Genes Are Not Destiny: The Case of Mozambique

Upon further reflection of the whole IQ/crime of a race and Socialism’s success discussion, it appears the average IQ/crime rate of a society is a red herring in terms of applying socialism.

It’s the stratification of a society; I.E. how much variance.

Mozambique may have had successful socialism because people who were homogeneous ethnically had no smarter race to rob from or dumber race to give to, despite them having an IQ in the 70s.

It’s true that there is a ton of inner-race variance, but when the hatred of the other race factor is removed, overall it seems to work.

Yeah you could walk across Maputo in the middle of the night under Samora Machel (my hero) and no one would bother you. It was that safe. In the middle of Black Africa!

Now see this is where I part company with the “niggers are born criminals” crowd. I do believe that Blacks have an inborn tendency towards higher crime. However, genes are not destiny at all. In most cases, that tendency will lead to higher crime rates. But not in all cases. In some cases, you can have a “Superenvironment” that makes it so that those inborn tendencies are simply not expressed.

The problem though seems to be that it is hard to create these Superenvironments. They are most easily created in small groups such as tribes or small ethnicities, say on an island. As the group gets larger, it gets harder to do.

At any rate, no one is doomed to become a criminal. No race is doomed to high criminality.

I get so upset with HBD retards over this. They all believe that genes are destiny and that all behavior is genetic. They are so wrong.

43 Comments

Filed under Africa, Blacks, Crime, Economics, Genetics, Mozambique, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South Africa

43 responses to “Genes Are Not Destiny: The Case of Mozambique

  1. EPGAH

    Yes, but as Chiune pointed out, the thing is, there’s no smarter people to take from and no dumb non-producers to give to. I.e., noone had enough more than another to be worth stealing. That’s not true in most places around the world.

    What happens if someone rich comes to the island, or worse, if one of them somehow gets substantially richer than the others?

    Additionally, how are they going to keep their more criminal neighbors out?

  2. Indeed.

    and…….a good culture is enabled in part NOT by having tons of racial resentment.
    Although a counter argument could be made that without ‘diversity’ (Portuguese colonists) Mozambique would still be a bunch of tribes.

    • EPGAH

      How did the savages in Mozambique avoid resentment of their betters, which led to massacre and overthrow in other parts of Africa, from South Africa to Rhodesia, and up?

      Portuguese are now settling back into Mozambique en masse, as Portugal itself collapses, do you think that will cause resentment? I.e. a few non-self are easily tolerated, a huge number, your innate territorial fears activate, etc.?

  3. Jason Y

    Phil will be be in disagreement with RobertLindsay on this one, seeing that he refuses to say the environment plays a major role in molding behavior after inborn genetics are taken into account.

    • “Phil will be be in disagreement with RobertLindsay on this one, seeing that he refuses to say the environment plays a major role in molding behavior after inborn genetics are taken into account.”

      Well actually no. How tendencies work is based on circumstances, when they actually occur as a disadvantage..

      When you used the concept of expressed, you have used it in the sense of “turning genes on and off”.

      I actually do believe that their is an environment where these tendencies “don’t show”, but in the context of first world societies and actual cost-effectiveness through the traditional sense of “throwing money” at it or simply getting more resources will not work depending on the severity.

      For blacks, it’s extreme are rather severe. If any change were to happen it would have to be by observation and application to produce a desired effect like compulsion. For example, points made on sentencing that Sam made in the past that even YOU agreed on.

      That, in a sense, could even be eugenic on top of being compulsion inducing of done. Eventually, blacks with a capacity to behave would increase and have better influence in such communities.

      • What kind of environments will these tendencies not show? Because people bring their societies with them. See the Whitman quote below.

        • I should be specific. They would “show” of course, I meant that their actual knock-on effects wouldn’t develop into a deeper issue if there was more intervention that changes the pressures of that environment.

          Basically, greater sentencing consequences for crimes, greater urging of sociological compulsion from a fraction of society like Church-going blacks as I said, etc, you would change the process of selection.

          Basically changing the arrangement of “who has power” in the environment. Or as in this article’s terms, the “landscape”.

          http://www.unz.com/jman/environmental-hereditarianism/

          Though you may notice that he makes a point about isolating selective forces being difficult, but he didn’t say impossible.

          “This is a key fact that underlies my thinking, but doesn’t seem appreciated in the minds of many. The strongest evidence for some sort of environmental impact is broad secular changes in behavioral or physical traits that occur too fast to be the result of genetic change, i.e., evolution. This occurs because one’s genome unfolds in the environment it finds itself in. A change in the environment might alter the outcome of the genetic programming. Of course, this doesn’t mean that anything goes. We don’t open the door to any old environmental theory because of homeostasis. The genes are designed to produce a working copy of the organism despite a temperamental environment. The genetic code is built in with buffers that keep development on track. This is not exactly a perfect process (and some individuals’ buffering seems to work better than others), but it is a key phenomenon to keep in mind.

          This also doesn’t mean that because this process occurs, we can necessarily isolate the aspects of the environment that brings about these secular changes. Often, we can’t. Two poignant examples (and two big ones in the “Dark Enlightenment” sphere) are marriage/mating behavior (i.e., the decline in marriage rates and rise of unwed motherhood) and the rise in obesity rates. In both cases, we don’t know for sure what the causes are, even if we think we have ideas about them. This is especially so in the case of obesity. Determining the causes with any certainty is difficult.

          Well you I’m pretty sure could understand obesity.

          “Going beyond the difficulty of isolating a cause of secular changes, assuming one even knew what theses causes were, knowing that changing an environment could affect people’s outcomes in principle doesn’t mean that it’s always possible to make the necessary changes in practice. This may ultimately prove to be a mistake, but I’ll leave it to readers for now to figure out why this is so.”

          As smart as he is, the last paragraph of the article sort of shows a bit of his bias in his thinking.

          The type of HBD he advertises seems to lean more about non-intervention and letting things stay as they are. Though in this case his brushing off manipulating selective pressures is almost as sloppy as EGI.

          I’m pretty sure one could observe an Dysgenic environment and understand the selective pressures if given enough time and manipulate them, I mean it’s not rocket science.

          Plus I acknowledge it won’t work for everyone, but regardless changing the landscape could theoretically work and he cites no real source saying otherwise as Pinker only says that thew real understanding on expression variability in unknown in mechanics.

        • Also keep in mind that i’m also not suggesting that benefits in an environment would come out of nowhere, but will correspond with the greater influences of say a better genetic subset of variation already present in the act of changing the selective landscape.

          Of, course, this would depend on what actually causes the pressures.

  4. Of course genes are not destiny. GxE. However, a certain genotype will, mostly, always have a certain effect in any given environment no matter what is around. What is it? We don’t know.

    Robert check out my piece on this matter, quoting a solid essay from Steven Pinker. Environments doesn’t make people bad, bad people make bad environments and good people make good ones.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/11/behaviorgenesenvironment-vindication/

    For instance the oft-cited maoa 2 repeat allele gets activated with child abuse (Beaver et al 2013). However, aren’t blacks more likely to abuse their children because of genetic proclivities? Just like with the environment. If a lot of Mexicans came to America then we would eventually have Mexico. Same with anywhere from the world. Race is not a social construct. Society is a racial construct.

    Society and culture derive from race/biology.

    They all believe that genes are destiny and that all behavior is genetic. They are so wrong.

    It is. All behaviors have a genetic basis, but there is always interaction with the environment. But we make the environments we put ourselves in.

    • EPGAH

      Thank you, I tried to point this out several times before, but I admit my writings are unclear.

      Ironically, Robert said something similar in an article about culture, namely:
      Good people make good cultures make good countries.
      Bad people make bad cultures make bad countries.

      He even went a step further and claimed that there’s no good culture with bad people, and vice versa. I can’t find the article now, though.

  5. iffen

    “The problem though seems to be that it is hard to create these Superenvironments. They are most easily created in small groups such as tribes or small ethnicities, say on an island.”

    The question or problem is not that Africans can’t create and maintain a functioning society. The question or problem is whether they create and maintain a complex modern society.

    • At the current state, no. Is their potential among their population? possibly but even then some sort of genetic engineering would be required if fast results are to be expected.

      Something that may not be that complex of controversial though is that I’ve read one of the reasons why blacks have lower IQs is the lack of quality in the wombs of black mothers, e.i the pre-natal environment.

      If it was improved I wonder what the result would be.

      • KsytriaKhalsa

        Problem with the improving blacks meme? Only white europeans care to & they’re dying out.

        Anyone else will riot & massacre them @ the first excuse.

        Sorry White Germanics really, Slavs will riot & Latins will buffer themselves with a mulatto class.

        Protestant tendency maybe?

        • “Protestant tendency maybe?” By all means. The problem though is what was the actual help that White Europeans gave? Resources, not actual eugenic improvement.

