Sunday, October 29, 2017
So at the end of Coming Apart by Charles Murray, I was struck by some charts on the last chapter. I noticed a pattern that Murray never mentioned directly but reminded me of a common social comment. The neighborhood I grew up in, like many neighborhoods in NY, used to be white. As black people moved in, white people moved out. We had a neighbor who refused to leave. Stayed until he died. Today there are no white people in the neighborhood. Luckily the 6 blocks that make up my immediate neighborhood has an extremely low crime rate (but going up unfortunately). However the "greater" neighborhood is not so situated. If you research assault stats on NYPD's website you can actually make a map of the major neighborhood roads. I'm pretty certain it wasn't like that in the 1950s. This post isn't to prove that blacks caused decline or whether like the old commentary, it's about America's cold means Black Americas pneumonia. I'm just going to show the charts. Below are 5 charts from Murrays "Fishtown" and "Belmont". These fictitious towns were made to represent data about neighborhoods of certain socioeconomic makeups that can be found all over the US. Of importance is what these places represent: Belmont: "Members have at least a bachelor's degree and are managers, physicians, attorneys, engineers, architects, scientists, college faculty members, or in content-production jobs in the media...I assign married persons to Belmont if either they or their spouse has at least a college degree and is in one of those occupations." Median family income $124,200 Fishtown: Members are "blue collar, service, or low-level white collar occupation, and no academic degree more advanced that a high school diploma." median income $41,900. There was a complex rule for how married people were assigned to Fishtown. If you're interested, read the book. So no, it's not actually "Fishtown", but it may well be my neighborhood.
Friday, October 27, 2017
The Washington Post has a piece on the growing homeless and hepatitis problem in San Diego CA. Not once does the article mention immigration. Not a once. How do you discuss homelessness in CA and not point out that there are over 1 million people there that do not belong there?
In Southern California, about 1.4 million undocumented immigrants live between the southern Ventura County border and the U.S.-Mexico border — the biggest concentration of undocumented people in the country.Clearly these people live somewhere and if those persons, who are squatting in America, were removed per the law, these homeless could have somewhere to live.
The first of three large, city-sanctioned tents opened earlier this month to bring some of the more than 9,000 homeless people into sanitary conditions, at least temporarily. A vaccination program that already has protected more than 65,000 residents continues with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has called this outbreak the deadliest since it began tracking the disease in the United States two decades ago.So here we have state government that would rather spend money to provide goods and services to over 1 million people who should not be here rather than house 9000 people who [we suppose] should. On top of that, we don't even know how many of these homeless are also persons who should not be here.
The state’s poverty rate has become the highest in the nation, a direct result of housing costs that statewide exceed twice the national average.I think removing 1 million tenants would have an affect on rents. Having discussed immigration, the other side of this is mental health. It is a fallacy to assume that all the homeless are simply people who got a huge medical bill. A lot of them have issues that made them unable to gain or maintain employment. Problems that alienated family, or simply have come up against the long term consequences of early life prioritization of pleasure seeking.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
There is a report on crime in the UK which can be found here: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/crime-and-reoffending/victims-of-crime/latest One thing that stood out to me was that this group "mixed" has a large percentage of victims:
Friday, October 06, 2017
Via Gizmodo originally from ScienceMag and the source paper:
Ever since researchers sequenced the first full genome of Neandertals in 2010, they have known that the ancestors of European Neandertals interbred with modern humans. By comparing the Neandertal genome with that of modern humans, they found a curious pattern: Present-day Europeans and Asians have inherited about 1% to 3% of their DNA from Neandertals, but Africans have not.So Europeans are genetically a different type of human than the African.
All of this suggests that modern humans mixed with archaic humans at least three times after they migrated out of Africa. But that’s just a fraction of the intermingling that must have taken place. Neandertals also interbred with Denisovans. And the new study confirms that the Denisovans themselves did indeed interbred with a “superarchaic” hominin, possibly H. erectus, whom they encountered as early as 400,000 years ago. There are also hints that Denisovans interbred with modern humans in Asia more than once, based on different patterns in the distribution of Denisovan DNA in some Chinese and Melanesians. “One would think that mixing has occurred multiple times for a long time,” Castellano says.Modern humans [in Europe] absorbed genes from archaic humans in Europe and Asia at least three times since moving out of Africa. So again, the African and the European (and Asian) are a different kind of human.
