The following comment was posted at Vanishing American on her article “Should we avoid the politically incorrect truths?“
Note the following is part of positive science, i.e. developing and testing hypotheses to explain how things or systems including those involving people behave. In positive science, its a mistake to mix in morality because it interferes with formulating and testing simple hypotheses. These can then be refined.
As we consider the history below we might also consider expanding our hypotheses to cover a military occupation with a resistance. Occupiers tend towards retaliation that may not even apply guilt to the individual but to the group to deter behavior. Roman decimation was a method to apply that to a legion, 1/10 of the men were killed chosen by random lot.
Optimal methods for minimizing total killing or weighted total killing can be considered after understanding models of how group control have worked out. Information is critical. Given larger resources, a system will try to purchase costly information to apply rules more directly to behavior. It will also be able to apply such methods, which take more time, within some reasonable time span.
Note there can be tradoffs. A system that takes a long time to analyze things may find witness memory or availability degrades or disappears. The effectiveness of a penalty degrades with the time from offense to when it is applied. This is particularly true if individuals can leave. Societies at different wealth levels will therefore tend to use different solutions.
In situations of high violence and low wealth, we may see more drastic methods used that have lower time cycles from offense to response. In the post civil war period, we may have had both higher violence, a typical aftermath of war, and lower wealth, especially in the South. Thus we might predict lynchings in the South, even in the absence of race differences or prior slavery.
We might also expect that the end of slavery would release people not skilled in social and economic interaction and thus result in more violence, even apart from race or other differences. The post Civil War South was a complicated lab of many factors.
Our current society may ignore information that is available and engage in policies that don’t minimize violence or total injustice. Fewer original crimes, fewer incorrect results in individual cases, such as no person punished for a homicide or the wrong person, plus the homicide itself may not follow from a society that intentionally ignores available information.
Is the West engaged in self-destruction as a civilization? That is sub-optimal if the goal of humanity transcends the current generation. For example a goal of maximizing the knowledge, self awareness and self-control of the universe would not be maximized by civilization self-destruction. Maximizing the survival probability of advanced civilization over the next 50, 100, 500 or 1000 years also would not be achieved by civilization self-destruction and suicide.
Many policies followed in the last 100 years are of those type, including 3rd world immigration, welfare, affirmative action, managing schools ignoring available information, etc.
The following is a discussion of simple hypotheses for hypotheses testing. It is not to be taken in any other way. These are simplistic models to be tested to predict and to develop new hypotheses for testing.
One hypothesis to be considered is whether civilization is endangering itself by ignoring available information. This includes information that its policies are counter-productive to make a better society. This includes immigration, welfare, affirmative action, etc. Many people notice that society today is in many ways worse than what they see on TV shows or movies of the 1950’s or 1960’s. We need to test if that is true and then act on it.
From a game theory point of view, being offended at truth can be seen as a strategy in a game. The MSM or others may use such a strategy to advance their interests. That leads to society ignoring available information. Ignoring truth can never be Pareto optimal. So PC is not Pareto optimal. Given a reasonable social welfare function, such as the survival probability of advanced civilization, PC is not optimal under that objective function because it ignores truth that is needed to increase the survival probability of advanced civilization.
Truth builds on truth. PC tries to prevent us using the knowledge built up in economics, operations research, game theory, statistics, cognitive psychology, etc. to avoid lowering the probability of the destruction of civilization. The survival probability of civilization per century can be at most 1. If its lowered to .90 or .75 or even lower per century, then it can’t last many centuries.
We need a survival probability per century that goes up towards 1 at a fast enough rate to keep the long term survival probability from asymptoting to zero. That may be the source of the Fermi Paradox, its hard to get that level of survival probability per unit time to increase enough to keep the total survival probability over a long time like a million years from going to zero.
An increasing survival probability of civilization per unit time means stopping third world immigration, the spread of Islam, affirmative action, anti-eugenics policies, etc. at a fast and increasing rate. Instead, the rate of these failure policies is increasing and thus the probability of failure of civilization per century from these factors is going down. The ongoing spread of technology may buffer this for a time.
To avoid the failure of civilization over longer and longer time intervals, the failure rate per century must go to zero. If we want civilization to survive to the end of the universe and possibly beyond, we need a failure rate of civilization per century that goes to zero.
Currently, third world immigration, the support of third world population increase, the spread of Islam, affirmative action, information suppression by PC, etc. are all increasing the failure rate of civilization per century. We saw that failure rate go up on 9-11 and in the Danish Cartoons episode. One factor in our favor was the response to the 2007 Senate Amnesty which was supported by Bush, the neocons, liberals, MSM etc.
Numbers USA, Fairus, Vdare, Lawrence Auster, etc. are organizations or individuals who we should support since they made this turn around possible. But that was temporary. Legal immigration to the US is still huge as is it to Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.
Great post VA and good statistics on lynchings. This is really well researched and written. I know it takes courage to write the plain facts about this even when quoting statistics. These stats are very different than what we are made to believe and that is why.
The Bureau of Justice statistics says
“Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders
In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites.”
We can formulate a hypothesis:
The less the resources for large police permanent police forces and slow moving courts, and the higher the crime rate relative to the resources that are available the more crime is dealt with by lynchings.
Large permanent police forces as we think are normal now were not the norm for most of history. The London police force was not established until the 19th century.
The percentage of groups committing homicides in the population may also matter. BJS gives statistics per 100,000 and tells us blacks today are 6 times more likely than whites to commit homicides.
From BJS page above
“In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites.”
