The Black antiracist blog Abagond has been suspended by WordPress. I can’t imagine why that would happen, and there must have been some kind of a mistake. WordPress mostly hates spam and legal BS like libel and false accusations resulting in lawsuit threats. Other than that, they don’t much care.

In the comments section of Don’t Tread On Me, Randy asks:

Have you ever heard a man say, “I’m offended”?

Of course, I haven’t, but after replying I realized that there was, in fact, a class of men who would make it known that they had been offended and would not rest until someone had paid for it. They were known as gentlemen.

Gentlemen had something called honor, and a gentleman’s honor had to be defended at all costs. From medieval times, a European gentleman defended his honor by challenging the offender to a duel. According to Wikipedia:

The traditional situation that led to a duel often went something like this. After the offense, whether real or imagined, one party would demand satisfaction from the offender, signaling this demand with an inescapably insulting gesture, such as throwing his glove before him, hence the phrase “throwing down the gauntlet…”

Those engaging in duels could use either swords or pistols, but the goal was often:

not so much to kill your opponent but to gain “satisfaction,” that is, to restore one’s honour by demonstrating a willingness to risk one’s life for it.

The challenger to a duel could decide whether the duel would be fought to “first blood” or to death – or something in between. In a pistol duel, the challenger could decide that his honor had been satisfied even if no one actually got shot.

In other words, it was all for show. Countless men have died doing this. And even though the practice is generally outlawed in the world today, men still challenge each other to duels, most notably in Latin America, according to Wikipedia. Some US states still have no statutes expressly prohibiting duels.

The notion that honor was reserved for gentlemen is one of those social artifacts people smile at and consider quaint. Today we are all equals, at least in some places, and hence we all have unassailable honor. A person who declares “I am offended,” has been robbed, and you are obligated to give them satisfaction. That way everything will be smooth and even the way it was before.

We are all gentlemen now.

Here.

Pretty interesting, and I have long suspected this, or actually worried about it, because I’m opposed to the hereditarian line. However, you can’t have Flynn Effects raising IQ’s by 3 points via genetics, so the Flynn Effect shows that environment can also play a strong role in, at the very least, increasing IQ scores.

For those who don’t want to click the link, the article states that UCLA researchers have found evidence that intelligence is largely inherited. That’s overstating the case of what they found, though. What they found was identical twins had very similar levels of myelin sheathing in the brain’s axons in brain regions key to intelligence, such as the corpus callosum and the parietal lobes.

Myelin is a coating on axons, which are the connections between neurons, or brain cells. The fatter the sheathing, the better the axons work, that is, the faster the axons fire messages. Myelination of the brain actually peaks in middle age, which is not really evidence that this process is intimately linked to intelligence, since fluid IQ (a measure of pure, raw brain speed) peaks around age 23 and then drops. Crystallized IQ often keeps going up into middle age and beyond.

Here.

And the poorest are “suffering” from the increase in obesity the worst. I’m actually sort of happy to hear this. It’s really discouraging to hear about all of the malnutrition, emaciation and out and out starvation over there. Obesity isn’t a piece of cake, but it’s better than looking like a gigantic walking twig.

I figure they will live a lot longer being fat than being skinny and starving too, even though obesity isn’t good for your lifespan. Most people don’t live very long over there anyway, and you know a lot of that is related to not enough food. Obesity will still cut their lives short, but not as bad as emaciation.

I honestly never thought I would see the day this would happen. I figured Africans would be starving at least until I die, and possibly for eternity. Another bright spot is that the fattening would not have occurred without lots of cheap, high calorie foods over there. If there’s one thing Africa always seems to lack, it’s cheap, high-calorie food.

Turns out Brits are getting fatter too, but increased obesity is a world trend.

This link is from Niggermania, but the site is a good resource for learning about racism against Black people. I’ve found that the White racist sites are the most straight up honest about the low-down on how racist a place is. If a country or culture is racist as Hell against non-Whites, the racists love it and cheer it on. Cultures or nations that are more tolerant are routinely derided by the racists as PC, hopeless, brainwashed, nigger-lovers, anti-racists, liberals, etc.

