had been driven by a young Jewish man.

So now we’ve got the Blacks and the Jews. In a predominantly Black neighborhood where resentment toward Jews is reportedly on the rise.

What followed was entirely predictable. The driver of the out-of-control vehicle was dragged out of his car and beaten. An angry crowd gathered. Stuff was thrown, and other stuff was vandalized.

Things escalated over the next several days. More vandalism and looting. People got injured, many of them police. An innocent bystander, Yankel Rosenbaum, was beaten and killed.

Is there anything that could have happened after those children were struck that might have caused all of this to turn out differently?

Why Are All Racists and Sexists Reactionaries?

This is something I don’t really understand.

Lots of Black people act bad. Before you say Whites do too, there’s way more bad Blacks actors than bad White actors, percentage-wise. Living in a poor all-White town was instructive, as was moving to a poor Hispanic town. It finally made me realize that this fucked-up behavior doesn’t have much to do with economics. Sure, there were idiots in the White town. But it seemed like in the Hispanic town there were 3 times more of them per capita, and the bad actors acted about 3 times worse than the White bad actors. Of course I’m guessing here, but that’s my perception.

I figure in a poor Black town, there will be 8-9 times more bad actors per capita, and I figure they will act 8-9 times worse than White bad actors.

So really it’s not a case of bad actors. Kids of every race act like shits. But to us Whites, it seems like the Hispanic and Black bad actors are way worse than our own and there’s way more of them to boot.

It’s pretty clear that once a White city turns Hispanic or Black, there’s a decline in all sorts of variables. It’s much worse in the case of a White city turning Black, and this process has been viewed in realtime by millions of Americans. As a general rule, the city turns into a crime and squalor ridden Hellhole.

Given these obvious facts, I really don’t understand why the only White racists are reactionaries. Aren’t there any White liberals who are tired of Blacks and Hispanics too?

And why are racists so reactionary in every other way, too? They usually hate all of modernity – modern art, modern literature, modern music, modern culture, recreational drugs, the Sexual Revolution, the works. I don’t get it. If you’re a racist, you don’t like to rock out, get high and fuck your brains out? Why not? Aren’t there White dopers, rockers and sex freaks that are tired of minorities too? Aren’t there any Whites who dig David Bowie, Thomas Pynchon, Marcel Duchamp and Picasso, yet can’t stand Blacks? If not, why not?

Why do most White racists support Israel? Because, Arabniggers being an inferior race and all, it was cool of the superior White Jews to steal their land, kill them and ruin their lives? Why was that an ok thing to do? Because one is a superior race and the other is an inferior race? Really? So the superior races just get to kill the inferior races, ruin their lives and steal their land, everywhere on Earth, simply due to their superiority? Is there anything that is not ok for the superior to do to the inferior?

Anyway, why, just based on religion or test scores of whatever, does one race get to deliberately fuck over another one anyway? On what basis? Superiority? If so, wow, what an appalling mindset!

I’ve noticed something else. Sexists are all reactionaries too. There are plenty of woman-hating sites all over the Net. They’re pretty entertaining, but they’re all reactionary. I don’t get it. Women are a pain in the ass, and lots of normal humans end up having had quite enough of them. Hell, I know women who don’t like women. Aren’t there any liberals who’ve had it up to here with female shenanigans too?

Racist and sexist ideology aside, the more you learn about racists and sexists, the less appealing racism and sexism is based, if not on ideology, then at least on the reactionary assholes who are attracted to it.