Author: dean

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. Obviously, I don’t advocate the initiation of violence. Violence should only be used in self-defense, regardless of the person’s skin color. 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 home, you call a black person a “nigger”- I won’t hold it against you.

The Objectivist Concepts of “Individual Rights” and “Initiation of Physical Force”

“A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.” (“Man’s Rights”, _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Ayn Rand)

Important concepts in this definition include:

  • “Moral principle”
  • “Defining and sanctioning”
  • “Freedom of action”
  • “Social Context”

(1) What is “a moral principle”? – For Rand it is a system of principles to guide your choices in the furtherance and pursuit of your ultimate value -which is your own life. The purpose of morality is to maintain your life. For instance, you need to cultivate patterns and methods of thinking that will correspond the contents of your mind to the nature of reality. This is necessary because reality is what it is, which means you must learn how things work in order to control them, if you want to live. This is “rationality”. You learn what makes plants grow, and then you rearrange the material in the world to more effectively make the edible ones grow -which is farming. You learn which animals are dangerous and aggressive, and then you learn ways to avoid or kill them. You learn what types of wood or stone is strong enough to build structures out of to protect yourself from the elements, and then you arrange them into shelter.

(2) What is “freedom of action”? – Freedom of action means the absence of physical impediments. For instance, if you are traveling in a particular direction, and there is a mountain obstructing your forward progress, that mountain is restricting you from moving further in that direction. If you see a panther down a particular trail, that animal is restricting your freedom of action because it is a threat to your continued survival if you come into close proximity with it. In both cases, you are confronted with some sort of “physical force”. The mountain’s mere presence blocks your forward path, and the panther can maul you, causing injury or death -which is also physical force. With respect to other human beings, they can restrict your freedom of action by the same means: They can physically restrain you or they can threaten to use some sort of physical force similar to the panther.

(3) What is “a social context”? – This means interaction with other human beings, as opposed to interacting with an animal or a mountain. Human beings can use force against you to deprive you of the freedom of action that is necessary to maintain your life. A human can physically take away the crops that you’ve grown, or they can threaten to harm or kill you with a gun or a knife if you don’t give them your food. However, interacting with other human beings also provide you with many benefits. You can trade what you have made for what they have made. A farmer can trade some of the crops he has grown for a song that a musician wrote. A doctor can trade his services for the services of an auto mechanic, and so on, and so on. This allows for the division of labor, which increases every person’s overall material well-being. This social context of trade can only go on if each individual knows that he is secure to keep the values he has produced. He must know that when he parts with his values, he is doing so voluntarily and not because someone has used physical force to deprive him of his values. In other words, he has to have his freedom of action respected, in a social context.

(4) What is “defining and sanctioning”? – There are certain broad categories of values that all human beings need in order to live. There can be many variations and individual peculiarities within those categories, but everyone must satisfy these needs somehow and to some extent, by virtue of their nature as living organisms and as human beings. Everyone needs some sort of protection from the elements. Everyone needs a certain amount of food. Everyone needs to maintain their body within certain metabolic requirements. (We all need a certain amount of oxygen, warmth, atmospheric pressure, etc.) Others have to recognize and respect our desire to live. Others have to recognize and respect the actions necessary to create the material values we need in order to maintain our lives. This is what it means to “sanction” something. The dictionary defines “sanction” in the following ways:

(1) “a formal decree”

(2) “a solemn agreement”

(3) “something that makes an oath binding”

(4) “the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law”

(5) “a consideration, principle, or influence (as of conscience) that impels to moral action or determines moral judgment”

(6) “a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society’s standards”

(7) “explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification”

(8) “an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication”

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

Most of these definitions involve other’s recognition and agreement that something is “right” or “appropriate”. This is why Ayn Rand said:

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.” (_Atlas Shrugged_, Ayn Rand, emphasis added.)

A question in my mind at this point is: Where does Ayn Rand’s concept of “the initiation of physical force” come in? Do you need a concept of “initiation of physical force” in order to come up with the concept of “individual rights”?

This question came up in my mind because someone once said to me that Ayn Rand’s concept of “individual rights” and “initiation of physical force” were somewhat “circular”. They implied that Rand was saying “individual rights” were the “absence of the initiation of physical force”, and that “initiation of physical force” was “whatever violates individual rights” -which would seem like circular reasoning.

My best thinking on this topic at this point is this: you logically derive a concept of “individual rights”, which includes a concept of “physical force used to deprive someone of a value”, but NOT necessarily an “initiation of physical force”. I think one more concept is needed to logically derive the idea of “initiation of physical force”. You must mentally subdivide the concept of “use of physical force” into at least two categories of “use of physical force”. On the one hand, there is the “use of physical force” to deprive another person of their life, to rob them, or to enslave them. This can be already understood as part of understanding the concept of individual rights. Another type of “use of physical force” is to stop someone who is using physical force to deprive another person of their life, or to rob them, or to enslave them. The distinction between these two types of physical force is that one must occur before the other can occur. There would be no need to stop someone from depriving another person of their life unless someone is already using physical force to deprive another person of their life. So, the distinction is one of “time” or “causation”. This is why Ayn Rand describes one type of force as an “initiation of physical force”, while the other is “retaliatory force”:

“The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.” (“The Objectivist Ethics”, _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Ayn Rand)

Furthermore, since people must stop the use of force by others that would deprive them of values by retaliating against anyone who is using force in that manner, that too becomes a “…a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context…”. In other words, the retaliatory use of force becomes an “individual right”. As most Americans would say: you have a “right to self-defense”. That right is “defined and sanctioned” with things like the English Common Law right of self-defense, and the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. (This includes both a right of self-defense from murder, rape and robbery by common criminals, and also a right of self-defense against enslavement by tyrannical government.)

At this point, someone might say: “Okay, I understand why I need to have my right to life respected in order to live, which means I need others to keep from initiating physical force against me, but why should I recognize the rights of others?”

