M.G. at the website Those Who Can See offers various biological explanations for black criminality. He cites the relatively high levels of narcissism, impulsiveness, risk-taking, psychopathology, low intelligence and aggression among blacks on psychological assessments and intelligence tests. The traits he mentions are compelling, observable factors, but they do not fully explain the criminal behavior of blacks.

Let’s put it this way, did Bernie Madoff lie and steal because he was highly intelligent? Did he come up with his Ponzi scheme because he was able shrewdly to control his impulses and had a gift for systematic thinking? Certainly, he couldn’t have pulled off his scam without these innate traits. But that’s not why he stole from others. He defrauded his clients because he wanted their money and he wanted it because of greed, lust and love of self, all of which are deformities of the will, not of the body. Similarly, does a black man rape a woman because he has a strong sexual drive? Certainly, he wouldn’t commit such an abomination without his innate sexual desire, but the sexual drive does not impel him toward an act of hatred and destruction. The will to destroy and hatred in his heart cause him to rape.

It is often said that blacks commit high levels of crime because they are less able to control their impulses. Crimes, however, always involve more than momentary impulse. Take the example of a thug who intends to rob someone and in the course of the robbery, he shoots his victim, seemingly for no good reason because the victim has already given him money or has said he has no money. This has happened countless times with black muggers. While the actual murder may be an impulsive act, the decision to carry a gun was not made impulsively. The decision to steal was made with deliberation. The act of impulse was surrounded by myriad examples of conscious choice.

Black criminality is also often blamed on low intelligence. But, of course, there are many, many blacks who possess the intelligence to censure crime and to call for strong and effective punishment of black criminals. If blacks themselves wanted to control the criminals among them, they could probably do it, by collectively demonizing criminals and protesting. Some do this of course, but prominent black figures who have the most influence do not. Why don’t they? The problem is not biological, it is spiritual. The problem is not genetics, but a love of evil and destruction. There will be no genetic cure for this deformity of the soul.

 — Comments —

Alex writes:

What the charts in the linked post describe could be summarized as the immature personality type, if we were talking about a white person. A teenager compared to an adult. Blacks can be seen as immature whites, in the same way as children are immature adults. Blacks see whites the way children see their parents and adults in general – as their overseers, the governors of (and on) their behavior. Like children, blacks will behave as badly as the adults (whites) let them. Since whites have disallowed themselves to exert civilizing influence on blacks and enforce restraints on their behavior, because that’s racist, and given them total freedom to do whatever they want, blacks have been behaving very badly. The loss of respect for whites (children don’t respect permissive parents, and people in general start despising any authority which stops demanding the respect that is due it) has compounded blacks’ tendencies to uncivilized behavior.

Children look for guidance from parents, not treatment as their equals. Whites abandoning their duty of guiding, overseeing and civilizing blacks, who, being ill suited for civilized life when left on their own, depend on whites for their welfare in a white society, was akin to parents abandoning their immature children, failing to take care of them. Blacks, on some level, perceive this. They realize that what they need to do well in a white society is stern guidance from whites, not total freedom but tough parental love. They subconsciously realize that by withholding this guidance, by leaving them unsupervised, on their own in a society too complex, too civilized for them to do well without guidance, whites have let them down in the worst possible way, abandoned their duty to them. This is one of the principal causes of black anger, blacks’ hatred and resentment of whites, and the huge rise in violent black crime.

Laura’s analysis is very good. Still, blacks’ impulsiveness, low ability to think through the consequences of their actions (most probably resulting from their low average intelligence), as this crime indicates, is also a big factor in black violent crime.

Laura writes:

Thanks.

For people prone to aggression and short-term thinking, the prospect of immediate and harsh physical punishment is a great disincentive. Years in jail after a prolonged trial are too hard to comprehend or fear for a 16-year-old with a gun. So, yes, whites do share some responsibility. First they have failed in refusing to condemn black crime as evil, not simply the result of environmental forces, and second they have failed to discipline and especially to provide appropriate punishment for all criminals, black and white. Corporal punishment such as whippings or hard labor, administered after swift and fair trials, is something the delinquent, low-level, rise-taking personality can understand.

