We know full well that Blacks commit crime at something like 7-8X the White rate.
We can debate this factoid.
If Blacks are genetically tainted somehow, then one would assume that most Blacks would be like this. I do believe that the Black crime has an elevated tendency towards crime and this is biological. But I doubt if all Blacks have this tendency. I doubt if Tulio, Alpha, Jm8 and Phil do. Or do they?
This is one of the great things about race realism.
Crime is such a problem with Blacks that it needs to be studied. By doing this, we should study that ones who act good.
Why is it that they act so good? Do they have the same genetic tendencies as the criminal Blacks but have somehow overcome them? What is the life history of these good behaving Blacks? Make some figures. Now compare to the criminal Blacks. How did the life history including upbringing home environment, etc. of the well behaved ones differ? Was there something in the life history of the ones that act good that protected them from criminal behavior. What factors are those? Let’s isolate them. I would imagine that the environments of Blacks who act good and criminal Blacks might be pretty different. But how different? What specific events/histories raise the risk of crime for this group and which ones act as crime preventive?
Now suppose we could isolate this thing, whatever it is, that makes Blacks more susceptible to crime. It’s a gene or some repeat or whatever. OK and if you have this, you are four times more likely to be a criminal. OK, now let’s look at Alpha and Tulio, etc. What if they have this exact same risk-raising repeat? See? Wow! Wouldn’t that be interesting? How come this genetic thing raised the risk in these guys but somehow Alpha and Tulio had the exact same gene, but it didn’t raise their risk at all. It was like it didn’t happen. Now why would that be? Did Alpha and Tulio have some protective experiences that kept them from this route. What might those have been? We have so many studies we could do here.
I would think that certain things might set off the gene or cause it to express more. We know that genetic expression is a new field. It’s not so much your genes but the extent to which they express – not at all, a bit, moderately, a lot or fully. So maybe Alpha and Tulio got this repeat but they had these protective experiences such that the gene simply never really expressed all that much in them or expressed so little that they were able to deal without a problem. And we may even be able to measure the degree to which genes express nowadays. So what might those protective experiences have been that kept the gene from expressing in these two but not in others.
A common complaint about this thinking, “Why are you studying Blacks? Whites commit crime too!” Yeah, but in Blacks it is so out of control that it is almost a public health emergency.
Anyway, whatever data we get out of these studies of Blacks, perhaps a lot of it might carry over to Whites. If something raises crime risk in Blacks, it might just do so in Whites, too, right? Sure. But what if it didn’t? Wouldn’t that be interesting? This particular life experiences raises Black crime risk by 4X but Whites with that same experience are not affected. Whoa! Now why would that be? Or suppose some experience raises the risk my Blacks by 7 times but in Whites by only 3 times. Or suppose there was some experience that raised the risk in Whites but somehow Blacks were sort of immune. Wouldn’t that be interesting.
You see there is a lot of really cool research we could be doing with race realism but we can’t even study it because the Cultural Left. And studying this stuff could really help us to ameliorate some difficult and terrible problems. Race realist research could maybe help us to ameliorate some of the serious problems Blacks have, and society has for that matter. So race realism could even help NAM’s and maybe help the rest of us too. Sure it is a dangerous tool but so are most things. In the right hands, we could do some great progressive research along race realist lines.