I think, to a large extent, social ostracism would prevent someone from violating individual rights. If other people view you as a rights-violator, they are going to do what they can to avoid you, which means you will have no friends, no lovers, and no business partners. This means you loose the benefits of most trade and social interaction with other human beings. Additionally, others aren’t going to sit by and quietly let you violate their rights. They are going to defend themselves, which means you’re in a state of perpetual armed conflict with the rest of mankind.

Most criminals do not use physical force to this extent, however. They want to live by reason and persuasion with some people, at least some of the time, and they want to keep their rights-violations hidden from the majority of mankind. Essentially, they want the benefits of living in a rights-respecting society most of the time, and they want to be seen by others as rights-respectors. A criminal just wants to “cheat”, sometimes, when they think they can get away with it. This is where I think government comes in. An essential role of government is to prevent the temptation to “cheat” by systematically exposing anyone who does so. (I don’t think this is the only role of government, but it is a role.) We all agree to establish this institution that will help to prevent any temptation to violate rights in any given situation by establishing a known “price” for anyone who gets caught.

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.

Study on Military Sexual Assault and Race of the Perpetrator

The issue of sexual assault in the military has been in the news a lot this past week. I suspected I knew a major reason for the majority of sexual assaults in the military, but I was concerned that I might be making unfounded assumptions or generalizations without sufficient evidence to support it. I did a couple of hours of Internet research today, and found a study published with the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a government-sponsored web site. My “uninformed assumption” on the subject appears to have data to support it, in the form of a study called “Predicting Sexual Assault Perpetration in the US Army Using Administrative Data“, NIHMSID: NIHMS917120 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5683072/)

In this study, the researchers obtained data from several Army databases that kept track of service personnel arrested for some sort of sexual assault:

“This study investigated administratively-recorded sexual assault perpetration among the 821,807 male Army soldiers serving 2004–2009.”  (“Predicting Sexual Assault Perpetration in the US Army Using Administrative Data”, NIHMSID: NIHMS917120,  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5683072/)

The study looked at what were considered only “founded cases” of sexual assault, i.e., cases for which the Army found sufficient evidence to warrant a full investigation, even if there was no conviction:

“Six HADS databases were used to obtain information on date, type, and judicial outcome of all reported crimes occurring over the study period. Crime types were coded according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) classification system.24 Qualifying sexual assault crimes included (Appendix Table 2): rape (i.e., forcible vaginal intercourse), forcible sodomy (i.e., attempted or forcible oral or anal sex), and “other” sexual assault (i.e., attempted rape, fondling, indecent assault). The outcomes were founded cases; that is, cases for which the Army found sufficient evidence to warrant full investigation regardless of whether the investigation resulted in a formal conviction.” (Id, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5683072/)

The sample size of the persons studied seems to be described here, although I am no expert on statistics:

“A total of 4,640 men had records indicating an occurrence of sexual assault perpetration against non-family adults, 1,384 against non-family minors, 380 against intra-family adults, and 335 against intra-family minors. All four outcomes included perpetrations against both opposite-sex and same-sex victims, though data were not available to distinguish between the two.” (Id, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5683072/ )

If I understand it correctly, the study looked at what are known to be common predictors of sexual assault in the military world:

“Predictors
As mentioned in the introduction, there is a rich civilian literature on risk factors for sexual assault perpetration,9–11 but few studies have examined these risk factors among military personnel.12,13 A considerably larger literature has examined predictors of any (physical or sexual) violence perpetration among military personnel.27–34 As reviewed by Elbogen and colleagues,35 four broad classes of predictors have been identified in these military studies: socio-demographic and dispositional predictors (e.g., sex, race-ethnicity, personality); historical predictors (e.g., childhood experiences, military career experiences, prior violence); clinical predictors (e.g., mental and physical disorders); and contextual-environmental predictors (e.g., access to weapons).”” (“Predicting Sexual Assault Perpetration in the US Army Using Administrative Data”, NIHMSID: NIHMS917120,  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5683072/ , emphasis added.)

In other words, the above says that gender (presumably being male) and one’s race are predictors for committing sexual assault. I’m sure you’ve already guessed which race if you are at all honest with yourself. The article sums this up here:

“Non-family adult predictors Unmarried, racial-ethnic minority, and combat support or service support soldiers had elevated odds of perpetration against a non-family adult.” (“Predicting Sexual Assault Perpetration in the US Army Using Administrative Data”, NIHMSID: NIHMS917120,  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5683072 , emphasis added.)

In other words, non-white males who are single, and are not likely to be involved in combat, are the most likely to commit rapes against adult people (likely women) that are not family members.

The study’s Table 2 seems to give the odds that a member of a particular category will commit a sexual assault, although I’m not certain of this, because I’m no expert on statistics. The percentages don’t add up to 100%, so I’m not sure what these mean exactly. But, it lists “Race/ethnicity – Non-Hispanic Black” at 18.2%, and “Race/ethnicity – Non-White” at 34.7%.

Essentially, what seem to be the predictors for persons who commit rape in the civilian world are the same in the military. Black people commit a disproportionate share of the rapes in the civilian world, and they appear to also commit a disproportionate share of the rapes in the military world.

None of this will be addressed in the news media or in Congress, of course. Recognizing reality on this topic isn’t conducive to keeping one’s job as a reporter or getting elected to public office in the society we live in today. It would call into question too many sacred cows.

 

 

 

 

The Gillette Commercial’s Odd Racial Composition

I have watched portions of the Gillette Commercial haranguing men, and there is a lot to criticize there. Others on the Internet have done a pretty good job of it. (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nDs84E3BQI&t=675s ; see also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FILwhaFezec )

I wanted to comment on one scene in particular because I found it to be so far from reality. This is the scene where the attractive woman is walking down the street, in broad daylight, with many other people around, and a white guy sees her, and starts to follow her. I assume his intention is to speak to her, and maybe ask for her phone number. But, before he can do so, a black guy steps out and stops him and, I assume, explains to the white guy that this is wrong.