 Karl D. writes:

I agree with Alex, especially regarding the maturity level of blacks. From a lifetime of observation, going to school with, and working with blacks, I came to the conclusion that the vast majority of them are in a constant state of arrested development. Forever fifteen years old — even successful blacks. Without getting into too much detail, I have known a black family for a number of years now. From a distance they seem like a typical upper middle class black family. They are financially secure, own a beautiful brownstone in Harlem and have two children who are now both in college. They are also very politically active in the community, more so for the purpose of lining up beneficial connections for themselves and their kids than anything else. Yet behind the curtain, these supposedly mature, upright and successful black folks will slip into the maturity of a teenager at the drop of a hat. Besides all the dopey, crude and frat-like antics and topics that go on, the really disturbing thing is how Machiavellian they are. They seem to have no compunction about lying, manipulating, pressuring and borderline scamming others (blacks) and even each other. The “real” them was the adolescent, crude, Machiavellian people while the upper middle class black family was a mere affectation. The only difference I saw between them and your typical poor ghetto blacks was a bit of education and some money. The rest was exactly the same.

Alex writes:

After sending my comment, I went searching for more on this topic at Lawrence Auster’s site and found this thread. From a comment by a reader, Robert B., who witnessed what happened when blacks were left on their own in the 1960s (emphasis added):

I remember very clearly the attitude of the older blacks—that they were being abandoned by their whites. Literally—abandoned by “their whites.” They believed that the existing system, whereby they worked for whites and the whites looked after them, was the societal norm. This included the purchase of birthday/Christmas presents, holiday foods, spare clothing for their children, etc. Blacks routinely bragged about their whites. My Nana even sent the brighter children of domestics to post-high school educational facilities. It wasn’t welfare or white guilt—it was simply understood that most blacks did not have the capacity to plan ahead, so their white employers did it for them. My father would have said that it was not racism and that he was not a racist—not even close. It was simply understanding the limitations of people. My father adored my grandfather’s black horse trainer. Branch was a great person according to my father and I, as a little boy, looked up to one of my father’s handymen—I thought the world of him and marveled at how he could fix things and what not.

Being a relatively small town, it was not hard to see what happened to the children of the these domestics. Some did okay, most did not. Most ended up being casualties of inner city drug wars, prostitution, etc. Their parents—most of them dead now—bemoaning the societal changes. In their heart of hearts, they knew they needed the white man far more than the white man needed them. They genuinely felt abandoned—like children without parents. This is the great disservice that white liberalism has done to these people—the assertion that they are our equals when they know they are not. It is a like a dysfunctional child being cast adrift into a world of adults with no tools to survive in that world as an adult. They really do need someone to look after them—but not in the way modern liberalism does. Modern liberalism expects them to do the impossible. It was quite normal for “Master so and so” (“Master” was the traditional Southern form of “Mister,” thus my mother was “Mastahs John”) to step in and solve problems for the families of his workers—setting a young man right about his need to marry a young woman whose child he had fathered. Making peace with another family and, of course, going to school and Church on Sunday. Whites taught them how to behave and enforced the societal rules. This was to everyone’s benefit, but most of all the black families.

When this system broke down, the black families fell apart. Modern white liberals have no social tools for dealing with this and have no capacity to understand the past system I’m describing, as they are mostly descended from people who never were part of that old patriarchy. They were outsiders looking in and they, with their false socialist views, decided it was “racist” and sought to fix it. Instead, they destroyed a way of life that had formed, of necessity, over hundreds of years. They agitated within the black community for this change—giving false hope to them. These false hopes and expectations led to anger as the black man came to see the reality of his own abilities. Cast adrift on the wide sea of Western capitalism and its meritocracy, he floundered and his world fell apart. The anger? It’s the anger of a child toward an uncaring parent who expects the child to do things it cannot do. They are, in our world, more properly seen as children who need shepherding, guidance, and very strict limitations on permissible behavior—which must be enforced by the traditional white patriarchal society.

Laura writes:

This is a very good explanation for why black crime has increased, not decreased, since the civil rights era began and since blacks were expected to be equal in all ways.

One important aspect of this analogy between blacks and whites, and parents and children, is that children can never demand discipline and protection. It’s not something for which they can ever ask because they lack the capacity to articulate their need and, of course, they are naturally ambivalent toward discipline. This dynamic is at work in all hierarchical relationships, with those in authority alone responsible for asserting their authority and those under them subconsciously and silently depending on that authority.

A reader writes:

It must be remembered that just about all minorities, and whites also, are TAUGHT by our enlightened society that intrinsic white wickedness is the root cause of just about all problems.

Although not a valid argument for past criminality, it sure applies to the last 40 to 50 years.

Please follow and like us: