...Continued

Thanks for letting me know which paper it was that you were referring to. I'll
Check it out.

<<If you want to examine it, go right ahead. But since you have already accepted that criminologists agree that there is a genetic causal link to criminal behaviour, it is not going to help you much.>>

But unlike yourself, apparently, I'm always open to new information and the possibility of changing my mind. What's wrong with challenging the status quo? That is, after all, what academia is all about, despite your conspiracy theories.

<<As for "Criminologists not making up stuff', the same IAC released another study paper claiming that the public perception about ethnic criminal behaviour going out of control was all the result of sensationalist media reporting. Yeah, right.>>

Do you have any evidence for your scepticism? Or is, "Yeah right", enough for you?

Having written an essay on the media's influence on the public's perception of crime, I can vouch for the overwhelming evidence in support of the proposition. So if you have any evidence to the contrary, then I'd be fascinated to see it. In my research, I could only find a couple of articles asking that we still exercise caution, and not jump to conclusions too quickly, despite the overwhelming evidence.

That's right, LEGO, a crucial part of doing research, and presenting it for peer-review, is to provide evidence to the contrary of ones thesis and provide further evidence to contradict it.

<<If poverty was a causal link to criminal behaviour, all poor communities would have high rates of criminal behaviour...>>

Ah, not necessarily. This is where Strain Theory (and the various responses to it) comes into the mix. A theory with mountains of evidence to support it. So no, what I had said was not “demonstrably false” in the slightest.

<<Finally, we get to your extraordinary claim that if the premise that some races are not as intelligent as others ... what good does this do to publicise it?>>
That wasn’t a claim at all. It was a question. You even worded it as such!

Continued...

...Continued

You've merely confused the two because you realise that your new 'evolution' analogy wouldn't work otherwise.
By the way, I'd still like an answer to my question there.

<<Today, western countries are basing their immigration policies on the flawed concept that all races are equal. The result has been spiralling rates of social strife, serious crime, and welfare dependency.>>

Well, look who's apparently a victim of media reporting...I don't have the stats on welfare dependency, nor do I know what you're talking about when you speak of "social strife" (that’s a pretty broad term!); crime rates, however, have been in decline since the '70s. The only form of crime that is up is violent assault (not including rape). Meanwhile, the public is becoming increasingly afraid of crime and the older one is, the more distorted one’s views are of the likelihood of victimisation. Ironically, the older one is, the less likely they are to become a victim of crime and, funnily enough, the more likely they are to rely on the 6:00 news - statistically the biggest perpetrator of distorted crime reporting.

<<The only explanation for this phenomenon is to always blame my white race for the shortcomings of others.>>

I've already addressed this. It has nothing to do with race; this is merely you being precious.

Sorry, LEGO, but if you cannot come up with a response that does not entail responding to something that I haven't said, resorting to conspiracy theories without rationally justifying them, or repeating nonsense that I have already addressed, then I'm outta here.

By the way, I can reference all of my claims if you'd like. I recently wrote an essay on racism too, so I could easily refer you to about 20 peer-reviewed journal articles - complete with studies and further references - pointing you to where I get my information from, if you'd like to check the accuracy of any of my claims. Perhaps you could check the methodologies and conclusions of the studies conducted and point me to the shortcomings in them that are being conveniently overlooked by academics?

Dear Mr Phillips.

The term "breed" can be, and is used, in the description of subspecies of human beings, although this may be considered impolite. We can use the term "subspecies" of humans or animals instead of "breeds," but that hardly changes the validity of my argument. Subspecies of selectively bred domesticated animals display wide divergence of heritable behaviour within subspecies. Your premise is, this could not happen in natural selection, but it does. Like humans and domesticated animals, feral animal species contain subspecies which display intra subspecies behaviour which is different from other subspecies within the same genus. An example would be the Brown Bear genus, of which the Grizzly Bear of Western USA is a subspecies. The Grizzley is renowned to be much more violent and dangerous than the other 89 subspecies of Brown Bear. The biological name of the Grizzly Bear is Ursus Actos Horribly.

You have already admitted that within all human subspecies, personality traits such as a proneness towards criminal behaviour is heritable. So, if genetically heritable physical features such as skin colour and nose size is common within geographically localised human subspecies, caused by natural selection within that localised environment, how could it be that behaviour (which you have already conceded can be genetically heritable) could not also be common within that localised subgroup?