Now, these guys have no reason to lie. If a place is racist and nasty, they come right out and say so. If a place is relatively tolerant, they think that sucks, and they call that out loudly. I have some commenters who insist that racists would see a very tolerant place as a viciously racist place. But why would they do that? They hate tolerant lands.

On the other hand, there is a serious problem with misrepresentation of nations by their nationalist citizens, especially Latin Americans, who don’t like gringos in the first place, don’t like to be compared to unfavorably to Gringo Americans. Many middle to upper class White or mestizo Latin Americans will insist that everything is groovy down there. Easy for them to say; they aren’t feeling any pain. But ask a Black Latin American, and you might get a different story.

Anyway, according to this link, 20 years ago (1990) there was de facto Jim Crow discrimination against Blacks in Ecuador. For all intents and purposes, Blacks were not allowed to serve as police or military officers. They were effectively barred from medicine, law and most other high-paying professions. Instead they were largely relegated to field work.

That’s a screwed up situation, and it would be interesting to see if it’s still going on.

Here is another post that talks about being a tourist or ESL teacher in Ecuador. Apparently being a temporary foreign worker or bucks up American tourist of any color is a different matter altogether down there.

Black American tourists are unlikely to encounter serious problems, and the scene on the beach is a lot of fun for Black people, with lots of Black Ecuadorians and Black Colombians hanging out at the discos and partying. It looks like the scene on the beach is different from the rest of Ecuador in that the Blacks have created their own reggae – party scene on the coast.

On the other hand, it’s perfectly possible for de facto wealthy American Blacks (if you have the money to travel to Latin America as a tourist, you’re a rich American in their eyes) to go to a country and have a good time while the native Blacks are still suffering serious institutional discrimination. That’s because the American’s skin tone is washed away by his Rich American image.

I guess I already know the answer to this question, right? I went through a Master’s program in Linguistics at the university recently. At various points in the program, fully three of our male professors were queer, or at least they sure seemed like they were. One was fully out, a visiting professor from the Netherlands. The others, I guess not, but you could figure out they were queer anyway – it’s not that hard. There were a few female professors in the program, and none of them were lesbians.

I’m now hanging out on some language learning sites. Some of them are for fanatical language learners, the people who learn languages the way the rest of us take up hobbies. I’m sort of dismayed at the number of queers on the sites. They’re really out, open and blatant too. Some of the guys who aren’t queer are openly bi. Once again, all the chicks are straight.

This is kind of bugging me because I’m good at languages.

Females are generally better at language, right? And males are generally better at math/science. Queers apparently have brains that are feminized in some way, which is what makes them queer. So male queers, having feminized brains that are more like a woman’s brain, are more likely to be good at language stuff, literature, poetry, language learning, etc.

With the females, there’s no similar trend towards homosexuality since women who are good at language just have super feminized brains. Theoretically, those are the straightest chicks of them all. Which is pretty much what you see in your Linguistics and Lit classes. Really straight, conservative, schoolteacherish type chicks. Super-feminine.

Another thing is I like to cook, being a bachelor and all. Well, I turn on the damned cooking channel and I swear have the guys on there are queer. Have chefs and cooks always been a bunch of queers? I thought there was a time when chef was a noble, manly occupation, or am I wrong? So I’m standing there doing my stir-fry thinking what’s the matter with me, anyway?

I guess I’m a bit dismayed at the way queers seem to be taking over entire professions and areas of life. It seemed like there was a time when a masculine, manly guy could play the piano, speak several languages, read and write poetry and prose, etc etc. And if you wanted to go down to the tavern, the lumbering fellow in the back could cook up a mighty fine stew for the patrons.

Now all these areas of male life are more or less fagged out, and most regular guys act like they just tasted sour milk if you even suggest they take up one of these avocations.

I’m all for gay rights, but is it normal for me to be upset about this?

New Alpha Unit. Good one, AU.

This is our PC World in a nutshell. Along with life, liberty and the pursuit of a six figure income, I mean happiness, we all have the right not to be offended. If we do get offended, we get to jump up and down like animals in a zoo, go on TV and radio, give interviews in the papers, and demand apologies from everyone in a 10 mile radius of the scene of the crime.

