Cultural Commentary – Page 2

“Joker” Movie Review (With Plot-Spoilers)

The movie is about Arthur Fleck, the man who will become Batman’s arch-nemesis. He is an entertainer, and aspiring standup comedian, who is barely getting by. He works as a clown, and lives with his mother in what appears to be 1970’s, or early 1980’s, New York. (The city was a fairly lawless place, with a lot of crime and violence.) Everyone is “mean” to Arthur Fleck, and that, eventually, “drives” him to kill, and transform into a super-villain.
The movie’s theme is that of our “post-modern” era: “I am justified in using physical force against people who hurt my feelings or offend me.”

The movie isn’t anything particularly new on the cinematic landscape. The character seems like an amalgam of three characters I’ve seen before:

A loner who kills at random, living in the “sewer” that is 1970’s New York City. He becomes obsessed with a woman. (The Taxi Driver)
A strange fellow with an unhealthy relationship with his mother becomes a lunatic killer. (“Norman Bates” in Psycho)
A person who murders anyone who insults him. (Hannibal Lecter)

Arthur kills three times as part of his “transformation” into the Joker. These comprise the major scenes “mapping out” the movie and his development.

First Episode of Violence: Arthur kills some obnoxious “frat boys”. This is somewhat justified since they are beating him up, and were bullying a woman on the train. By the way, the scene was highly unrealistic. White upper-middle-class yuppies weren’t, as a rule, the ones attacking people on subways in 1970’s New York.

Second Episode of Violence: Arthur had previously discovered in a series of scenes that he was adopted and that his mother had allowed her criminally insane boyfriend to beat him so badly Arthur suffered brain damage as a result. (Throughout the movie, he has an uncontrollable laugh due to a neurological condition.) This was also not particularly realistic. In what Twentieth Century American city would a mentally ill woman be able to adopt, let alone keep, a child? Especially after he had suffered that kind of abuse from her boyfriend? This was sort of “blamed” on “the rich”, with references to unspecified “cuts in funding” for unspecified “government programs”. But, under laissez-faire capitalism, there would be courts and police to combat child-abuse like this.

The whole “anti-rich” aspect of the movie basically felt like an artistic “fig leaf” to me, anyway. It was just another way that people hurt the script-writer’s feelings, and justify, in his or her mind, acts of violence. (I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the main character’s name in this movie is “Arthur”, as in, the *author* of this movie, who identifies with this character.)

Third Episode of Violence: Arthur murders the guy who got him fired from his clown job with a pair of scissors. Tellingly, in this third episode of violence, Arthur lets a dwarf character, another clown, go, saying: “You were always nice to me.”

The “lead up” to this third violent scene was this: Arthur got fired from his clown job after a gun fell out of his pants while he was entertaining children at a hospital. Arthur got the gun from a fellow clown who gave it to him. For some inexplicable reason, this minor character lies to their boss, and says Arthur tried to buy a gun off of him. Why wouldn’t he just keep quiet? If he gave Arthur an illegal gun, he’d have as much to loose as Arthur, so it’d be better to just say nothing, and hope that it never got back to their boss, or the police. Also, if he didn’t like Arthur, why give him a valuable gun free of charge like that? This minor character’s motives made no sense.

With respect to the obnoxious frat boys on the train, Arthur was *possibly* justified in using force. Even the murder of his mother is “understandable”, if not justified. He had discovered she had allowed him to become the victim of massive childhood abuse. But, by the time he gets around to his fourth, and final, “episode of violence”, involving a character played by Robert De Niro, his motive is clear: He kills people who hurt his feelings.

The “set up” for this scene occurred earlier in the movie. De Niro plays a “Late Show TV Host”, Murray Franklin. Arthur Fleck idolizes Franklin, who, in his deluded mind, is the father he never had. Midway through the movie, Franklin shows a recording of Arthur “bombing” during a standup routine, and makes fun of Arthur. (This was not particularly realistic. I doubt a major TV personality would engage in an unprovoked “attack” on a complete “nobody” like that.) Later, for some inexplicable reason, Franklin has Arthur on his TV show for an interview, where Arthur, now “transformed” into the Joker, comes on stage and confesses to killing the obnoxious frat boys on the subway.

This scene is where the overall “theme” of the Joker movie is revealed. Prior to blowing away De Niro’s character, Arthur says: “…comedy is subjective, the system decides what is right and what is wrong, just like it decides what is funny…” He also says “everyone is awful”. This translates to: My feelings are what matters, even to the exclusion of the lives of others.

As a “stand alone” movie, the “message” of “Joker” is terible, but also not particularly original. (I noted three movies above that it seems to draw heavily from, with similar characters and motives.) Its theme reflects our era, at least since the end of the Nineteenth Century: Feelings matter more than people’s rights. This “post modern” idea runs all the way from the National Socialism of 1930’s Germany, to the street thuggery of groups like “Antifa”, in cities like Portland, and on American university campuses, today. (These groups think that certain “hate speech” hurts their feelings, and justifies the use of force.)

What somewhat “artistically complicates” the “clear messaging” of “Joker” is that this is a character from a “wider” work(s) of art. It’s the villain from Batman. In that sense, it may not be “meant” to be a “stand alone movie”. It has the “feel” of a flashback scene from a wider work of fiction, where the motives of the “bad guy” are explained, but not necessarily condoned. For instance, it’s set in Bruce Wayne’s “past”, although he is only a minor character in this movie. But, with that said, I think a work of art has to be taken at “face value”, which means one should not “read into” it what *was not* said. In this, particular, movie, Arthur suffers no consequence for his viciousness, which is motivated entirely by his feelings. (The last scene is the Joker murdering his therapist and escaping.) It says: “Force in the service of my feelings is efficacious and justified”.

