Lawrence Auster was gracious enough to post one comment I sent to him. He never fixed his comment system after Movable Type broke (moving to Haloscan seemed to work out for Gene Expression) and so the only way to comment is to email him. To see my responses after the first, you’ll just have to read this blog.

After Auster said that “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: modern liberal society is a factory for producing young white female murder victims.” I responded:

The stats do not support your contention:
It is actually a factory for producing criminal murder victims. That’s why whites and ESPECIALLY females have such low victimization rates.


I’m not talking about statistics or some huge epidemic of murder, I was not saying that there is a vast number of white murder victims. In fact I’m not talking about statistics at all. I’m talking about what we see happening every week in the news. I’m talking about human beings. Each of these crimes matters and happens for certain reasons. There is a distinct pattern to these crimes, the Eloihood on one side, the predatory quality on the other, and so on, which I’ve shown over and over. It’s as though a pre-set process keeps resulting in these very similar murders, which keep occurring steadily. And that’s what I mean by a factory. Further, these crimes express something about us, as people, as a society. This is what I’m interested in, I’m interested in the mindset and beliefs and behaviors that make these murders possible, along with the systematic ignoring of this phenomenon by society.
I know that talking about the lives and deaths of individual human beings as moral actors and as representative of their society, rather than just looking at overall statistics, will seem strange to a Darwinian, who are only interested in macro changes occurring in a whole population, and has no interest in human being as moral actors.
As for your comment that society is really “a factory for producing criminal murder victims,” we would expect criminals to be murdered more than anyone else. Disordered, violent people tend to die in disorderly, violent ways. That’s normal, that’s to be expected, and it’s no loss to society. What is not normal, and what is a terrible loss to society, is what we have under liberalism, with white victims, particularly females, repeatedly putting themselves like sheep in situations where they are murdered by nonwhites. As I’ve said, the mentality that leads to this phenomenon is part and parcel of the mentality that is leading to white Western suicide. That the West is committing suicide, as all serious conservatives agree, and that modern society is a factory for producing white female murder victims, are two aspects of the same overall event.

The statistics ARE human beings just as much as stories in the news are. You surely recognize how distorted our view is by the news. While newspapermen often cite Thomas Jefferson to defend their industry, he in fact said one would be better informed by reading no newspapers at all. The distinct pattern to violent crime generally is that it is committed by young (disproportionately black/hispanic and not muslim) males against others like them. If I had a random number generator that produced a ‘1’ every hundred iterations and then I selected just those digits and said “There is a distinct pattern here: they are all 1’s!” nobody would take me seriously. One reason there are a “vast number” (I don’t know by what standard we should define it) of homicide victims is that there is an even VASTER number of people. If you think the total number of victims is what is important you should join the radical greens in insisting that the human population be greatly reduced. What I am concerned with is the number of victims relative to the entire population, or the homicide rate. Conservatives are vindicated in their assessment of the changes in society associated with the 60s. There was a HUGE spike in all sorts of violent crime, just as there was in illegitimacy and drug use. However, during the 90s there was also a dramatic drop in these societal dysfunctions. Generation Y is still modern and I suppose “liberal”, but it has put to baby-boomers to shame. When I discuss the drop in homicide, these are not “mere statistics”. These are ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS who have been safe from violent crime.

I don’t have much of a problem with generalizing from a subset of people to society more broadly. If I did, I would not be interested in statistics, because that is precisely what statistics are all about. It does crucially rest on the belief that the more something happens the more representative it is. Without that, we would have no basis in claiming that homicide is more typical of African Americans than whites or of males than females, or that the Great Sixties Freakout was any more murderous than the placid 50s that liberals love to hate (except for its lack of economic inequality).

Yes, we would expect criminals to be murdered more than anyone else. We would expect an automobile factory to produce many automobiles. On that basis we would call the building a factory for producing automobiles. People may also make sandwhiches in the factory on their lunch-break and even take a few home that they don’t eat, but I wouldn’t call it a factory for producing sandwhiches (no matter how similar the pattern of sandwhiches is). Here you may be upset that I am talking about sandwhiches as if they were murders, but my point is not to make any point about the relation of murders and sandwhiches but merely what makes something representative. If we do not care what makes murder more or less prevalent that will merely mean more ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS whose lives are snuffed out.

The Talmud says that whoever saves one life, it is as if they had saved the world. In keeping with that, I would say that saving ten lives must mean saving at least ten worlds. Those ten saved worlds we don’t see should demand as much attention as the one we do.


Won’t have time to read this now, but look at this horrible beating and rape story from New Haven Connecticut: Mexican attacking his white AMerican co-worker:
The actual news story didn’t have much info on the perpetrator and victim.

Mexicans are another area where I think it is very important that we pay attention to statistics. Open-borders enthusiasts sometimes point out that immigrants have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans. This is true. What nobody other than Steve Sailer and others will point out is that 1. The national average includes blacks who far and away have the highest homicide rates and 2. It is only the first generation of Mexican immigrants that have the low crime rates. Their children and grand-children have very high ones. Pundits simply assume that later generations will assimilate to middle class norms, just like their grand-parents at Ellis Island (great-great-grandparents in my case, I think). The data says they get worse. Every pundit talking about the magical powers of assimilation should be required to read Generations of Exclusion, which they certainly can’t dismiss as the product of Jared Taylor & his minions. This has great relevance for things like birthright citizenship, benefits to children of illegal immigrants, and whether amnesty sets off immigrant baby-booms. I’ve had some thoughts on how I would prefer immigration policy be set up here, though I think you might find them overly reductionist, materialist and consequentialist.

Me again:
Some more elaboration on why I prefer statistics over newspapers. Imagine that newspapers would only ever report on a murder if the alleged perpetrator was white and the victim elderly. One might get the impression that the white community has some weird problem with murder and that the old are a favorite target of violent criminals. You would know better if you just looked at statistics. Even if I didn’t think the media was trying to push any message or pursue sensationalist stories I wouldn’t trust them to give a representative picture of social phenomena.

There is a liberal who for some time has run an anti-Sailer site. One of his running schticks was to bang the drum on the problem of white conservative male criminals (who he claims to believe are fans of Steve driven to commit crimes by his writings or something). The stories he highlights seem to generally be real and I’m not going to dismiss the real victims. But is he right to say that we need to be very worried about the danger of conservative white men? No, and so we answer him with statistics.