          At this point I’m convinced that only someone within blacks could really “uplift them” in the conventional sense of social evolution.

        • EPGAH

          Well, noone else would put up with the riots without slaughtering them, that’s for sure!

        • EPGAH

          I read that too, isn’t it odd that just because he’s Black, he thinks he can disrupt his neighbor’s sleep? And even MORE odd that just because he’s Black, he takes the calling the cops thing as a “Threat Upon His Person”?
          If he doesn’t reach for a gun when the cops say “HANDS UP”, he’ll be fine!
          But maybe he thinks he’s Too Good For That too?

          If the races were reversed, a BLACK complaining about noisy WHITE neighbors, I think the cops would’ve been called, no warning. The noisy white neighbor would not be made into a national martyr, just called a rude bastard, if it even made the news!

        • EPGAH

          Don’t you think that NOT stomping around at 2 in the morning and NOT talking loudly at 2AM are just common courtesy, hence the “Mind Your Manners”?

        • Jason Y

          In an area full of low IQ groups of any race, it’s difficult to say whose being the rude one. Perhaps they’re all rude like that, but the black person uses the “racist card” when one rude person accuses him of being rude.

          Possibly those who aren’t rude wouldn’t be living in a neighborhood where this situation would come up anyway.

        • EPGAH

          It’s an apartment building, the person upstairs just WALKING generates noise for the person downstairs, but it amplifies geometrically when they’re stomping instead of just walking. This is why tensions flare with higher Population Density, and why the country needs to be LESS populated, not MORE, despite peoples’ claims that we’re not as overcrowded as Insert Country Here.

        • Jason Y

          Black and whites of the group are all the same for the most part. That’s considering we are speaking of a less ghetto neighborhood, perhaps one in a better part of the country than Detroit.

          In other words, the poor blacks and whites all use government aid (not saying this is bad though), possibly they are all rude, they mostly lay around all day and don’t work, unless it’s some under the table thing. I mean, if they did work, they would be out of government housing.

        • EPGAH

          If they had had separate houses, this would not have happened.
          The Black guy claims to be a manager, so he obviously CHOOSES to live in an apartment, not a house? Or he could be lying about his job.

        • Jason Y

          Another thing to consider is that rude is one thing, psychopathic is another. 10 to 20 percent of the population is psychopathic, with the number increasing in prison and maybe in bad neighborhoods.

          So now you have a bully who purposely makes noise and then bitches when someone calls out his bad behavior. Note, this person could have just as easily been white.

        • EPGAH

          Once again, if it was a white noisy neighbor, it wouldn’t have even made the news, PLUS, he couldn’t use the Race Card. I think he should either be evicted or stop tromping around at 2AM.

          If it had been me, I would’ve just called the police. That invite to sit down face-to-face is just a front, you REALLY don’t want to personally find out just how crazy the neighbor is. Like you said, it’s a bad apartment building if not a bad neighborhood, and the guy’s a psycho, so why are you sticking up for him?

        • To Epagh,

          the holes in his logic as you pointed were so obvious this is probably one of the few “black justice” articles with a consistent Bullshit reading from the commenters.

        • Jason Y

          I’m not sticking up for the psycho, regardless of color.

        • EPGAH

          Problem is, we’re basing this whole thing on how a normal person would respond vs. how this self-entitled Black “manager” responded.

          I guess we should be thankful it didn’t end up like this?
          http://vidmax.com/video/146776-Black-woman-DESTROYS-a-white-woman-s-house-because-white-woman-left-a-note-to-move-the-car

        • True. It would be great though if we could respond to this, in a sense, more “Slavic-ly” if you get my point.

          With me regarding black and white relations what worries me the most is how the play field is more “cucked” for whites to respond to threats. If less restraint during these situation I would worry less, though that’s not happening soon.

        • EPGAH

          What do you mean more Slavic-like? Do you mean riots like the Indian woman was saying?

          Jason acts like it’s just by chance that the psycho was Black, “He could’ve just as easily been white”, then turns around and pretends he’s not sticking up for the psycho. What is that? Heads he’s white, tails he’s Black?

          But the truth is, Blacks act more psycho for the same stimulus, and I don’t know how to say that in any “acceptable” way. Whites are more restrained in our responses, even before Hate Crime and Political Correctness bullshit FORCED us to be more restrained and not fight back.

          For instance, an argument on YouTube, what kind of psycho would take it to the physical world?

          Or custody battles, who would burn their 3 kids alive just to avoid losing custody?
          http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/listen-screams-mothers-chilling-phone-5151121

        • Jason Y

          To ep-gah,

          So much of a given population, regardless of race, is psycho. However, in certain environments, usually poor environments economically or say in a prison, the numbers go further up. Possibly in most good environments the numbers come down a bit, but there are always few smart-asses in every neighborhood, look at prep schools.

        • To Epagh,

          Of course, it’s been verified.

          http://www.amren.com/news/2008/08/race_and_psycho/

          And in case Jason scream “biased”, here’s a direct study.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12899184

        • Jason Y

          But the truth is, Blacks act more psycho for the same stimulus, and I don’t know how to say that in any “acceptable” way. Whites are more restrained in our responses, even before Hate Crime and Political Correctness bullshit FORCED us to be more restrained and not fight back.

          You mean like how whites would lynch blacks, including doing things like pulling their eyes out and pulling out and stomping on a black fetus? Or stoning or lynching a black kid just for swimming to the shore in Chicago for help, or perhaps whistling at a white woman?

          Have you considered in the case of black psychos that nearly all those idiots, like the white ones were massively influenced by one parent homes?

        • Jason Y

          Most white psycho-ness seems to be of the teasing variety as opposed to NAMS who get more physical. But as we seen we school shooters, teasing leads to violence. Cannot really say one is better than the other. I mean how much hate speech can one ignore from white motherfuckers? Gook lover, faggot, cocksucker, nigger etc… OK, this is just rough-housing to be ignored?

        • EPGAH

          Whites lynched whites also, in fact, MORE whites were lynched than Blacks.

          Like one of Robert’s other articles said, morality has to be imposed from without. That sounds a lot like my “Bad Behavior MUST Be Punished!”, doesn’t it?

          Why are you standing up for Black criminality, and trying to say whites behaved equally bad, but then cheating by comparing different time periods, or are you saying that the punishment is worse than the crime?

          Did you read the study Phil linked to?

          And as to your single mothers excuse, why are the single mother numbers so much higher for Blacks than anyone else, even Hispanics?
          They MADE that bad environment, but they make the environment bad for others too.

          http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/us/911-call-operator-arrested-hang-up-trnd/
          Here’s a Black 911 Operator HANGING UP ON CALLS!
          Let’s see how you justify that!

        • EPGAH

          In all jurisprudence so far, no amount of teasing is taken as equal to a physical attack.

          In the school shooting cases, the shooters were the bad guys. Very few are willing to say their victims somehow “deserved” it.
          But there were also Black and Asian school shooters.
          There have been more workplace shootings by Blacks than anyone else.

          Why are you denying/defending the patterns?

        • To Jason, I made a response but this outside this thread.

      • iffen

        “The type of HBD he advertises seems to lean more about non-intervention and letting things stay as they are.”
        This is the essence of the Social Darwinism type conservative, i.e., let it play out. They believe that non-intervention by the government on behalf of the lower classes is required to maintain the “benefits” of unrestrained social competition.

      • iffen

        The negative impacts of nutrient and caloric deficiency on IQ are well known. I am not sure about studies on differential lead exposure in the US.
        My comment was made with the assumption of nutritional equality.

        • While that bis true, that mainly refers to malnourished Africans in Africa, As far as Aframs go this isn’t much evidence of it being widespread enough to decrease IQ.

      • “You mean like how whites would lynch blacks, including doing things like pulling their eyes out and pulling out and stomping on a black fetus? Or stoning or lynching a black kid just for swimming to the shore in Chicago for help, or perhaps whistling at a white woman?”

        How about how currently today Thing of this sort is not given the same attention as the reverse or Black on Black? And seeing how we are going by today’s accounts of incidence that you described, what does that tell you about what sort of stuff happened intra-racially with blacks?

        “Have you considered in the case of black psychos that nearly all those idiots, like the white ones were massively influenced by one parent homes?”

        See my links on the matter.

        “Most white psycho-ness seems to be of the teasing variety as opposed to NAMS who get more physical. But as we seen we school shooters, teasing leads to violence. Cannot really say one is better than the other.” Uum…yes we can with the fact that porportionally Blacks have more mass killers and data on the nature of psychopathy in the groups.

        “I mean how much hate speech can one ignore from white motherfuckers? Gook lover, faggot, cocksucker, nigger etc… OK, this is just rough-housing to be ignored?”

        Cracker, white devil, racist, supremacists, privileged, etc. does this get ignored despite it’s bigger impact?

        O, and you are down right joking if you actually think that blacks are more against insulting each other ON TOP of you admitting to be more violent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s