If someone knew *nothing* about the Batman franchise, and saw this movie, they’d judge the movie as another, by now fairly tired, artistic depravity study, where the villain “gets away with it”, because the writer thinks his feelings have primacy over reality.

When What Is Common is Inadvertently Reported

The Amber Guyger murder trial was quite prominent in both the local and national news. I would guess that it was so heavily reported because it tied in to the overall media narrative concerning black men being shot by cops as a major problem.

Whether the shooting was justified or not, and whether the jury arrived at the correct decision, I have no idea. I didn’t watch most of the trial because of time constraints. I generally operate on the assumption that I trust the court system to arrive at the correct conclusion, absent some evidence to the contrary in a specific case. So, I won’t comment on the verdict at this point.

After the verdict, I assumed news reporting would slowly fade on this subject, and the media would move on to something else. Then, something “unexpected” happened. One of the witnesses, Joshua brown, was found shot to death, an apparent homicide victim. (I use quotation marks on the word “unexpected”, because what happened is actually quite common.)

Joshua Brown was a State’s witness, and a neighbor of the decedent. Mr. Brown overheard parts of the confrontation between the Defendant, Ms. Guyger, and the decedent in the case. His testimony was generally not favorable for the Defense. My understanding is that he testified Ms. Guyger did not issue verbal commands to the decedent prior to using deadly force.

About a week after the trial, Mr. Brown, was, coincidentally, shot to death. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2019/10/08/dallas-police-name-three-suspects-joshua-brown-murder-investigation/

I suspected I knew what the race of whoever shot Mr. Brown would be, and it looks like I wasn’t wrong. Two of the three suspects in the shooting were black. The shooting appears to have arisen out of a dispute over drugs.

Normally, I doubt Mr. Brown’s death would have made the news. Why not? Because it happens all the time. It’s the same reason the news reports airplane crashes, but typically doesn’t report car wrecks. Car wrecks happen too often. It also doesn’t fit the narrative the media wants you to believe, which is that the number one concern for black people in America is police shootings, not homicides committed by other black people.

In some years, black people are the primary perpetrators of murder. They’re also the primary victims. The Bureau of Justice Statistics sets forth the percentage of homicides committed by blacks and the percentage of homicides committed by whites between 1980 and 2009. These figures can be found at page 12, Table 7 of “Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008”, where it said that of all homicides committed in the US, 45.3% of offenders were white and 52.5% were black. (See http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf, last accessed on 10-9-2019.)

So, Mr. Brown’s apparent homicide at the hands of other black people would normally not be a newsworthy event. It’s too frequent to merit much attention.

Interracial Rape Statistics

I have been trying to find what the statistics say on inter-racial rape for quite some time. It is very difficult, probably because most people know what the results will show.

Today I found an article from a University of Chicago paper from 1982 that summarized some previous studies on the amount of interracial rape, that is, black on white rape, or white on black rape. The article is called:

Gary D. LaFree, “Male Power and Female Victimization: Toward a Theory of Interracial Rape,” American Journal of Sociology 88, no. 2 (Sep., 1982): 311-328.

Each of the rows in the above table is a reference to a study measuring the amount of inter-racial rape, and the results of those studies. The Table is titled: “Table 1 Frequency of Interracial Rape By Year of Offense”, from Pg. 313 of the LaFree Article.

The figures are about like what I suspected. That is, the rates of black men raping white women were much higher than the rates of white men raping black women. One study in particular, was astounding to me. The fourth row down is a sample taken in Berkley, California, where it was found that 60.8% of all rapes were a black offender and white victim, from 1968 to 1970.

The article is also interesting because it accepts the fact that black men are raping white women at much higher rates as a given, and then presents two possible theories for why that would be. That suggests to me that, at least in 1982, the fact that black men raped white women at an unusually high level was a known fact, that nobody questioned.

Parenthetically, the two theories presented in the LaFree article are the “normative” theory, and the “conflict” theory. The “normative theory suggests that the amount of black on white rape had gone up since the time of desegregation because more white women were interacting with black men socially, creating greater opportunities for rape. The “conflict” theory suggested that black men rape white women more frequently as a form of revenge for supposed “white male power”. The article finds that the “conflict” theory is more supported by its findings.

I had to pay ten dollars for the article, which I found here: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu. I consider it worth the $10.

From there, I found another article that appears to be freely available online:

“The Racial Pattering of Rape”, South, Scott J., Felson, Richard B., University of North Carolina Press, “Social Forces”, September 1990, 69(1):71-93.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=635F7907F6F07771D7C4D815160167BC?doi=10.1.1.839.5948&rep=rep1&type=pdf

This article posits another theory for the much higher rate of black on white rape than white on black rape. It seems to say that it is due to increased opportunity of black rapists to rape white women in a less racially segregated society than in the past. The article notes that cities with higher rates of racial segregation have less black on white rape. This seems plausible to me, and suggests a definite solution for avoiding becoming the victim of a crime…but I’ll leave that for another time.

“Give Me Freedom Or Give Me Death”

I am old enough to remember the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. (https://www.britannica.com/event/Tiananmen-Square-incident )

The student protestors were eventually wiped out by a brutal totalitarian dictatorship that is responsible for the death of millions of people.

In 1989 George HW Bush did almost nothing to stop it or to register any sort of protest. It was one of a large number of foreign policy blunders made by a president with few principles:

“Though President George H.W. Bush initially denounced the crackdown, suspended arms sales to China and announced some other sanctions, the administration decided early on that it wasn’t going to allow Tiananmen to become a turning point in U.S. policy. It became clear that the official response would be essentially to pretend that nothing had happened.” (https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-1989-the-u-s-decided-to-let-beijing-get-away-with-murder-11559311545)

Instead, our government continued on with “business as usual” with the vicious dictatorship of mainland China, which continued to steal our technology, our wealth, and our nation’s moral integrity. All the while, Red China continued to build itself up militarily, and now may be too big for us to easily defeat. We have created our own monster.