First of all, I don’t think a man simply approaching a woman in a respectful manner to speak to her on the street, in broad daylight when there are a lot of other people around, so she doesn’t have to fear what might be a potential assault, is wrong. It’s not wrong, in such a scenario, to ask for her phone number. A woman in that situation can either tell him to get lost, or, if she is less confrontational than that, she can give him a fake phone number, which women do all the time, and is perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. If the woman rebuffs the man in that scenario, or indicates she’s not interested, then he should, of course, leave her alone, and not act in a verbally abusive manner, much less, initiate physical force against her or threaten her. (Whether this is the best way for a man to meet women is another story -I tend to think it won’t work well.)

Second, the racial makeup of the participants in this scenario is laughable. The FBI crime statistics on rape and sexual assault demonstrate that it is highly probable that black men commit a disproportionate amount of the rapes. According to these statistics, in 2013, there were 13,515 rapes. 8,946 of those rapes were committed by whites. 4,229 of those rapes were committed by blacks. This means 66.2% of all rapes were committed by whites, while 31.3% of all rapes were committed by blacks. ( https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43 )

The absolute percentages do show that more rapes are committed by whites. But, to get a proper perspective on this, you have to keep in mind that blacks make up a little under 13% of the US population. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Race)

This means that if blacks committed a strictly proportionate share of the rapes in the US, they would have committed. 0.13 * 13,515 = 1,757 rapes in 2013. But, as I noted previously, according to FBI crime statistics, blacks committed 4,229 rapes in 2013. In other words the number of rapes committed by blacks was about 2.4 times as high as it “should” be if blacks were committing rapes in line with their proportion of the population. (This figure was obtained by taking 4,229 and dividing it by 1,757, which equals about 2.4.) In other words, blacks are committing a disproportionate share of the rapes in the United States.

These statistics line up with my own personal experiences. (I fully admit I’m about to give nothing but anecdotal evidence, but, since the statistics appear to confirm my experiences, I think my anecdotes are relevant.)

I’ve only known two women who were likely the victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. (I may have known other women, but they haven’t shared their experience with me, so I don’t know if any other women I’ve met have ever been raped.)

The first was a teenage girl who was probably sixteen or seventeen at the time. She was white, and a neighbor of my family’s when I was about eight or nine years old. Her mother had married a black man, who was not her father. (Or, her white mother was just cohabiting with him, I don’t know which.) I learned through a conversation I overheard between my mother and my older sister that the black step-father had raped his step-daughter. I recognize that this could have been a false accusation. It was just second-hand, or even third-hand information. I also do not know what the result of this was. I don’t know if he was arrested, or convicted, of anything.

The second situation involved a client. (The facts I’m relaying are public knowledge, and nothing I’m saying is attorney-client confidential.) In this case, the client was assaulted by a black man in her home. He was subsequently arrested for this incident, and another incident where he had assaulted another woman.

Additionally, I’ve seen black men engage in numerous instances of what I can only describe as highly inappropriate or overly aggressive behavior, that often bordered on an initiation of physical force against women. I cannot recall a single instance of seeing white men do the same.

When I lived in Tallahassee, Florida, there were two malls. One seemed to have a much higher proportion of blacks frequenting it than the other one. I went to the “black mall” because it was closer to where I lived. I saw a lot of odd behavior at that mall. I was once called a “cracker” in the parking lot by a black man for no reason that I could discern, other than he didn’t like the color of my skin -but I digress.

One day while in the black mall in Tallahassee, I noticed one of the few other white people there, a blonde woman, who was walking towards me. I noticed that a black man was following her, trying to engage her in conversation, which she didn’t seem interested in having. She sort of acted like she was walking towards me, and I made eye contact with her. Then, she turned back towards the black man and said: “I have a boyfriend.”

This situation I saw in Tallahassee seems almost exactly like the Gillette commercial. But, unlike the “racial fantasy world”  in the commercial, it is probably more representative of reality: black men engaging in unwanted or socially uncouth attempts to…what? Get a date? I’m not even sure what the black man’s “end game” was in that mall in Tallahassee. Did he really think this woman, who likely didn’t even make eye contact with him, was going to want to go out on a date with him? Or, did he just enjoy the “thrill” of bothering and possibly frightening this woman? I don’t know exactly what was going on inside his head. He was either mentally ill to believe that would “work”, or he had downright malicious motives and wanted to frighten or annoy her.

I’ve seen this sort of obnoxious and boorish behavior in bar environments too, and it’s always been black men engaged in it. A female friend was once approached in a highly aggressive manner by two black men as we were leaving the bar. I was a little bit in front of her, and heard her exclaim loudly in a way that expressed dissatisfaction with what was going on. Then she said: “I’m here with somebody,” to the two black men. I don’t know if they physically assaulted/touched her or not, and the situation was over quite quickly. I never asked her exactly what had happened. (That situation seems particularly “scary” when I think about it now, because it seemed like these black men were waiting at the front door for intoxicated women to assault.)

I also recently had a black man clumsily approach a female friend I was there with at a bar, and begin making a very bad attempt at conversation with her. (He was clearly quite intoxicated.) He was obstructing her view of the band, and when she asked him to move, he became belligerent and verbally abusive, calling her an “asshole”. At that point, there was a near-physical confrontation between myself and the black man. Eventually, I reported the matter to the bartender and he was thrown out, although he remained at the front entrance of the bar. I don’t know exactly what his intentions were, and he probably didn’t either, as he was drunk. Was he going to confront me physically when I left? Did he just want to yell at the bar owners? We left by a side entrance. (I avoid physical violence unless it’s an absolute last resort to defend myself or to defend friends/family.)

There have been other instances I’ve witnessed in bar environments. But, I think these, plus the statistics showing a disproportionate number of rapes are being committed by black men, are enough to paint an accurate picture of reality -as opposed to the Kafkaesque world of the Gillette commercial.

 

 

 

 

Barack Obama: Tribalist-In-Chief

In my previous blog entry, I described the “tribalistic mindset” and showed that it is the “anti-conceptual mindset”. I also opined that the possible reason for this uptick in discussion of the concept of “tribalism” was due to the election of Donald Trump. Commentators on the left seem to have seized on the idea to explain his rise, and also seem to be blaming Trump for what they see as more “tribalism” in our society and political system.

However, if we are going point fingers at politicians, then we need to take a look at Trump’s predecessor. The Obama administration fanned the forces of tribalism like no other President, and he severely damaged race-relations in the United States.

The intellectual groundwork of the Obama administration’s facilitation of tribalism lies in key aspects of the leftist ideology.

First, most leftists admire or tend to follow the ideas of Karl Marx. So, his ideas on the nature of the human mind, logic, and reason are important in understanding how leftist thinking tends to encourage the anti-conceptual, tribal mindset.

The Marxist epistemology is “polylogist”. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/polylogism.html). He thought your class determines your consciousness. For Marx, what class you are born into determines your logic, which is unique and distinct from other classes. The proletarians have their method of thinking, the bourgeoisie have theirs, the aristocracy theirs, etc. For Marx, there could be no reasoning with those who control the factors of production, because they fundamentally don’t think like proletarians. Only violence could bring about socialism. You couldn’t reason with members of the bourgeoisie any more than you could reason with a species of lower animal. (See my previous blog post for more on this: https://deancook.net/2018/08/16/karl-marx-polylogism-and-utopian-socialism-how-fundamental-philosophy-drives-history/ )

Marxist polylogism is not very different from those who believe that your race determines your method of thinking, and that other races fundamentally cannot understand you. An example of racial polylogism can be seen in an article discussing how the author believes a policy of “colorblindness”, i.e. *not* treating people differently because of their race is morally bad:

“Colorblindness creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives.” (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism)

Note how the author of this article focuses on “cultural heritage” (i.e., tribalism), and how black people have “unique perspectives…”, thereby giving the article a distinct whiff of racial polylogism. (But, that’s apparently okay when the author is black.)

Marxism appears to have either “set the seeds” for racial polylogism, or it has the same philosophic basis as racial polylogism.

According to Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff, the ideas of Marx were an outgrowth of the ideas of the philosophy of Hegel, who was in turn the intellectual progeny of Immanuel Kant. I haven’t studied Marx, Hegel, or Kant enough to know if this assertion is correct. (I take nothing on faith, even when Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff said it.) I note it here as a possible “lead” on the “philosophic roots” of the ideas of Marx and how those same ideas also led to racial polylogism:

“There are two different kinds of subjectivism, distinguished by their answers to the question: whose consciousness creates reality? Kant rejected the older of these two, which was the view that each man’s feelings create a private universe for him. Instead, Kant ushered in the era of social subjectivism—the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality. In Kant’s system, mankind as a whole is the decisive group; what creates the phenomenal world is not the idiosyncrasies of particular individuals, but the mental structure common to all men.

Later philosophers accepted Kant’s fundamental approach, but carried it a step further. If, many claimed, the mind’s structure is a brute given, which cannot be explained—as Kant had said—then there is no reason why all men should have the same mental structure. There is no reason why mankind should not be splintered into competing groups, each defined by its own distinctive type of consciousness, each vying with the others to capture and control reality.

The first world movement thus to pluralize the Kantian position was Marxism, which propounded a social subjectivism in terms of competing economic classes. On this issue, as on many others, the Nazis follow the Marxists, but substitute race for class.” (_The Ominous Parallels_ Leonard Peikoff, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html)

The second aspect of the leftist mindset that tends to foster tribalistic thinking is modern philosophy’s rejection of reason. This modern rejection is summed up in an Encyclopedia Britannica article:

“As indicated in the preceding section, many of the characteristic doctrines of postmodernism constitute or imply some form of metaphysical, epistemological, or ethical relativism. (It should be noted, however, that some postmodernists vehemently reject the relativist label.) Postmodernists deny that there are aspects of reality that are objective; that there are statements about reality that are objectively true or false; that it is possible to have knowledge of such statements (objective knowledge); that it is possible for human beings to know some things with certainty; and that there are objective, or absolute, moral values. Reality, knowledge, and value are constructed by discourses; hence they can vary with them. This means that the discourse of modern science, when considered apart from the evidential standards internal to it, has no greater purchase on the truth than do alternative perspectives, including (for example) astrology and witchcraft. Postmodernists sometimes characterize the evidential standards of science, including the use of reason and logic, as ‘Enlightenment rationality.‘” https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy (Accessed on 12-15-2018)

As a result, post-modern intellectuals tend to believe that reason is nothing more than a “tool of oppression” over the non-white races:

“A philosophy and religion professor at Syracuse University gave an interview to The New York Times Thursday in which he critiqued the notion of pure reason as simply being a ‘white male Euro-Christian construction.’” (https://dailycaller.com/2015/07/03/professor-reason-itself-is-a-white-male-construct/)

I’d note that this attitude about reason serves as great “psychological cover” for a leftist because any time they loose a debate, they can just say your logic, evidence, and reason is nothing more than a “tool of oppression” by the “white, male, heterosexual patriarchy”, and disregard it.

The third intellectual basis of leftism that tends to promote tribalism is its promotion of collectivism. It is a core tenant of leftism that groups are more important than individuals. Quoting from the Encyclopedia Britannica Article on “Collectivism”:

“The earliest modern, influential expression of collectivist ideas in the West is in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Du contrat social, of 1762 (see social contract), in which it is argued that the individual finds his true being and freedom only in submission to the “general will” of the community. In the early 19th century the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel argued that the individual realizes his true being and freedom only in unqualified submission to the laws and institutions of the nation-state, which to Hegel was the highest embodiment of social morality. 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.’

Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism.”(https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivism , last accessed on 12-16-2018, emphasis added.)

For Marx, the father of modern collectivism, it was not (individual) men’s consciousness which determines their “being”, but their “social being”, which determines their consciousness. In other words, the individual is nothing, and the group, the collective, is all.