1/4 of those lynched in the 19th century were whites in the above numbers, although many of those were in the West.
Lynchings are not as good as a court system for determining guilt and punishment. So the lynching system didn’t last long in the South or West. It also was abused and made errors.
However, the willingness to see the guilty go free is a function of the number of crimes. One murder a year in a country like Switzerland and the rights of the accused may seem most important. Thousands of murders per year, and society makes other choices.
One mistake liberals make is to judge before the facts, i.e. prejudice. One should know the facts and judge after. When considering the future, one also can only choose between the possible options. Impossible choices are irrational to choose.
Liberals say immigration produces a mixture and the genes in the US now survive in the mixture. But the Wright Island Model says that intermediate mixture or not, immigration causes genetic replacement in the long run.
Liberalism is a set of protocols to ignore the truth about the past, present and future. You document many of these in your article. Liberalism tries to suppress the truth, ignore the truth, suppress discussion of the truth and suppress acting on the truth. But the theorem says if we do nothing, immigration causes our complete genetic replacement, whether there is a mixture in between or not.
This is surely the Inconvenient Truth of our time.
The Palestinians have made it impossible for Europeans to live in Israel in safety or to make peace with them. This comes from Islam. Israel is only a tiny portion of the land that Muslims took and are taking from Europeans today world wide.
To predict Muslim behavior read what is in the Koran and predict they do it. That predicts the ongoing resistances in Afghanistan and Iraq. It predicts the Saudis would continue to fund terrorism after 9-11, which they have.
Olmert warned of a South African style struggle in Israel’s future.
Photos and stats (in middle of page) on White Farm Murders.
There have been over 1000 murders since black majority rule in South Africa. These are hideous torture murders. Much more than waterboarding. Why no hearings on these?
If we let others distort the basic truth and ignore the statistics then the result is our own demise. We have to tell the truth while we are being forced into extinction by immigration, affirmative action, taxes to support welfare for 50.9 percent of Mexicans in the U.S. etc. See Steven A. Camarota Table 13 row 2:
Our fertility is below replacement to support the above replacement fertility of the other groups. We are being forced to pay for this through government. We have to speak up or go extinct. Nor does the culture survive the people. The 3rd world culture is extortion and violence.
Americans fought and died in wars past for our freedom. They fought for our right to tell the truth about what is happening to us. We are afraid to tell the truth in our own country. How did that happen to us? Why do we let it continue? Why don’t we speak out while we are being forced into extinction?
What happened in Zimbabwe and South Africa was a fall of civilization. The result was a rise in crime against whites and blacks. The Palestinians, Islam, and Third World Immigration are all forces of civilization destruction. We have to stop this immigration completely, end all affirmative action, stop all welfare and ER mandates, and charge the full price of bad behavior and even of thoughtless but costly on society behavior.
A good article and comments are at Flanders Fields Blogspot
The truth shocks. It shocks when we write it and when we read it or hear it. One of the people who spoke out and then folded was I believe in France. I think Lawrence Auster commented on the person. The person said I can’t even believe I am reading my own words.
As Vanishing American wrote in her article, we all know the truth, but are afraid to speak it. When we do, we are shocked to see it afterwards. We are speaking outside the limits of comfort established by the left and enforced by the ACLU, SPLC, university student and faculty committees, etc. When we go outside those bounds we are uncomfortable.
Its easier to just accept extinction than to feel that discomfort. That is why our “leaders” accept our extinction to avoid the discomfort of saying the truth. The same applies to the MSM. Speaking fees make it easier for them to deny the truth even when the statistics, photos, and many science articles are on the internet.
==Testing Race Neutral v. Pure Racism Hypotheses.
The black population in the South in the 1880 census was about 6 million.
Take 6mm blacks multiply by 7 get 42 mm.
Whites are 10.5 mm, so whites are 10.5/52.5 or 1/5. Thus a race-neutral lynching rate would be estimated at 1 in 5 lynched to be white.
The stats in some southern states are in-line with that ratio.
The South region includes the South Atlantic division: Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia; the East South Central division: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee; and the West South Central division: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.
“A special study by Arthur Raper of nearly one hundred lynchings convinced him that approximately one-third of the victims were falsely accused.
Lynchings fell rapidly from 1900 to the 1930’s. This was a period of rising wealth and also a rising percentage of white population in the South. We also see lynchings at high rates in the West, almost all those lynched being white. We don’t have stats by state and year just each individually from the above sources.
If we take as two hypotheses
H0: Lynching was racist, the victims were black and unrelated to crime
H1: Lynchings were race neutral adjusted for black white crime ratios and population.
Then we can reject H0, but may have trouble rejecting H1 it appears at the level of statistics.
As wealth rose, the West and South and other regions abandoned lynchings. The breakdown of lynchings between cities and rural areas would be interesting. The rise of police forces and their size would also be interesting to see.
Statistical, economic, and other explanations of lynchings appear to have greater explanatory power than irrational racism. Irrational racism is rejected by the stats on white victims.
Lynching like all aspects of the criminal justice system has an error rate and a tendency to excess or cruelty. If we look at lynching in historical and cross-sectional comparisons, it is relatively moderate in size and scope.
Researchers estimate 597 Mexicans were lynched between 1848 and 1928. Mexicans were lynched at a rate of 27.4 per 100,000 of population between 1880 and 1930. This statistic was second only to that of the African American community, which endured an average of 37.1 per 100,000 of population during that period.
In 1980, black homicide offending was 50 per 100,000 in the U.S. That only includes cases with convictions?