The anti-racists paint America as some kind of horrorshow run by grinning White racist Gestapo overlords. Instead, the Whites are running around like mice watching every damned move and word and making sure they don’t, you know, um, offend anyone.

Blacks and increasingly Hispanics have adopted a lifestyle that could be called Perpetual Offense. They get up in the morning trying to figure out all the different ways they can hopefully get offended today so they can collect their Offended Brownie Points to pin to their Righteous Victim sack-cloths. If the Blacks keep this up, they’ll give the Jews a running for the Paranoid-Masochistic Character mantle.

I’d say life is about having fun, but for some it’s the Pursuit of the Holy Grievance instead. Only once you get it, you don’t feel better. Like a crack rock, you just need another hit fifteen minutes later. Grievance collection and other masochistic addictions are ultimately unfulfilling, because once you’re satisfied, the war is over, and to the grievance collector, the war’s never over, because the enemy’s always winning.

Hell of a way to live your life, but it takes all kinds to fill the freeways.

It was at the beginning of my stint as a graduate student that I first learned about political correctness.

It was the early eighties – 1984 or so. I was friends with some undergraduate women and we used to talk about all kinds of issues women cared about, including some incendiary issues that were sure to cause controversy. One day I voiced an opinion about one of these issues in the casual, self-assured way you’d talk about whether or not it was raining outside.

It was a costly mistake.

One of these young women disputed what I said, and we had a brief discussion about it in what I thought was a civil way. Well, the next time we saw each other, she acted as if she didn’t know me. We never spoke to each other again.

Another time, I was visiting another young woman, a very passionate Communist who would give me copies of some newspaper her group dispensed. We weren’t talking about Communism on that particular evening. We were talking about the same issue I had lost my other friend over. But I hadn’t learned my lesson.

Our discussion was getting intense, and then I stated an opinion rather bluntly.

Oh, my God.

What happened next was like watching Dr. Bruce Banner turn into the Incredible Hulk.

I can remember that furiously moving mouth sputtering in outrage, outrage her body could scarcely contain. Did she unleash obscene denunciations of my character? Insult my family origins? Damn me to Hell? No, she didn’t.

“I’m getting very offended!” This is what she wanted me to know.

I was sitting there in amazement, but in the back of my mind I was thinking, “What? You’re offended? Because I disagree with you?”

Yes. Offended.

I learned my lesson that time. Never, ever say anything that offends people. Even if it’s your sincere opinion. Even if you really like the other person but happen to disagree with them on something people disagree about.

What I’ve seen since then is that people insist on not being offended. If you go to any kind of public forum you are bound to have someone, at some point or another, leave a comment like, “I am very offended by that statement” or, “I find this very offensive.” That’s when the person running the place is supposed to immediately retract whatever statement has caused offense and make an abject apology and behave as if they have been properly chastened and will never do it again.

Where did people ever get the idea that nothing, or no one, is supposed to offend them? How did our parents and grandparents ever make it through life?

As a Black person, I find this especially ridiculous. When I think of everything past generations of Black people had to put up with, I can only shake my head at some of the things Black people get upset about today. I’m not talking about actual instances of racism, either. I’m talking about stupid, ignorant crap like,”There aren’t enough Black people in lousy sitcoms on network TV.” There are a lot of other examples that people are familiar with.

But this isn’t about Black people. Nobody will take being offended lying down. People have the right, in their own minds, not to be confronted with points of view that make them uncomfortable.

Nothing should offend you, no matter how true? Who the hell do you think you are, anyway? God?

Unfortunately, my only source for this is Niggermania, but I’m upholding it as valid anyway, as it confirms my suspicions. According to the poster, racism against Blacks is much worse in Colombia than it is in the US. This is in line with my general experience too. Latin Americans (Whites and mestizos) generally hate Blacks with a passion. The possible exceptions are the most mixed states such as Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela.