Then, we allowed Hong Kong to be handed over in 1997, ceding people, wealth, and territory to the Communist looters. They claimed it would be “one country, two systems”. But, it’s impossible to combine freedom with “a few controls”. In time, one or the other must give way:

“A mixed economy is a mixture of freedom and controls—with no principles, rules, or theories to define either. Since the introduction of controls necessitates and leads to further controls, it is an unstable, explosive mixture which, ultimately, has to repeal the controls or collapse into dictatorship.” (Ayn Rand, “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus”, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mixed_economy.html.)

The Chinese government’s modus operandi with respect to Hong Kong has been: “One country, another slave-pen”.

But, the people of Hong Kong aren’t going to go quietly. With the advent of an extradition law that would allow the city-state’s residents to be tried on mainland China, thereby destroying any chance they might have of legitimate due process, Hong-Kongers decided they had had enough.

The student protestors, as well as the older residents of Hong Kong, have been admirably engaged in numerous protests, fighting for their lives and liberty. Some of the protestors even waive American flags, and British Union Jack flags, in reference to the common law system of government we all share. (See this video from a Hong Kong resident, at about two minutes in, were he says Hong Kong is under common law.)

America and Great Britain now have a chance to redeem themselves after they stood by silently and watched the student protestors of Tiananmen get slaughtered in 1989 and handed over H.K. without a shot being fired in 1997. Our governments should do everything they can to bring diplomatic and economic pressure to bear on the Chinese government, to honor its promise of a free Hong Kong. If there should be a repeat of Tiananmen Square, there should be serious economic and political consequences for Red China. I am no expert on diplomacy, or what is in the realm of the possible in foreign affairs, short of all out war. But, some things to consider would include:

(1) Instant recognition of Taiwan as an independent country by the United States, and a commitment by the United States to defend Taiwan militarily, if China should attempt to use force against that nation. Also, consider providing the Taiwanese with enough nuclear weapons to defend themselves against China.

(2) Encourage Japan to amend its constitution to allow for the creation of an army and navy, and provide the Japanese with nuclear weapons capable of reaching mainland China in the event of a conflict. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2017/04/30/why-north-korea-cannot-have-nuclear-weapons-but-japan-and-south-korea-should/#4f2cca5d3943)

(3) Provide nuclear weapons and missile technology to India, already a nuclear power, so that they are capable of reaching Chinese targets.

(4) State that any attempt by China to annex islands or other territory in the Pacific will be considered an act of aggression. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349)

(5) Massive Economic Sanctions On China, including prohibitively high tariffs on the import of all Chinese goods into the United States. Normally, I am for free trade, but China is a totalitarian state, and as such, an outlaw nation, as sure as any group of pirates or other gang would be. America should consider itself at war with any totalitarian nation, even if no shots are being fired due to other, practical, considerations. We should boycott all such countries economically, diplomatically, and morally. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/foreign_policy/3.html

This is our chance, as Americans, to stand with a people who stand with the spirit of Patrick Henry. Don’t let the people of Hong Kong go unheard.

Dissecting “Structural Racism”

I have heard terms like “systemic racism”, “structural racism”, and “institutional racism” thrown around, mostly by white, left-leaning college students, and I was curious to discover what these terms are supposed to mean. I found a paper, written by Keith Lawrence of the “Aspen Institute on Community Change”, and by Terry Keleher, of the “Applied Research Center at UC Berkeley”, called: “Chronic Disparity: Strong and Pervasive Evidence of Racial Inequalities POVERTY OUTCOMES Structural Racism” (A free version is available here: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf)

UC Berkeley certainly has “credibility” in my mind as standing for all things “leftist” in our society, so I was convinced the second author spoke for a large academic and political constituency. I’ve never heard of the “Aspen Institute on Community Change”, but The Huffington Post, another purveyor of leftist ideology, seems to know who he is. That’s good enough to convince me that these two authors speak for the majority of left-wing academics and journalists out there on the idea of “structural racism” and what it is supposed to mean.

The paper provides the following definitions:

“Structural Racism in the U.S. is the normalization and legitimization of an array of dynamics – historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal – that routinely advantage whites while producing cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for people of color.….Structural Racism encompasses the entire system of white supremacy, diffused and infused in all aspects of society, including our history, culture, politics, economics and our entire social fabric. Structural Racism is the most profound and pervasive form of racism – all other forms of racism (e.g. institutional, interpersonal, internalized, etc.) emerge from structural racism.”
(https://www.scribd.com/document/295254225/Definitions-of-Racism-Chronic-Disparity-Self-Assessment. Free version: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

The paper goes on to say that the primary way you know “structural racism” exists is the fact that there is “inequality” among the races. In other words, so long as there are a disproportionate number of black people who are poorer than white people, then there is “structural racism”. The paper says it’s difficult, if not impossible, to actually identify any *particular* government, social, or business policy that causes “structural racism”. It’s simply assumed that it must be there because black people are poorer than white people on average:

“The key indicators of structural racism are inequalities in power, access, opportunities, treatment, and policy impacts and outcomes, whether they are intentional or not. Structural racism is more difficult to locate in a particular institution because it involves the reinforcing effects of multiple institutions and cultural norms, past and present, continually producing new, and re-producing old forms of racism.”( https://www.scribd.com/document/295254225/Definitions-of-Racism-Chronic-Disparity-Self-Assessment. Free Version: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )
Starting in the 1960s, “Jim Crow” laws were legally abolished in the South. Laws were also passed outlawing any form of “discrimination” based on skin color in housing, jobs, and other areas of public life. Additionally, the welfare state was massively expanded, with wealth transfers from whites to blacks. (See https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf , Page 6: “Both the likelihood of receiving means-tested assistance and the length of benefit receipt differed among racial groups. In 2012, the average monthly participation rate for Blacks, 41.6 percent, was higher than that of Asians or Pacific Islanders at 17.8 percent and non-Hispanic Whites at 13.2 percent.”)