Subgroups of humans can be races,castes, or classes. Both race and class are social constructs that give names to identifiable abstract concepts. It is very common amongst the higher levels of human social classes to engage in selective breeding. To put it more generally, in the higher classes, title marries title, money marries money, and brains marries brains. The primary genetic variation to this formulae is the very beautiful low status young woman. Whereas the marriage of high born females to low born men is socially unacceptable in the upper classes. The marriage of very attractive low born females to high born males can be considered socially acceptable, and it has resulted in the noted good looks of the higher classes. They are routinely called 'the beautiful people."

continued

continued

In addition, in some societies, high born males have very disproportionate access to breeding females. It is very common for the most violent and psychotic male to murder his way to the top. An example would be King Mithridatise of Anatolia who murdered his father and his19 brothers gain the kingship, and who enjoyed a large harem. The world's most notorious psychopath, Ghengis Khan, impregnated so many Asian females that geneticists talk of the Ghengis Khan gene in Asian populations.

It is hardly a "conspiracy theory" that the ABC and the humanities departments of universities are hotbeds of socialist advocacy. The ABC in particular regularly comes in form criticism of its left wing bias.

James Watson was not only the co discover of the double helix anda Nobel laureate, he was also the head of the Human Genome Project. This is what he said which got him sacked from his position as head of a US research institute.

"....there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”

And yes, just like Galilieo before him, he was forced to recant what he said. But it wasn't enough, an intellectual fatwa was put on him and he was sacked anyway. But at least the forces of darkness did not succeed in having him put under house arrest for 13 years like Galileo. I guess that's progress. There was some talk about chiselling his name off the list of Nobel Laureates carved in stone though.

Now we get down to the premise that ethnic criminal behaviour is a figment of the public's imagination brought on by sensationalist news reporting. I made "yeah, right" comment because I wrongly presumed that anyone capable of impartial reasoned thought considered it self evident that ethnic criminal behaviour in Australia was right out of control.

continue

continued

Surprisingly. you disagreed. I think we are digressing from our topic, but since you have challenged me to provide proof, I will do so because it is so easy.

Are you seriously suggesting that the drive by killings in primarily the Arab areas of Sydney have always occurred? Even when the populations of those areas were Anglo Saxons? Yeah, right. In May, 2001, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research admitted in their publication "Crime and Justice Bulletin" (issue number 57) that 55% of the handgun shooting in the entire state of NSW occurred within the boundaries of two ethnic ghettos (Canterbury-Bankstown and Liverpool-Fairfield."

In addition, the largest police squad in NSW is the Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad and it was formed specifically to target 2.5% of the population.

Would you like a few pages more of facts? You had better get the character who runs this site to let me post a 5000 word post. Even though my sources are the media. But that is hardly surprising that this is my primary source of information. In 1993, the sundry self appointed ethnic leaders in Australia successfully lobbied the Federal government to prevent the Australian Bureau of Statistics from compiling or collating any statistics related to ethnic crime. You don't have to be a Mensa from the local Audobon society to figure out why they did that.

As being intimidated by your claim that you have all the facts, hey mate, I am just getting warmed up. Please keep it up. I am really enjoying our exchanges. Please post up your little "Strain Theory" so that I can amuse myself by poking holes in it

I’ve got to say, LEGO: one thing that I do admire about you is the fight in you. It doesn’t matter how many times you get knocked down, you just get straight back up again for another try - while trying to throw sand in my eyes.

<<Subspecies of selectively bred domesticated animals display wide divergence of heritable behaviour within subspecies…>>

I assume that last “subspecies” at the end there was supposed to just be “species”. Otherwise you’d be arguing against yourself. But yes, I’m happy to go with this.

<<Your premise is, this could not happen in natural selection, but it does.>>

No, my premise - or more to the point, what the evidence actually suggests (this is not about me) - is more that this is highly unlikely to happen due to cultural, sociological, psychological and neurochemical factors that are also an influence on naturally “bred” groups (i.e. ‘nurture’ - for the fifth time now); factors that you ignore in your bear analogy. You fail to recognise that humans are culturally, socially, intellectually and emotionally far more sophisticated than other species and this has a massive - if not completely negating - effect on our ability to pin down common personality traits as genetic; especially when geneticists themselves still cannot find any genetic links.

Let’s look at white Australians for a moment. Generally speaking, we’re a relatively apathetic bunch compared to other nations, yet we haven’t all been here breeding together long enough for that to be a genetic trait. It’s a culturally influenced phenomenon. What about the hard-working Japanese? Do you put that down to genetics too, despite there being no evidence for that whatsoever; or are you happy to go with the cultural explanation there because it’s a positive trait? You completely ignore cultural influences without having given any good reason to.

How do you distinguish between genetic influences and cultural? Is it because some “races” seem dysfunction no matter where they are? If so, then remember that I have already addressed that.

Continued…