Europeans who still have genes from Neandertals that are shaping their health today. The inbred Altai Neandertal also got modern human DNA that may have been involved in speech, the immune system, and the production of sperm, Castellano says. And that fits with the theory that interbreeding was an important and rapid source of genetic diversity that could have been crucial for adapting to new terrain as modern humans spread into foreign lands.Europeans got genes from archaic humans that did what? Impact speech? Isn't speech dependent upon brain development? Why yes, yes it is. So here we have a scholarly paper stating outright that the genes inherited by Europeans via their mixing with archaic humans changed their brain development. Not only that but these genes affected the immune system (which we would expect) meaning that there is a general difference between disease susceptibility between Africans and Europeans that is genetic in origins.
Many Neandertal variants associated with phenotypes and susceptibility to diseases have been identified in present-day non-Africans (6, 7, 10–12). The fact that the Vindija Neandertal genome is more closely related to the introgressing Neandertals allows ~15% more such variants to be identified (20). Among these are variants associated with plasma levels of LDL cholesterol (rs10490626) and vitamin D (rs6730714), eating disorders (rs74566133), visceral fat accumulation (rs2059397), rheumatoid arthritis (45475795), schizophrenia (rs16977195) and the response to antipsychotic drugs (rs1459148). This adds to mounting evidence that Neandertal ancestry influences disease risk in present-day humans, particularly with respect to neurological, psychiatric, immunological, and dermatological phenotypes (7).But remember, there are no races. Race is [only] a social construct and all differences in humans are due to white supremacist oppression.
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
[Edited 10-5-2017 8:30AM] From Breitbart quoting The Guardian
“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” declared British Home Secretary Amber Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.”Not only does the UK government think it has the right to tell you what you can and cannot read. It deems it can tell you how many times you may read whatever it is the government deems "far right". Also notice, and I missed this when I first posted it, but notice how there is no provision for reading "far-left propaganda". This was so obvious that I missed it sitting in plain view. Recall that in earlier posts I have made the claim that communists have essentially taken control of various so called "democratic" governments, including the UK. Here we see that they are establishing in law that their ideologies are the only legal ones. Opposing views are to be criminalized. This chick, Amber Rudd, feels there is a "gap in the law". No, there isn't a "gap in the law". It is called freedom. Government does not exist to tell citizens what they can and cannot read or what they can and cannot think. If you told me the country I visited often as a child would pass a law that:
People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday.I would have said you were mad. This is part of the "magic dirt" bullshit that liberals operate with and are increasingly imposing on society. If we pass a law against 'x' then people will stop doing 'x". No. People inclined to do "x" will find ways to do "x". What the government should be doing is not importing and deporting those persons who are inclined to bring harm to it's citizens. It ought not be trying to criminalize it's citizens who object [thus being labelled far right] to their countries and their freedoms being taken from them. Statements like this:
According to the Home Office the updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be guilty of the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of “reasonable excuse” would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.Should have Brits rioting in the streets. The government wants you to come up with a "defense" for reading or viewing material online? How do these words fall out of someone's mouth and not be immediately objected to by everyone else in the room? I watch what I want, as often as I want. Period. Reading and watching cannot be a crime. And since when are "academics" and "Journalists" afforded special status and rights that other citizens don't have?
If there is one image that completely and utterly shows how out of touch with reality liberals who wish to enact so called "gun control" legislation, it is this one: video shown on Good Morning America, shows the sign that the shooter had to walk by when he was going to his room. If anything underscores the absolute, rock solid argument that criminals and those who are to be criminals do not care about rules, laws, or whatever impediments are placed before them when they are seeking to commit a crime, this picture is it. Liberals would have you believe that because there is some sign somewhere that says "gun free zone", that somehow criminals will stop and turn around, thwarted by The Sign. Only a fool, a damn fool believes this.