Despite all of these legal changes in the 1960’s, blacks, as a group, remain poorer than whites. (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.pdf) . Blacks also have a number problems associated with their demographic group. For instance, crime rates that are disproportionate to their percentage of the population, and heavy “black on black” crime- i.e., black criminals are mostly preying on other black people. In some years, more than fifty percent of the murders in the United States are black people being murdered by other black people, despite the fact that they are only about 13 percent of the American population. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21 (Think of the gangs in Chicago, and the almost ritualized murder that goes on there between black gang members, and you’ll see why this is the case. See Page 18 of: https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2011-Murder-Report.pdf )

There are also large numbers of black unwed single mothers raising children without a father. For instance, in 2017, according to the US Census, 6,229 thousand black children under 18 out of 13,232 black children were living in single mother households. While 11,603 thousand white children out of 53,291 thousand were living in single-mother homes. That is, 47 percent of black children were with single mothers, while 22 percent of white children were with single mothers. (See Table CH-2 and CH-3 at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/children.html )

These dismal figures create a problem for black racial collectivists like Al Sharpton, and their “white progressive allies”: They need an explanation for why, despite the fact that there is no legalized race discrimination, and even laws prohibiting race discrimination in jobs, housing, employment, and other areas, blacks still are in a lower socio-economic class from whites. They also need to explain the large numbers of single black mothers raising fatherless children, and the disproportionate amount of black crime committed -mostly against other black people. This explanation has to place the blame somewhere other than the black people making bad choices. This rationalization needs to avoid looking at the attitudes, behaviors, and choices made by black people, and look outward, at the white majority.

Furthermore, they need an explanation that will dismiss the fact that most Americans appear to oppose any kind of racial discrimination, and generally regard judging people based on skin color to be wrong. In fact, they need to explain how the laws prohibiting race discrimination got passed in the first place. If Americans are mostly racist, why would a racist white majority pass laws that prohibit firing someone because of their skin color?

A system of philosophy with its origins in Marx, and probably other philosophers, can provide the rationalization needed. Marxism says that the bourgeoisie fundamentally didn’t think like the proletarians, and vice versa. These two groups could not use reason and persuasion with respect to each other, because the content of their minds, their ideas, were ultimately determined by their social class -by their “material circumstances”. This is why Marx viewed socialists who believed that there could be a peaceful transition to socialism as “utopians”. They didn’t recognize what Marx saw as “reality”. Marx, on the other hand, viewed his version of socialism as “scientific” -because he embraced the “class struggle” -which in practice meant eventual warfare between the proletarians and the bourgeoisie, until the bourgeoisie could be wiped out. Only then could socialism be achieved. For Marx, the bourgeoisie couldn’t help what they were, and couldn’t help but exploit the proletarians. Individual bourgeoisie might claim to be fighting for the proletarians, but, as a whole, they invariably exploited the proletarians because of the way their minds worked, which caused their thoughts and actions to be fundamentally at odds with the proletarians.

Black racial collectivists and their white “allies” take this idea, and simply racialize it. The white majority takes the place of the bourgeoisie. Now, it is the whites, who have a system and method of thinking that is fundamentally different and at odds with blacks, who are the new “proletarians”. This paper on “structural racism” supports this idea. It says that “racism” is defined as “…race prejudice plus power.” (Page 13: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

What is “power” according to this paper?:

“The People’s Institute defines power as ‘having legitimate access to systems sanctioned by the authority of the state.’ (Chisom and Washington, op. cit., p. 36.) Other definitions which you might find useful are: 000 Power is the ability to define reality and to convince other people that it/s their definition. (Definition by Dr. Wade Nobles)…” (See Page 21: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf)
Notice this second definition, in particular. Reality isn’t simply something separate and apart from the observer. It is somehow “plastic” or “malleable”, depending on the mind that observes it. This is a Marxist notion:

“Karl Marx later provided the most succinct statement of the collectivist view of the primacy of social interaction in the preface to his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: ‘It is not men’s consciousness,’ he wrote, ‘which determines their being, but their social being which determines their consciousness.’” https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivism

For Marx it was one’s “social being”, i.e., whether he was proletarian or bourgeois, that determined “his consciousness” The content of his mind, his ideas had less to do with an independent reality, and more to do with the group he was born into. (I have written on the before: http://deancook.net/2018/08/16/karl-marx-polylogism-and-utopian-socialism-how-fundamental-philosophy-drives-history/ )

Given this Neo-Marxist view of “power” as being “…the ability to define reality and to convince other people that it/s their definition….”, the fact that there are whites, even a majority of whites, who oppose judging people in hiring and jobs based on the color of their skin, and even pass laws to outlaw it, doesn’t matter. Whites, by their invariable method of thinking, based in the nature of the “white mind”, institute social structures that “systematically” oppress black people. This is their explanation for how, today, there can be no legalized discrimination based on skin color, and how most whites express a desire that there be no such legalized discrimination, and yet blacks are still economically behind whites.