However, this post gives the lie to the Colombian tolerance ethnic. Of course Colombians are not PC-tolerant! That’s a Western thing. Hispanics are not into this PC crap. That’s an auto-toxin peculiar to Western Whites. One problem is that Latin America is full of liars who want to say there is no racism in their lands. They say this as a nationalist way of making their country look good to gringos. I have long been deeply suspicious of this, and that is why I used Stormfront as my source for the Whites in Latin America post.

The PC or relatively anti-racist Latin nations were of course called out on Stormfront as such and derided for their heresy. For the rest, it was call em as I see em.

It’s almost better to use flagrantly racist sources for some things, like gauges for the racism level in a community, although it requires some finesse. These folks often call out PC regions and nations with indignation, while areas rife with racism are hailed accordingly. On the contrary, a lot of the rest are too nationalistic or parochial to give you a straight-up report on what is going on and tend to give you PR “nothing to see here, move on” type reports.

It’s probable that the Caribbean is not all that racist, but it’s mostly Black and mulatto by now. Racism is less in Cuba and the Dominican Republic than here in the US. For Puerto Rico, it’s a bit different, but it’s hard to tell. The thing is, once a place goes majority-Black or mulatto, racism against Blacks tends to subside. Anti-Black racism works best in places were Blacks are a minority.

To be honest, Niggermania is not a White nationalist site. It’s just a site for anti-Black racists. In general, they don’t seem to hate Hispanics, Asians, etc. In fact, they are supportive of them. It’s also really hilarious, but it’s a bit bad for my soul. I like Blacks, or at least I don’t dislike them, so sites like that tend to get under my skin at best and are painful to read at worst. Painful because I like Blacks. Get under my skin since I have a racist heart alongside my anti-racist one, and like all living entities, it likes to be fed.

I really don’t use words like nigger much except in jokes with certain people, and even then it’s used in such a light-hearted way that it’s almost devoid of much racism (hard to explain, you would have to be a White liberal to understand, but it’s almost like saying fuck or shit, it’s sort of an intensifier). In fact, I’m so PC, I usually don’t even like to think the word nigger, much less say it.

As far as why I’m reading Niggermania, well thank my ex-acquaintance Abagond for that one. Call a man a thief enough, and he might start stealing from you just to prove you right. Thanks Abagond, you just turned me into a Niggermania reader, or was that your intention all along?

This is an interesting question that we have been discussing in the comments threads.

I haven’t taken an official position on genetics and IQ yet, because I don’t want to say that some race or another, particularly, say Blacks or Hispanics, is genetically inferior to some other race. It’s not something I want to believe, much less say. At some point, the evidence will become so overwhelming that one will look like a kook if you deny that, but we are not really there yet.

I deeply fear that this may be the case though. Nevertheless, the evidence is not yet so clear-cut that one is almost engaging in pseudo-science to deny it, hence it is still safe to hedge one’s bets and be an IQ agnostic.

One of my principal agendas on this blog, though, is to fight the (what I call) pseudo-science that says IQ and other intelligence tests are meaningless in terms of measuring brainpower; that is, I advocate that IQ tests are indeed meaningful and real measures and are not culturally biased or whatever.

This latter is still a common position, especially in the softer sciences, but increasingly I feel that it needs to be called out as BS. One can certainly be a Leftist and believe in the reality of IQ and other psychometric tests. An acquaintance of mine, James Flynn (discoverer of the Flynn Effect), is a Leftist who very much believes in the reality of IQ.

Deep inside though, I really do fear that genetic Black IQ may be as low as ~70, possibly ~67. That’s what it is in Africa. Caribbean Blacks with a bit of White in them and maybe a better environment only score ~71. I really think that the true genetic IQ of US Blacks ought to be ~72.5, just going by their African + White mix.

What is very strange though is that the US Black is so unaccountably high, why it is ~87 and not ~72.5, where we would expect it to be on account of their genetics. In other words, US Black IQ is way too high to be explained by genetics alone.

No one really knows why this is. Either they engaged in some eugenics while here in the past 100 years or so to select for higher IQ’s, or the nutrition and extremely advanced environment of the US has jolted the IQ up. Anyway, the evidence seems to suggest a gain of about 15 IQ points in US Blacks, relative to Whites in about 100-125 years.

Concomitantly, we have seen a massive increase in head size in US Blacks. The head size changes seem to be due partly to nutrition but also partly to genetics.

The only way they could be due to genetics is if US Blacks have been eugenically selecting for IQ somehow in the past 125 years. At the same time, the US Black phenotype has become much more progressive and much less archaic, particularly with regard to prognathism. That is, in the past 125 years, US Blacks seem to have been selecting for both more progressive features and higher IQ. This makes sense since more progressive phenotypes tend to have higher IQ’s.

So Blacks closed the B-W IQ gap in the US by about 15 points in the past 125 years. Now that right there is quite shocking!

Then we have Britain. Several lines of evidence suggest that Anglo-Jamaican IQ in the UK ought to be ~72. That’s what is in Jamaica. Nevertheless, Jamaican Blacks have about the same IQ’s as US Blacks (86 to ~87 for US Blacks).

This is very odd, but it lines right up with the evidence from the US, and suggests that merely moving Blacks in an advanced Western environment results in an IQ gain of about 15 points. In Black kids, it’s even higher. Black kids in the UK and US have IQ’s as high as 95 (age 5). It does plunge back down, but once again, that looks like the Western environment is jacking up Black kids’ IQ’s by up to 25 pts.! Now that does drop to a 15 pt gain with adulthood, but still.

I think this is hopeful. To me this suggests that if you move Africans into a Western environment, by the second generation, their IQ’s could well gain up to 15 pts. If the average African IQ is 67, that would give them IQ’s of 82. That’s not great, but it’s probably workable. India and Pakistan have IQ’s in that range, and they more or less function.

What worries me is the possibility that Blacks in the West can only achieve about a 15 point IQ gain on account of the improved environment. After that, they might ceiling out. I’d rather see them close the gap altogether.

Now the US Black IQ of ~87 is not low by world standards. That’s the same IQ, approximately, as many Latin Americans, Arabs, Polynesians, Micronesians, Melanesians and Filipinos. Most of those folks seem to be able to create more or less functional societies. I’m aware that US Blacks can’t even seem to run Detroit, much less a whole country, but whatever the reason for that is, I don’t think it’s because they’re stupid.

Now even an ~87 IQ may not be so great in the West. Here in the US, Blacks possibly have one of the lowest IQ’s of any major group, despite the fact that an 87 IQ isn’t all that low. In advanced Western societies, the key term is group competition. If there’s a tiger after you and me, I don’t have to outrun it, I just have to outrun you. And here is the rub. If even at an ~87 IQ, US Blacks are outcompeted by most other groups, the relatively higher IQ will be less meaningful since they will still tend to fall behind the competition.

As you can see in the table below, the White European countries and the nations with stock descended from these people, along with some mostly NE Asian countries, are the most honest countries on Earth. Even more disturbing to me, as someone who hates Nordicism, is that it’s the more Northern European countries that are the most honest. The Southern Europeans are quite a bit less honest.

It’s not all Black countries at the bottom, as Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are White countries, albeit not European Whites. Myanmar is a SE Asian country.

I’m really sick and tired of the poverty excuse. Any fucked up country full of fucked up people is automatically written off before the court of God and Man as innocent due to poverty. This is really tiresome.

These same people are usually opposed to socialism and promote capitalism. Since you all promote capitalism, and capitalism has automatic poverty built into it, how are you ever going to get rid of poverty? Answer: you can’t and you won’t. I’ll be dead in 30 years, and there will still be billions of poor in the world.

Since your project can’t eliminate poverty, what you are saying is that these places are going to be fucked up nests of moral degradation and general misery for eternity. Well excuse me but screw that. If that’s what you all are serving, I’ll pass and go without dinner tonight.

Anyway, it looks like it’s not even true. Giving the lie to the obvious rejoinder that these poor nations of liars, cheaters, thieves and all-around scumbags just can’t help being moral sleazebags is the position of Equatorial Guinea. Equatorial Guinea (EG) has a good PCI of $21,000/year, yet the corruption level is unfathomably high. Furthermore, poverty is insane in EG, and health figures such as maternal mortality and life expectancy are abysmal. Apparently a tiny elite of moral garbage at the top steals almost all of the considerable oil income in that blighted land.