These systems of thought held by the Obama administration, the modern rejection of reason and the promotion of collectivism, create the proper “psychological attitude” for tribalistic thinking to flourish. This is because if reason is impotent, and if service to the group is considered as all-important, then an individual will consider his mind incapable of choosing what group he should serve. He’ll simply seek to join a group based on concretes like the fact that they look like him and talk like him:

“Now what are the nature and the causes of modern tribalism? Philosophically, tribalism is the product of irrationalism and collectivism. It is a logical consequence of modern philosophy. If men accept the notion that reason is not valid, what is to guide them and how are they to live? Obviously, they will seek to join some group -any group- which claims the ability to lead them and to provide some sort of knowledge acquired by some sort of unspecified means. If men accept the notion that the individual is helpless, intellectually and morally, that he has no mind and no rights, that he is nothing, but the group is all, and his only moral significance lies in selfless service to the group -they will be pulled obediently to join a group. But which group? Well, if you believe that you have no mind and no moral value, you cannot have the confidence to make choices -so the only thing for you to do is to join an unchosen group, the group into which you were born, the group to which you were predestined to belong by the sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient power of your body chemistry.

            This is, of course, racism. But, if your group is small enough, it will not be called “racism”: it will be called ’ethnicity’” (“Global Balkanization”, Ayn Rand, _The Voice of Reason_, https://www.amazon.com/Voice-Reason-Objectivist-Thought-Library-ebook/dp/B002OSXD7I/)

As we have seen, the philosophic roots of the Obama administration’s facilitation of tribalism lie in the ideas of mostly dead, white male philosophers, like Karl Marx. However, many previous leftist presidents have ascribed to similar philosophies. The Obama administration went further and actively promoted tribalism.

This promotion of tribalism started even before Barack Obama was President, although it has only become common knowledge in recent months, because the news media actively suppressed the information. In January of 2018, a photo surfaced showing a then-Senator Obama smiling and posing with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. (http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/Decade-old-photo-of-Obama-with-Louis-Farrakhan-surfaces_164857663) (Farrakhan is a tribal mentality through and through. I recommend doing an Internet search and reading some of the things he has written and said if you are unfamiliar.)

This photo was taken during a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus meeting with Farrakhan on Capitol Hill, which demonstrates where the loyalties of the entire Congressional “Black Caucus” lie.

If this photo had come out prior to the Presidential election of 2008, it is opined that Obama would not have been elected. The photo is the moral equivalent to a white Presidential candidate posing and smiling with the leader of Aryan Nations. (http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/27/obama-farrakhan-photo-dershowitz-says-he-would-not-support-him-if-he-knew-about-picture)

Obama managed to hide his promotion of tribalism pretty well until a later event in 2012. This was the shooting of a black teenager, Trayvon Martin, by George Zimmerman, a homeowner living in Florida. (Zimmerman was subsequently acquitted at trial.)

Obama chose to inject himself into a purely local matter of criminal law. (http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/23/president-obama-statement-on-trayvon-martin-case/) He aided and abetted the news media in doing its best to ensure that George Zimmerman wouldn’t get a fair trial.

But, more than that, Obama made a statement that I think did more damage to race relations than possibly anything else he said before or since. When commenting on the shooting, Obama noted:

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” (https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-had-son-hed-look-trayvon-171805699.html)

This was like saying: “I am with black people because you look like me. I’m not the President of the United States, who serves abstract, and important, concepts like justice, rights, and the rule of law. I am the mouthpiece of a racial pressure group, and I will do everything I can to promote that racial group’s ‘collective good’, at the expense of the individual rights of people who don’t belong to that racial group.”

Why did Obama do this? Probably because:

“The case resonates with many black Americans, a key voting group during Obama’s 2008 election, who see it as an example of bias toward blacks.” (https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-had-son-hed-look-trayvon-171805699.html)

I suspect so many black Americans were convinced George Zimmerman was guilty because many of them hold the tribal premise to some greater or lesser degree, although I obviously don’t have statistics to back that up. I’m not sure how one would even measure “tribalistic impulse” of a particular group of people, but I would like to see such a study. I suspect the results on the level of “tribalistic impulse” of American blacks, compared to American whites or Asians, would be stunningly high.

I believe Obama thought he had to say “If I have a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” to appease black Americans, but it was more than appeasement. It was active endorsement and promotion of the tribalistic impulse. It was encouragement to unleash some of the worst tendencies amongst some black Americans.

This pandering by Obama gave aid and comfort to the group known as “Black Lives Matter”, a group that always assumes if a white cop shoots a black man, then the shooting was unjust. For instance, when Michael Brown was shot by Officer Darren Wilson in Missouri, it was determined by the United States Department of Justice that Officer Wilson did nothing wrong:

“Based on this investigation, the Department has concluded that Darren Wilson’s actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits uses of deadly force that are “objectively unreasonable,” as defined by the United States Supreme Court. The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. Accordingly, under the governing federal law and relevant standards set forth in the USAM, it is not appropriate to present this matter to a federal grand jury for indictment, and it should therefore be closed without prosecution.” (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf)

Despite that, there was a rush to judgment by what the media portrays as the “black leadership”. Jessie Jackson called it a “Crime of Injustice”. Al Sharpton, another tribalist, also shilled for Michael Brown in the face of the facts. (https://www.businessinsider.com/al-sharpton-denounces-darren-wilsons-excuse-michael-brown)

Always taking the side of a black person over a white person, without knowing any of the facts, demonstrates that the slogan “Black Lives Matters” is nothing but a statement of tribalism by the “black leadership”. (The notion of a “black leadership” is tribalism too, but the news media seems to believe Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton speak for black people, so that is how I refer to them.)

Despite the tendency of “Black Lives Matter” to always take the side of a black man, even when the facts didn’t support it, Obama expressed solidarity with the “Black Lives Matter” movement, and even went so far as to accuse police of widespread racial discrimination himself:

“’As a young man, there were times when I was driving and I got stopped and I didn’t know why,’ he [Obama] said.” (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/257811-obama-defends-black-lives-matter)

I don’t think Barack Obama is, himself a tribalist, but I think his philosophy, ideology, and method of thinking drives him to pander to those who *are* tribalists. Another example of that pandering could be seen when it came to Obama’s policies on immigration.