Pointing to lower average IQ scores among blacks than whites as an alternative reason for the disparity is seen as “systematic racism”. The black racial collectivists and their white apologists basically say the tests are “rigged” in favor of white people, even if the white people are all acting in good faith to create fair tests. (And “fair” is another “white idea” anyway.) They believe that IQ tests reflect the nature of the white mind, which is fundamentally different from the black mind. IQ is a “Euro-centric concept”. To the black racial collectivist, the fact that IQ tests have been shown to correlate with job success and achievement simply reflects the white majority’s ability to somehow “rig reality” to promote their race over the black race. (https://www.aei.org/society-and-culture/the-bell-curve-explained-introduction/)

The subjects of history, economics, science, and every other field, reflects “Euro-centricm” because the white mind is fundamentally not the same as the black mind. “Reason” is just another system for whites to, mostly unknowingly and unwittingly, exploit blacks. Hence, the funding for “black studies programs” at universities, where they can supposedly find this “black logic” that is fundamentally different from “white logic”.

This is why blacks who study in school, work hard, and obey the law are “acting white”. They are trying to adopt a system and method of thinking that is essential to the “white mind”, but not the “black mind”. Page 5 of the paper says this: “The acceptance by persons of color of Eurocentric values.” ( http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf)

How do they explain high levels of black on black murder compared to white on white murder, and high levels of black men abandoning their children to be raised by single mothers? According to the purveyors of “structural racism”, the reason for all of this is “internalized systemic racism” of black people by their “white oppressors”:

“INTERNAUZED RACISM: (1) The poison of racism seeping into the psyches of people of color, until people of color believe about themselves what whites believe about them — that they are inferior to whites; (2) The behavior of one person of color toward another that stems from this psychic poisoning. Often called ‘inter-racial hostility;’…” (Page 5: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

In other words, the fact that a black man murders another black man isn’t really his fault. It’s the fault of the whites who made him that way, and the white oppressors can’t even help the way that they are:

“A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States…” (Page 5: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

What is the purpose of this way of thinking? If backs and whites fundamentally think differently, by their very nature, then how can they communicate at all? How could there be any sort of dialogue or understanding between blacks and whites? I think for “race pimps” like the authors of this paper, it’s just a con game -a way of absolving individual black people of their own responsibility for where they are in life, and shifting the blame to whites, who will then feel guilty and provide more welfare and legal benefits to blacks. Hence, the push for things like “reparations”, today.

But, it’s a very dangerous game they’re playing. At some point, a sufficient number of people with this sort of “polylogist thinking” will draw the obvious conclusion from it. If blacks and whites fundamentally cannot reason or dialogue with each other, then only one method is left: Physical force. In fact, the authors of this paper seem to advocate the use of physical force by black people when they speak of what it means to be an “anti-racist”:

“(As applied to people of color), some use the term anti-racist. Others use synonyms such as freedom fighter, activist, warrior, liberation fighter, political prisoner, prisoner of war, sister, brother, etc.” (Page 6: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

Notice how most of the metaphors used here are that of people engaged in a violent struggle or war. This is because, on some level, racial collectivists, just like Marxists, believe in a “class struggle” that can only be resolved with violence. They use the language of warfare to describe themselves, because it is a war to them. This is why you can expect to see more things like the 2016 shooting of white cops in Dallas by a black racial collectivist.

These ideas have come to dominate our universities, our media, and our cultural institutions. This means the level of violence between the races will continue to escalate. In the end, the racial collectivists will get their desired race war, if we don’t repudiate ideas like “structural racism”.

Does it ever make sense to use the word “Nigger”?

This video was of interest to me. It is about a video-blogger in England, who I occasionally enjoy listening to, “Sargon of Akkad”. The video is by another video-blogger whose videos I almost always enjoy, “Atheism Is Unstoppable”. AIU’s “routine” sort of reminds me of an “Atheist Rush Limbaugh”, and I cannot count the number of times his stuff has made me laugh out loud while I was watching it on the stair-master at the gym. His commentary on race and race issues is also thoughtful and properly nuanced, in my opinion. Is AIU’s stuff always “deep philosophical commentary”? No, he’s primarily a satirist and humorist, but there is a place for that. Do I agree with everything he says? No. He’s a gun control advocate, and a Democrat, but that’s not his focus.

In the video, AIU comments on the controversy surrounding what Sargon said. Apparently, the later told some white people that they were behaving like “white niggers”, and that got him banned from Patreon. (I don’t know all the details, and I’m not sufficiently interested to research it.)

Using race-based or sex-based denunciations will draw a lot of criticism. Why focus on the race or gender of the person rather than the bad behavior? Additionally, any “curse word” tends to have the problem of being “canned denunciation” that doesn’t really explain what is wrong with someone. Calling a person an “asshole” doesn’t specify what you find wrong with them. Usually, when you call someone an “asshole” it’s because they are boorish, socially uncouth, impolite, or being unnecessarily hostile. If you really want to morally judge someone, then it makes sense to say what is actually wrong with them, using more precise language. This will help you to identify what it is that they are doing that has drawn your ire. However, in casual conversation, most of us will use some form of curse words to describe someone. I have certainly done that. I would not use these words in a formal denunciation or critique of some person, but, assuming the context of casual conversation, lets ask this question: Does it ever make sense to call a black person a “nigger”?

First, lets look at the dictionary definitions of three words: “bastard”, “bitch” and “nigger”:

BASTARD

1 : an illegitimate child
2 : something that is spurious (see spurious sense 3a), irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin The … residence is a bastard of the architectural era which followed the building of the Imperial Hotel …— Hugh Byas
3a : an offensive or disagreeable person —used as a generalized term of abuse Then they made him an officer and right away he became the biggest bastard you ever saw.— Thomas Heggen
b : man, fellow … the nicest thing an Aussie can call you is a bloody fine bastard.— Wilson Hicks

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bastard

1.   a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.
Slang.
2.   a vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person: Some bastard slashed the tires on my car
3.   a person, especially a man: The poor bastard broke his leg.
something irregular, inferior, spurious, or unusual.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bastard