I actually had high hopes for Africa. I thought if only they could garner some income, a lot of their problems would go away. But more and more it seems as if Sub Saharan Africans (I don’t include US and Caribbean Blacks in this category) are not capable of running modern societies. When I die in 30 years, I’m willing to bet that they will still be incapable.

Honestly, I don’t have any explanations for this, but having an average IQ of 67 can’t possibly help matters.

There is also the King Syndrome in this region. Africans evolved in tribes whereby the King or Chief was supposed to provide enough food and sustenance for his people, but anything beyond that, he was allowed to hoard to preposterous extremes. So his people would be living in mud hats subsisting on maize and yams while the King would be living in a golden palace 50 feet high with 50 different concubines. In traditional African culture, the King’s subjects either could not or would not say anything about this state of affairs.

This is still the way it is in Africa. The “King” (the rulers) gets to do whatever he wants, and no one can say “boo” to him. I’ve met Africans in the US. I asked one Nigerian why his country was so fucked up. He gave the usual answer of, “Bad leaders,” with a helpless shrug of his shoulders. I really don’t understand this mindset. If your leaders suck, why don’t you just elect some leaders that don’t suck?

There seems to be something similar going on in the US. US Black politicians have always been horribly corrupt, and in recent years in general much more corrupt that White politicians, which is pretty bad right there! But US Blacks don’t seem to give a damn about corrupt pols. As long as he brings home the bacon and does good for the community, they will keep on electing the crook until Kingdom Come.

It’s as if Black voters either expect politicians to steal and just blow it off if they do, or else they don’t have any moral qualms about stealing in office. Either one implies that US Black voters have questionable morality on this question. Furthermore, the similarity between them and African voters and rulers on this issue is uncanny and unsettling.

It’s interesting that Barbados is ranked very high. I don’t know much about the place, but it is quite wealthy. It’s also very Black. This suggests that it’s theoretically possible for a Black nation (albeit a Caribbean one) to be honest, something I was starting to seriously doubt. Dominica and Botswana also score high. Botswana also has a high standard of living is one of the most democratic and free countries in Africa. Dominica, in addition to having low corruption, also has a very low homicide rate. Both have an almost all-Black population. What are they doing right?

Let’s take a look at the Turd World countries from which we are mass importing immigrants, legal and illegal.

If the top score in the table below is 9.4 and the bottom score is 1.1, the median score should be 4.2. Truth is that even a median score is horrible. Italy, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Kuwait, Ghana and Georgia are in this range, and those countries range from very corrupt (Italy) to ridiculously corrupt (Ghana and Georgia). So anything below 4.2, obviously really sucks in the honesty department.

High-immigrant nations to the US:

Nation             Corruption Index

El Salvador        3.4
Guatemala          3.4
India              3.4
Mexico             3.3
Dominican Republic 3.0
Tonga              3.0
Armenia            2.7
Ethiopia           2.7
Vietnam            2.7
Honduras           2.5
Nicaragua          2.5
Philippines        2.4
Russia             2.2
Cambodia           2.0
Laos               2.0
Venezuela          1.9
Haiti              1.8
Iran               1.8
Somalia            1.1

What’s the point of mass importing immigrants from countries that are corrupt as Hell into a relatively honest country like the US? One wonders if the people coming from countries with endemic corruption will knock it off when they get to the US. In many cases, they probably will not.

Miami, run by Cuban gusanos, is one of the most corrupt cities in the US. Maywood, California is an almost completely Hispanic city that is made up of probably 70-80% illegal aliens. It’s also one of the most corrupt cities in the US. I believe that the FBI came in and was investigating every city government official and the entire police force on corruption charges.

In some cases, new immigrants may be able to put the corruption habit behind them. I’m not aware that Armenians are all that corrupt here in California. But in many other cases, you can take the man out of the Third World, but you can’t take the Third World out of the man.

You may have noticed that this fine country is looking more and more like a Third World country. It stands to reason that mass importation of Third Worlders into a First World country will at some point transform the First World country into more of a Third World Country in one respect or another. That’s exactly what seems to be happening.