When it comes to issues of immigration policy, Obama supported open borders, which I, more or less, also support. I believe that policy is consistent with freedom and free markets. (https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/02/07/ayn-rand-on-immigration) But, Obama didn’t support the policy because he’s committed to Capitalism. He supported it because of the need to appeal to Hispanic voters, who, to the extent they are concerned about open borders, are likely concerned out of feelings of tribalism, rather than concepts of justice, freedom of movement, and the free market. This tribalism is why you will see people flying Mexican flags at pro-immigration rallies in the United States:

“‘Native-born Americans suspect that it is they, and not the immigrant, who are being forced to adapt’ to social changes caused by migration, he [Obama] said….’When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment…’ (https://dailycaller.com/2014/11/16/shock-flashback-obama-says-illegal-immigration-hurts-blue-collar-americans-strains-welfare-video/

Flying Mexican flags at pro-immigration rallies shows that, rather than being primarily about the abstract concepts of freedom and free markets, most of the “pro-immigration” sentiment of the Democratic Party is an expression of “Latin-American nationalism”, i.e., tribalism. They care less about the abstract concept of freedom of immigration than they do about ensuring that members of their racial and ethnic group can come and go as they please, into and out of, the United States. Would the “Hispanic leadership” in the Democratic Party care so much about immigration if most of the immigrants were German, or Chinese? (I doubt it.) Obama’s policies on immigration were another appeal to a tribalistic pressure group, just like his support of “Black Lives Matter”.

The tribal mentality discards reason because he is, fundamentally, the anti-conceptual mentality. (https://deancook.net/2018/12/15/what-is-tribalism-it-is-the-anti-conceptual-mentality/) This means tribalists will be strongly tempted to use force and violence when dealing with others outside their own ethnic group because they have no other recourse:

“Warfare -permanent warfare- is the hallmark of tribal existence. A tribe -with its rules, dogmas, traditions, and arrested mental development- is not a productive organization. Tribes subsist on the edge of starvation, at the mercy of natural disasters, less successfully than herds of animals. War amongst other, momentarily luckier tribes, in the hope of looting some meager hoard, is their chronic emergency means of survival. The inculcation of hatred for other tribes is a necessary tool of tribal rulers, who need scapegoats to blame for the misery of their own subjects.

            There is no tyranny worse than ethnic rule -since it is an unchosen serfdom one is asked to accept as a value, and since it applies primarily to one’s mind.” (“Global Balkanization, Ayn Rand, _The Voice of Reason_ https://www.amazon.com/Voice-Reason-Objectivist-Thought-Library-ebook/dp/B002OSXD7I/)

So, the consequences of Barack Obama’s pandering to the tribal mentalities in our country was predictable. Here are a few examples:

(1) Riots in Ferguson Missouri and elsewhere. (“Ferguson riots: Ruling sparks night of violence” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30190224)

(2) “Occupations” of College Campuses by leftist thugs.

A couple of these “occupations” have been memorable for their totalitarian tendencies. A journalism professor at the University of Missouri was so enamored with the little totalitarian “no go zone” she and other campus minority groups had created on campus, that she, and the brutes following her, sought to exclude journalists from the area. When one journalist defied her, she famously yelled out: “Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here!”( https://www.yahoo.com/news/mizzou-professor-some-muscle-protests-resigns-143632236.html)

Deep down in this professor’s soul, and in the soul of every leftist academic, “muscle”, i.e., naked force, is what matters. This is because reason is an illusion to them, thanks to “post-modern thinking” and Marxism.

At Evergreen College in the Pacific Northwest, a college professor was forced to resign after he questioned the wisdom of asking white students to “voluntarily” leave the college campus for a day. ( https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/evergreen-professor-plans-to-sue-college-for-385-million/ )

Given the violent nature of the “anti-conceptual, tribalist mindset”, it won’t be long before the “voluntary” aspect of Evergreen’s “ethnic cleansing dry-run” is dropped in favor of the use of force.

But, the riots and the “college occupations” at least had the virtue of not leading to the loss of human life. The bloody climax of the Obama administration’s race policy was seen in my hometown of Dallas, Texas. In July of 2016, a sniper shot twelve white police officers, specifically because they were white, in what was described as the deadliest day for law enforcement officers since the September 11 attacks in 2001. (https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/07/07/shots-fired-during-downtown-dallas-protests/ )

Ultimately, I believe that much of our recent history has been driven by mostly dead, white, male philosophers, like Karl Marx. However, if we are going to start looking at political and social “conduits” for the philosophy driving tribalism, then our 44th President was one such conduit. If we’re going to point fingers at politicians for the uptick in tribalism in America, then we need to start with the villainous Presidency of Barack H. Obama.

What Is Tribalism? (It Is The Anti-Conceptual Mentality)

Use of the term “tribalism” seems to have gained currency over the past couple of years. Several books describing a descent into tribalism have been written, such as “Suicide of the West” by Jonah Goldberg and “Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations” by Amy Chua. (I have not read these books, and express no opinion here about their merit.) However, the first place I ever heard the term “tribalism” was in Ayn Rand’s 1973 article “The Missing Link”. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works/philosophy-who-needs-it.html)

I think what is largely fueling this interest in the phenomena of “tribalism” is the suggestion that it might explain the Donald Trump Presidency. (I will express no opinion on that, although I will show, in a later blog entry, that if we’re going to point fingers at Presidents, then the “tribalistic mindset” was encouraged and enabled *prior* to the Trump Presidency.)

What, exactly, is “tribalism”?

The definition of “tribe” is something like: “a local division of an aboriginal people.” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tribe

A “define” search on Google returns the following definition: “a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader.”

I’d say it’s something like: a political-social group from a stone-age culture that operates as a group for purposes of survival.

When commentators like Jonah Goldberg use the term “tribalism”, I think it is meant in a “metaphorical sense”. I doubt that he literally means that a “tribalist” is someone associated with a stone-age political-social group known as a “tribe”. Instead commentators are saying the “mind-set” of a “tribalist” is *similar* to someone from this type of stone-age group.

The fact that the term “tribalism” is being used somewhat “metaphorically” rather than literally means that the term can be easily misused by people who don’t clearly understand the concept. For instance, a “Psychology Today” article cited to a “USA Today” article in which a valedictorian made the following quote and initially attributed it to Donald Trump: “Don’t just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.” Then he said “Just kidding, that was Barrack Obama”, and the crowd allegedly then stopped clapping. The “Psychology Today” author said this was a clear example of tribalism.