BITCH

1.   a female dog: The bitch won first place in the sporting dogs category.
2.   a female of canines generally.
3.   Slang
a.   a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman
b.   a lewd woman.
c.   Disparaging and Offensive . any woman
4.Slang . a person who is submissive or subservient to someone, usually in a humiliating way: Tom is so her bitch—he never questions what she decides.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bitch

1: the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals The behavioral endocrinology of both male dogs and bitches is quite unique and differs from that of most other mammals …— Ian Dunbar — compare dog entry 1 sense 1b
2 a informal, often offensive : a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman
b informal, offensive — used as a generalized term of abuse and disparagement for a woman
3 informal : something that is extremely difficult, objectionable, or unpleasant Aspirin overdoses are a bitch to treat.— Pamela Grim July and August were always a bitch in the subway.— Harold Robbins
4 informal : complaint “My biggest bitch with all of CBS’ golf is there’s no personalization.”— Chuck Howard

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bitch

NIGGER

offensive; see usage paragraph below —used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a black person
offensive; see usage paragraph below —used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a member of any dark-skinned race
now often offensive; see usage paragraph below : a member of a class or group of people who are systematically subjected to discrimination and unfair treatment it’s time for somebody to lead all of America’s niggers … all the people who feel left out of the political process— Ron Dellums

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nigger

Slang : Extremely Disparaging and Offensive .
a contemptuous term used to refer to a black person.
a contemptuous term used to refer to a member of any dark-skinned people.
Slang : Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a contemptuous term used to refer to a person of any racial orethnic origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by black people; a person who is economically, politically, orsocially disenfranchised.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nigger

I have used all of these three terms before in casual conversation. Would I use it in writing a philosophical or scientific treatise? No. Mainly because they are all slang, and their meaning is not sufficiently precise in that context.

I think this imprecision comes through with the above dictionary definitions of “nigger”. They focus on the word being a term of disparagement applied to all black people. But, I don’t use it in that sense. If I refer to a black person as a “nigger”, it’s because they are behaving in some manner that is socially impolite, or criminal, or violent. OJ Simpson is a nigger for murdering his wife, Ron Goldman, and then committing armed robbery. Neil deGrasse Tyson isn’t a nigger because he hasn’t done any of those things.

I guess the criticism of my position could be that I should pick a word that focuses on the fact that a black person is a criminal, and that is “race-neutral”. I could refer to OJ Simpson as a “bastard” or a “thug”. But, this ignores an essential aspect of our society today. That is the disproportionate amount of crime being committed by black people. Do I think black people have some sort of “crime gene” that makes them commit crimes? There is no evidence of that -and it seems to fly in the face of human consciousness being volitional. So, I cannot accept that explanation for the disproportionate amount of black crime. However, I do think it is cultural. Given the historical background of most black people and their familial lineage, violent criminality is more acceptable in the minds of a sizable portion of the black population, than in the minds of the same proportion of white people. Cultures can certainly change over time. The Nordic people are no longer violent brigands going around raping, pillaging and murdering like they did 500 years ago. (Back then, they were called “vikings”.) But, given the current culture of a sizable proportion of black people today, any rational person will recognize that violent criminality is a problem for that racial group that needs to be addressed. Use of the word “nigger” in casual conversation, as in: “That guy is acting like a nigger.” or “He’s a nigger, so I don’t want to hang around him.” can be understood to mean: “That black person is behaving like a disproportionate number of black people behave, and is being criminal.” It is a recognition of a fact of reality: black crime rates that are disproportionate to their size of the population.

Also note that I’m not particularly “wedded” to referring to boorish or criminal black people as “niggers”. I don’t have the level of certainty about this that I have about being an atheist, or that the concept of “morality” only makes sense for those who want to live. I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong on the subject, and would listen to a cogent argument against my position -as long as it doesn’t consist of: “you’re mean”, “you’re racist”, “people won’t like you”, or some other vapid denunciation that has no meaningful content.

In practice, should you call black people niggers at work, or on the street? Generally, that’s probably not in your own rational self-interest. At work, you will likely get fired. On the street, it will likely be considered a provocation justifying violence against you in the eyes of most people, including the police. We live in a society where the fact that somebody’s ancestors were slaves seems to justify their violent and boorish behavior. But, if, in the privacy of your own car, you call the black person laying into his horn like a lunatic in the car behind you, at the stop light that just turned green half a second ago, a “nigger”- I certainly won’t hold it against you.

The Fundamental Flaw of Environmentalism

People will tell me that the “science” of “Climate Change” is settled.

First, what they mean by “climate change” isn’t clear. Do they mean we’ve had ice ages and sustained warming periods where average global temperatures have gone up?

If that’s what they mean, the geological evidence for past ice ages seems pretty strong to me.

On the other hand, if they mean human beings are generating more CO2, and this is causing average global temperatures to go up more than they would without this activity, then I want to know how they know this. Ultimately, they’re going to say that this knowledge is based on observations and measurements, such as measuring the temperature of sea water on a daily basis. This knowledge is combined with what we know about the nature of CO2, which is that more of it seems to trap more sunlight than if there is less of it.

However, even if this is true, when you suggest any sort of solution that involves the use of technology and voluntary human cooperation, they will say that will not work. For instance, if sea levels are rising due to increasing average global temperatures, maybe the best solution is to just build dikes and reclaim land like the Dutch have done in the past. We could also put giant mirrors in orbit around the Earth to reduce the amount of sunlight entering the Earth’s atmosphere, thereby reducing average global temperatures. (https://www.livescience.com/22202-space-mirrors-global-warming.html )
An even simpler, and presently available, solution is nuclear power, which seems to have a very small “carbon footprint”. (https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/co2-emissions1.jpg)

If you start suggesting any of these solutions to an Environmentalist, however, they will always say that these scientific and engineering solutions will fail. For instance, they will say the dikes will break, the giant orbiting mirrors will trigger another ice age, and nuclear power plants will melt down. Why do they always see failure in every technological and engineering solution?

Because they believe human beings are so limited in their mental capacity that they are incapable of producing a viable technological solution, much less in engaging in voluntary, non-coercive and non-governmental projects to solve any actual problem.

This points to a fundamental aspect of the Environmentalist ideology. They believe human beings are not capable of the production of the values we need to survive. And, why do they believe we cannot produce the values we need to survive? Because they believe the human mind is impotent, which means they believe that the human mind is not able to understand or comprehend reality. Human reason is impotent to the environmentalist.

But, if the human mind is not able to understand or comprehend reality, then how can they be sure that “climate change” is real? That involves the use of human reasoning, which they’ve said is impotent to solve any actual problem. (Or, they simply think human reason is inherently bad, and that we should live at stone-age levels of technology, which is functionally the same: anti-reason and anti-science.)

It’s one or the other. Either science and the human mind are capable of recognizing and solving problems, or it is not, in which case they should stop making proclamations about how “the science is settled” on man-made climate change.

This is the fundamental flaw of the ideology Environmentalism: They want to have their cake of science and reason at the same time they’re eating it.

Comparing Interracial Crime Statistics

I try to be very careful with statistics. First, there is the possibility that someone has actually misrepresented the underlying data. Second, even if the underlying data is correct, it is easy for a statistician with an agenda to use mathematical techniques to show results that don’t really give a correct context for the data.

When it comes to levels of crime committed by different racial groups, it’s really hard to find reliable data. (My theory on that is because most left-leaning academics know what it will show, and they don’t want the public to know it.)

I knew that black people commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. (That is, they are only about 13% of the population, but they commit more than 13% of the violent crimes.) What I was having trouble finding was numbers on interracial crime -that is the number of black on white violent crimes and the number of white on black violent crimes.

Thanks to an article , I found good credible data from the FBI on interracial murders. So, for instance, in 2015, of the 3,167 white people murdered, 500 of those victims were murdered by a black person. In 2015, of the 2,664 black people murdered, 229 of them were murdered by a white person. (Intra-racial murder is much more prevalent for both groups. In other words, most whites are murdered by other whites, and most blacks are murdered by other blacks. But, that is not what I am focusing on here.)

So, there were 500 murders of white people committed by a black person in 2015 and there were 229 murders of a black person committed by a white person. Right away, that number is clearly disproportional from the number of black people in the United States. Since black people make up only about 13% of the population, the fact 500 white people were murdered by blacks, while only 229 black people were murdered by whites is remarkable.

But, I don’t know exactly how to compare these two numbers. My probability and statistics skills are not that strong. One possible way to compare them is to take the total number of black on white murders (500) and divide that by the total number of black people in America. (Roughly, 40.5 Million). Similarly, take the number of white on black murders (229) and divide that by the number of white people in America. (Roughly 233.7 Million). This will give you:

500/40.5 Million= 0.00001235 and 229/233.7 Million = 0.00000098

Then, you turn both of these into percentages by multiplying them by 100, which is: 0.001235% and 0.000098%

My thinking is that this is like rolling a six-sided die. The probability that you will roll a 6 is 1/6. The probability that you will roll a 5 or a 6 on one roll is 1/3.

You can think of the statistics on homicide above as like rolling two different dice. One die is a 40.5 Million-sided die. This is the black on white crime die. There are 500 “sides” of that die that would be a black on white crime, while the rest of the sides are all the black people who don’t murder white people. Similarly, there is another 233.7 Million-sided die, and on that one, there are 299 sides that are white people who commit a white on black murder. If you make that assumption, then the way to compare the two probabilities seems like it would be to take the first percentage, 0.001235% and divide it by the second percentage, 0.000098%. The result is 0.001235%/0.000098% = 12.6. To me, this means the probability of a black on white murder is 12.6 times as great as a white on black murder.

However, I am not sure this reasoning makes sense entirely. I am assuming that *every* black on white murder and *every* white on black murder is committed by different people. In other words, I’m assuming that of the 500 black on white murders, each murder was committed by a different black person. It’s possible that the *same* black person committed all of the 500 black on white murders in 2015. You cannot tell from these numbers alone. (Same for the white on black murders.)

It’s also possible that I don’t understand probability calculations very well (which I don’t), and I’m making some other mistake. I wish more people would discuss this matter, and try to come up with good numbers, but the data, much less an analysis of it, seems to be almost completely non-existent. (Like I said, I think most people know what the results of the analysis would be, and they don’t like to think about it, or they have a political agenda.)

Dancing With Black Women

Some time back, a friend of mine pointed me to a web site in which the author called white men racist for not asking black women to dance in the East Coast Swing dancing scene. (Rampant leftism is one of the reasons I’ve largely dropped out of this dance style.) I ignore it when someone calls me racist. (Or sexist.) The term has lost whatever meaning it once had, and is now just a way for black people to try to make you feel guilty so that they can get something from you that they didn’t otherwise earn or deserve. I don’t owe black people anything, and I’m not going to pretend that I like a black person when I don’t, just to avoid being called a “racist”, but I digress.

Whether you should dance with anyone really depends on your goals for dancing. I dance because I enjoy it, and I need a partner to do so. When I ask someone to dance, 9 times out of 10, it’s because I want to dance, not because I’m attracted to the person. Now, does that mean I’ve never asked a woman to dance because I was interested in her sexually or romantically? No, but, that’s no different than me striking up small talk with someone, or asking them about the book that they’re reading in a coffee shop. Yes, I sometimes do those things to converse with a woman I’m attracted to, but I also sometimes ask someone about the book that they’re reading because I’m interested in the book that they’re reading. I may have no attraction to them. Basically, sometimes, there is a “sexual subtext” or “agenda” that I have when I interact with a woman regarding something, but not always. I might have a non-sexual motive for it. If most people introspect, I think they’ll see they do the same thing. Sometimes that object in your mouth is a phallic symbol, and other times, a cigar is just a cigar.