Assuming this story actually happened the way it is reported, which I question, this is not *necessarily* an example of tribalism. The quote about “fighting for your place at the table” is extremely metaphorical. There is no literal “table”, and you don’t literally “fight” for it. So, *who* says “fight for your seat at the table” actually *does* matter. If Ayn Rand said it, I know enough about her philosophy of egoism and individual rights that I would know she meant you should develop the virtues of rationality, independence and courage, and earn your wealth on a free market. If Barack Obama says it, I know that someone with socialistic and anti-individualist tendencies like Obama means something like: “Get together with other looters and use the force of government to expropriate the wealth of the producers for yourself.”

My point is, when making a metaphorical statement like this quote, *context* matters. So, the crowd in the story may have stopped cheering because they took into consideration what Barack Obama likely *meant* by that statement as: “We need more government force to take wealth from the producers,” while they didn’t think, rightly or wrongly, that Donald Trump would mean that. That’s not “tribalism”, that’s just taking into account context.

In order to avoid misusing the term “tribalism”, what is needed is a proper definition and understanding of the concept. Who has defined that concept? Ayn Rand did in her article: “The Missing Link”. What I intend to do here is provide my own explanation of the concept of “tribalism”, as Miss Rand used it, and possibly provide some additional explanation and insight into the phenomena.

So, what is the “mind set” of tribalism?

An example of “tribalism” can be seen in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet”.  The Montague’s and the Capulet’s are engaged in a sort of “tribalistic warfare” with each other.

Another probable example of “tribalism” from history would be the Hatfield-McCoy feud in Appalachian America. (https://www.history.com/shows/hatfields-and-mccoys/articles/the-hatfield-mccoy-feud)

In the case of “Romeo and Juliet”, if you’re a Montague, you associate with and fight alongside a fellow Montague. It doesn’t matter if your clansman was in the right or in the wrong -you’re on his side in a fight. Justice has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter if your fellow Montague is interesting or boring -you spend your time with him over a Capulet.

Basically, a “tribalist” will prefer and choose *his* group, right or wrong.

Since right or wrong doesn’t matter, it means truth and falsity doesn’t matter, which ultimately means: reality doesn’t matter.

This raises an interesting question, then: How do you choose your group? It cannot be on the basis of which group has the best ideas, because that would require comparing their ideas and behavior in accordance with the facts and some standard of justice. The way you pick your group, therefore, is by *not* picking it.

You are born to a particular group, and you accept the traditions, customs, and behaviors of that group without question. Your people worship a particular god, and you never question it. Your people regard certain lands as sacred, and you never question it. Your people only eat certain foods, and you never question it. Your people say members of a particular “cast” can only associate with members of certain other “casts”, and that’s that. The leaders of your people say that another group of people are your ancient enemies that you must exterminate, and you blindly accept it.

A “tribalist” accepts the contents of his mind, the ideas he happens to hold, as the given, and never questions them. In other words, mentally, a tribalist holds certain *concepts* in his mind, and those concepts have no correspondence to reality, but he holds them, regardless. (It may be that some of the ideas a tribalist holds could be mentally “connected” to the facts, logic, and reality, but he doesn’t bother to “test” any of his ideas in that manner.)

Since we’re talking about the ideas in somebody’s head, what exactly is an idea? (For my purposes here, “idea” and “concept” are synonymous.)

A “concept” is a mental blending of observed concretes that are similar to one another, in contrast to other things from which they are different, when some common characteristic is considered. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/concepts.html) For instance, two rocks have similar hardness, texture, natural origin, and size when compared to sand, a tree, or a television. On this basis, one can mentally blend together in one’s mind the similarities of the two perceived rocks and create a mental “file folder” designated by the word “rock” and defined as something like: “relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone.” (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/rock)

Furthermore, concepts can consist of other, mentally combined concepts that include new observations about additional characteristics of those earlier formed concepts and/or other concepts. So, for instance, with additional observations about different types of rocks, one can discover that some rocks originate from the cooling and solidification of magma or lava, which requires knowledge about volcanoes and the Earth’s core. (“Igneous rocks”) Other types of rocks are formed by the deposition and subsequent cementation of mineral or organic particles. (Sedimentary rocks) While other types of rocks are formed from the transformation of the other two rock types through heat or pressure. (Metamorphic rocks) These new sub-categories of the concept “rock” are called “higher-level concepts” or “abstractions from abstractions”. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/hierarchy_of_knowledge.html)

The above example of forming the concept “rock” is an example of a concept that corresponds to reality. Unfortunately, we can also hold ideas that *do not* correspond to reality. One can believe that “ghosts” are real, that there is a “rain god” that makes it rain, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. The ideas that we hold can be true or false, and it is the role of logic and science to distinguish true ideas from false ideas.

Going back to the “tribalist”, now, he is a person who simply accepts certain ideas in his mind without question. He accepts that the way his group dresses is the way to dress. He accepts that the way his group worships a deity is the way to worship. He accepts that certain lands are sacred because his group believes that. He accepts the traditions and customs of his group *because* they are the traditions and customs of his group.

So, a person who chooses to blindly accept the word of the group he is born into, and the ideas it holds, over and above corresponding his ideas to reality, to see if they are right or wrong, is, fundamentally, “anti-conceptual”. A “tribal mindset” is therefore an “anti-conceptual mindset”.

This “tribal mindset” will often show up in issues of justice. By “justice”, I mean judging the character and actions of other people in accordance with a standard and then treating them accordingly.

“Justice” is a concept that depends on a chain of prior concepts to understand. Some of these prior concepts include the fact that one must take certain actions in order to live, which means one has chosen to live. One must also have some concept of rights, in terms of the things that human beings are entitled to and that others may not rightly use force to deprive you of.