Other people may have different goals from me for dancing, and that is fine. They may be there looking for a girlfriend. There is absolutely nothing wrong with dating being your primary or only agenda in dancing. It’s your life, and you have to live it. As long as you aren’t initiating physical force, being dishonest, or otherwise being unjust (in a “non-sjw sense”), I have very little interest in what you do.

If you are dancing to get a girlfriend, then, of course, you are going to want to dance with women you are sexually attracted to. Most white men, for the most part, are sexually attracted to white women, so that is who they are going to ask to dance. Nothing wrong with that, and if someone is tempted to say this is “racist”, then they need to rethink their definition of racism. Being attracted to whites is no different than being attracted to blondes, or brunettes, or women who are only attracted to taller guys. It’s called a preference. Everyone has physical preferences, and if they don’t, then they are making the extraordinary claim that they would be happy dating a brain being kept alive in a vat of nutrient fluid.

I, personally, have no problem dancing with black women. But, like I said, that’s because I’m there primarily to dance, not to meet a girlfriend.

But, the woman for me when it comes to dating is probably going to be white for several reasons. I avoid dating black women, not because I’ve never seen an attractive black woman, although that is *very* rare for me, but simply because I find that there is too much cultural baggage associated with the average American black. There is a disproportionate amount of crime being committed by blacks, and there seem to be higher rates of mental illness there. Additionally, I’ve seen studies that seem to say that the level of spousal-abuse is higher in the black community, and that there appears to be more domestic violence committed in inter-racial couples than mono-racial white couples. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3611980/ )
Even if a particular black woman were none of these these things, when you marry, you are, in a sense, marrying that person’s family. So, you are more likely to encounter a criminal or a mentally ill person in a black person’s family. This means that your children are more likely to encounter a criminal or mentally ill person in your black spouse’s family. Additionally, most blacks that I encounter want to play some amount of the “make white people feel guilty” game. So, I wouldn’t want to put up with her or her family trying to make me feel guilty for being white. (Asian women and Hispanic women are also women I am attracted to with some frequency, and would probably date -because I currently see no evidence that they are different from white women on levels of mental illness, criminality, or spousal abuse.)

Are there black women out there that would be none of this, and would be great to marry? Possibly, but that number is exceedingly small once you take all of the above into account, and there is a great expense and “search cost” associated with dating to find even the right person in just the pool of available white women. There is also “opportunity cost” – every black person you go out on a date with on a Saturday is a missed opportunity to go out on a date with a more-likely-to-be-suitable white person. Why would you want to add additional search cost and expense to find the rare exception among black people, unless it’s about something besides finding a suitable romantic partner? (I have my suspicions about the motives of a lot of white people who date black people, but that’s a whole other blog post.)

I’ve concluded it’s easier to just have a policy of not dating black women and stick to white women in order to reduce search costs.

The Riddle of Gun Control; the Even Bigger Riddle of Open Borders

Friends who are left of center have asked me about my position on gun control in light of the shooting in New Zealand. (I’ve titled this blog entry based on a podcast by Sam Harris called: “The Riddle of the Gun”)

As I’ve said before, I think no one, including the State, should initiate physical force against other people. The purpose of the state is to stop force-initiators by using sufficient physical force to stop that initiation, or to stop subsequent initiations by the same person(s). A person who commits murder should be locked up (or executed, depending on your view on capital punishment). A person who robs, rapes, or commits assault is a force initiator, and the state should use retaliatory force to stop them. Without getting bogged down in minutia here, a person who starts planning to murder, and takes objective steps to carry out the plan is also a force initiator. So, a person who buys bomb-making material, and says that he plans to blow up someone has already initiated physical force, and the State, if it has probable cause that was the bomber’s intent, can arrest and prosecute him for that. If the State shows that was the bombers intent beyond a reasonable doubt, he should go to prison for a time.

I’m consistent. I think people should be free to immigrate to this country. Stopping them from crossing the border, absent some objective knowledge that they intend to initiate physical force once they are here, would be an initiation of physical force. (If the state sees a known terrorist crossing the border, that is different, just like the bomber I already discussed. The mere crossing of the border, combined with the terrorists’ past actions, constitutes an initiation of physical force, and he can rightly be arrested. I won’t get bogged down in the minutia of that, either, here.)

I am okay with the statistical fact that immigration of Muslims leads to more Islamic terrorism in a country, because: (1) I think there are more narrowly-tailored social and law-enforcement options that don’t violate the rights of people who just want to live in America and have peaceful, productive lives; and, (2), it is just the price we pay for a free society. It’s the same as having a free press, which leads to copy-cat killings, or having a 4th Amendment right to be free from arbitrary search and seizure causes some criminals to go uncaptured. These facts don’t mean we should eliminate the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the right to own and carry guns for self-defense shouldn’t be abrogated on the mere fact that, statistically, someone will commit a crime with a gun.

But, most of my left-of-center friends are not that consistent. They are fine with allowing large numbers of Muslims to come into the country, even though, statistically, a certain number of those Muslims are certain to commit acts of violence in the name of their religion, once they get here. (Don’t talk to me about how there are more domestic terrorists in America than Islamic terrorists. That is dropping context. We could still stop *some* terrorism by completely closing our borders to Muslim immigration, even if the domestic variety continued at the same rate or level as before.)

When it comes to guns, my left-of-center friends say: “If we save even one life, it’s worth it.” When it comes to Muslim immigration, they say: “Don’t be racist.” This is because it’s easier than trying to reconcile the contradiction between their belief in free immigration and their opposition to the right to self-defense.