A “tribal mindset” doesn’t hold to any standard of justice because that would require him to judge members of his *own* group in accordance with a standard of right and wrong and treat them accordingly. A tribal mentality cannot do that because he has to come to the aid of his fellow “tribesmen”, regardless of whether they are in the right. If a Capulet sees a fellow Capulet being attacked by a Montague, he must come to the Capulet’s aid and fight alongside him. (I will note, as an aside, that this is not the same as seeing a friend or family member being attacked, and assuming they are the victim. You may base that on your *knowledge* that the friend or family member would not initiate physical force. That is acting in accordance with justice. Like I said, context matters.)

As we have seen, the “tribalistic mindset” is, more fundamentally, the “anti-conceptual mindset”. There is one other aspect of the tribalistic mindset that is related to its anti-conceptualism.

If we go back to the “define tribe” search on Google, then we see that a tribe is described as being “…a traditional society…” So, if one is described as “tribal” it means that they tend to follow tradition.

What “tradition” are we talking about in this context? We mean the customs, habits, ideas, and morals of the “tribe”. In other words, the man-made institutions of whatever group one is born into. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysical_vs_man-made.html)

This means if there is a better, but non-traditional, way to do something, the “tribal mentality” will tend to choose the less efficient, but traditional way. If his great-grand-parents hunted with a bow and arrow, he’s going to hunt with a bow and arrow, even though a gun would be superior. (Or, the tribal mentality will choose hunting over farming or an industrial culture because it is “traditional”.)

In other words the “tribal mentality” prefers his particular man-made institutions over reality, or his own life. He tends to make no distinction between what Ayn Rand called “the metaphysical” (reality) and “the man made”. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysical_vs_man-made.html)

What is “the metaphysical”? It is that which exists apart from human choice. The orbit of the planets around the sun is “the metaphysical”. They occupy their current orbits through a process of the laws of physics. The fact that water consists of two hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen atom is “the metaphysical” – it is that way through the operation of the laws of nature and chemistry, not because of human desires or wishes to the contrary. The institution of marriage, on the other hand, was created by human beings. It would not exist apart from mankind. The rule of law is created by human beings. All technology is created by human beings to serve human ends. All institutions are created by human beings and can be altered or abolished by human beings. Concepts like “rock”, themselves, are human creations. Concepts serve human ends and needs. To serve human ends and needs, they must be consistent with the nature of the human mind, and, more generally, the nature of reality. (Their purpose is to promote human life.)

The “anti-conceptual mentality”, is someone who takes the contents of his mind as the given, and does not care to discover if those contents are true or false, i.e., if those concepts conform to the nature of reality and serve the purpose of promoting human life. To him, there is no distinction between the fact that the sun rises and sets every day (a metaphysical fact) and the fact that his particular ethnic group speaks a particular language or engages in certain customs. (A man-made fact). The anti-conceptual mentality says: “Nothing is certain but death and taxes.” But, only one of these is *actually* a certainty. Taxes are a man-made institution and can be changed or abolished, if enough people choose to do so.

Since this mentality has no distinction between the “metaphysical” and the “man-made”, the fact that his particular group happens to live in a certain area, wear certain clothing, or engage in certain rituals is the same as the fact that the sun rises and sets every day due to the Earth’s orbit around the sun and it’s rotation -although he probably doesn’t even consider why the sun rises and sets every day. (That would require too much abstract thinking.)

This type of mentality has no ability to examine the origins of the concepts he happens to hold or to determine if they are true or false, so anyone who questions the ideas he holds will tend to feel like a threat to him. He cannot justify what he believes. As Ayn Rand put it:

“This kind of psycho-epistemology works so long as no part of it is challenged. But all hell breaks loose when it is -because what is threatened then is not a particular idea, but that mind’s whole structure. The hell ranges from fear to resentment to stubborn evasion to hostility to panic to malice to hatred.”(“The Missing Link”, Ayn Rand, _Philosophy: Who Needs It_)(https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Who-Needs-Ayn-Rand-ebook/dp/B002JPGQ2A/)

As a consequence of his inability to use reason or abstract concepts, the anti-conceptual, “tribal” mentality will be tempted to resort to force when he encounters those who do not ascribe to his particular tribal world view, because he has jettisoned the use of reason in dealing with other men. (See “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World”, Ayn Rand, _Philosophy: Who Needs It_ https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Who-Needs-Ayn-Rand-ebook/dp/B002JPGQ2A/)

Another result of this anti-conceptual mentality, is the tendency to favor members of one’s “tribe”, whether right or wrong, in any given situation. Additionally, since the “tribal mentality” cannot handle abstract ideas, he tends to view his “tribe” as people who look like him, have the same accent as him, or who speak the same language as him. Usually, he will favor members of his own race over others.

An actual example of this mindset occurred back in 2014. A white man in Detroit accidentally hit a black child with his car after the child randomly stepped out in the street. (Police determined the driver was not at fault.) (https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/04/04/white-man-beaten-by-mob-in-detroit-after-hitting-boy-with-truck-was-it-a-hate-crime/)

The white driver did the right thing and immediately stopped to render aid to the child. A mob of angry blacks attacked the white driver and brutally beat him and robbed him.

This is the tribal mentality. A mob automatically assumed that the driver of the vehicle was “in the wrong” because he was a different skin color. Abstract concepts like “justice”, or even the traffic laws, were beyond their range of thinking. To them it was just: “white people bad” and “black people good”. (However, I’d also note that the beating was stopped after a black woman, a nurse, intervened, and convinced them to stop beating the white driver. Her actions were extremely admirable, and showed an incredible courage. The group beating the man were an example of the “anti-conceptual mentality”, while the nurse, who convinced them to stop, was an example of a reasoning individualist, committed to justice and the rule of law.)

Fundamentally, the mob that attacked the man in Detroit was a group of people incapable of much abstract thought. They had never learned to think conceptually, and had therefore chosen to cling to their group like a stone-age group of savages. They reacted violently the first chance they got. But, their fundamental problem wasn’t tribalism, which was an effect, not a cause. The cause was the anti-conceptual mentality.

Anti-conceptualism causes tribalism, because all tribalism is the anti-conceptual mentality. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anti-conceptual_mentality.html)