The Myth of African/Black Criminality

[Osmium14]

I've always knew for a long time that the high Black crime rate is not "racial" or genetic. It is wrong to blame Black criminal behavior on their genetics or DNA. However, I've always conveniently ignored this because of my own racist, White Nationalist beliefs. I feel that almost all WNs or "pro-whites" tend to blame everything bad about non-whites on their blood or genes.

Biological determinism is only part of the story. Here's the truth: Black crime rates and Whites crime rates will never be the same, I doubt Black crime rates will ever be as low as White crime rates. In addition, Whites will never reach the crime rates of East Asians. Nobody is equal ever. East Asians are more civilized and mannered due to their lower testosterone levels or less aggressiveness. There's differences, but the environment has played a role that has inflated Black crime rates to preposterously high levels. I know that Africans can lower their crime rate without changing their DNA or genes like some racists imply that they have to.

Here's where liberals are wrong once again about race. Liberals/leftists blame all of Black problems on White racism and discrimination. If they don't blame Whites for it directly, it is done indirectly to affect all of these areas: education, schooling, socioeconomic status, poverty, jobs, families, and definitely crime. Conservatives are colorblind or they pretend to be so, we more easily look at the root of the problem because we are not blinded by self-hate. I want to point to the single, most important study ever done on African-Americans, written in 1965, and still posted on the US government website (Department of Labor) today. This guy was commissioned to write this right after the Civil Rights Act was passed to assess how fast Blacks will assimilate into American society. What he wrote is amazingly true, yet due to the controversy surrounding "blaming the victim," the US government tossed it aside.


Moynihan Report Remembered

"The Moynihan Report": The Negro Family, the Case for National Action.
This historic and controversial report was prepared in 1965 by the Department's Office of Policy Planning and Review. The principal author was Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who later served as a United States Senator from New York.

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a report called “The Negro Family: the Case For National Action,” generally known as the Moynihan Report, which became famous and of course, controversial, at the time. (Moynihan was accused of “blaming the victim,” et cetera.)

I mention this because I just discovered that it’s available online, at no charge, through the website of the Department Of Labor, which originally commissioned it.

A couple of points:

1. This report could not be published today, especially Chapter IV, even though


2. Everything is much worse than it was in 1965, although a little better than it was in 1995, and


3. Unemployment in the black community is so high that this Report would no longer be issued by the Department of Labor but Health and Human Services. They’re not laboring, they’re on welfare.

Why the huge unemployment, in spite of laws banning discrimination passed in 1964?

Well, 1965 was the year the new Immigration Act passed. Blacks found themselves underbid by foreigners who hadn’t suffered the discrimination Moynihan talks about, and who suffered from fewer, or different, pathologies.

Government giveth, and Government taketh away.

Chapter I. The Negro American Revolution.
Chapter II. The Negro American Family.
Chapter III. The Roots of the Problem.
Chapter IV. The Tangle of Pathology.
Chapter V. The Case for National Action.
Footnote References.

Source: Source: http://www.vdare.com/fulford/diversity_etc.htm#report


Read the entire report if you want to know why Negroes are so poor and crime-prone today: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm


There have been several conservatives who point out that Black illegitimacy rates are to blame. They are correct. From 1880 to 1964, Black illegitimate birthrates were hovering around 20%, this is the same rate for Whites today! After 1965 something happened, the Black family structure broke down, the rates shot up to over 70% illegitimate births! This means that 70% of Black children born in America have no father. They're raised by their mother alone. A single mother household is tough in today's economy. It is tough for single mothers, regardless of the time period. I know in Africa, polygamy is widespread, the men run around like beasts and fuck every woman they can, and the women are left to be raised by their single mothers (Kind of like my lifestyle right now, but I plan to settle down with a nice Indian, Latina, or Arab wife). This is a condition that Africa has been in for over 80,000 years, it is the African culture, African way of life, and it is very hard to force Africans (in Africa) to adopt monogamy.

Americans pay little attention to Africa these days. But, as the inscription at the beginning of Sowell's new book, points out:

"We do not live in the past, but the past in us."

Sowell’s own autobiography shows the survival of characteristically African patterns.

For example, when he was an infant, Sowell's mother and father, who was dying, gave him to his great-aunt to raise. He didn't know he had several siblings until he was about 16.

This fostering out of the young is much more common among African-Americans than among whites. It's also much more common in Sub-Saharan Africa than in Europe, according to the distinguished political scientist James Q. Wilson in his 2002 book The Marriage Problem:

"[M]any West Africans regard fosterage as a perfectly acceptable means of raising children. Families there approve of delegating parental roles to other people, often beginning at a quite early age."

Perhaps the worst social problem of African-Americans: the culture that African-Americans brought with them from Africa is one of low paternal investment. Traditionally, an African husband was not much expected to bring home the bacon for the wife and kids. Today, this is reflected in the very high American black illegitimacy rate—currently about two out of three children are born out of wedlock.

Anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hardy of UC Davis wrote in Mother Nature:

"Many fathers are only sporadically in residence with the mothers of their children; and fathers, when they are on the scene, may be unpredictable regarding which children they invest in, and how much. A substantial number of women conceive at a young age, often prior to marriage or formation of any stable relationship… relatively few fathers provide a great deal of care."

While this may sound like inner city black neighborhoods in the U.S., she's actually describing "large areas of sub-Saharan Africa."

The anthropologists Jack Goody and Ester Boserup first explored how continental differences in raising food affected family structure. Boserup noted in 1970:

"Africa is the region of female farming par excellence. In many African tribes, nearly all the tasks connected with food production continue to be left to women."

James Q. Wilson summarized their findings:

"In Europe, where animal-drawn plows were used to farm rich land, intensive agriculture made monogamy important… In these places, men did much of the agricultural work …

In much of Africa, by contrast, farming was done by handheld hoes used to work small plots of land that were often rather infertile. Women were widely used to do the hoeing and carry in the produce.

Many husbands found that they could use extra wives to wield even more hoes, and so marrying several women made sense economically… the conditions they describe may have had important consequences for the kinds of families that had to endure the travails of slavery in the Western Hemisphere."

This tropical farming system causes African cultures to tend toward polygamy and/or matrilineal-matrilocal family structures. These tendencies can still be seen among African-Americans.

Outside of the tropics, you have to be the Emperor of China or the equivalent to be able to afford a huge number of wives, along with the eunuch guards and all the other expensive rigmarole that go along with maintaining a harem.

But, in systems of tropical agriculture where land was traditionally cheap and most of the work is weeding, which women can do as well as men—as opposed to manhandling draft animals for plowing—you sometimes see handsome men with 50 or more wives.

Of course, the Big Man can't afford to keep them locked up in harems. So he puts them to work in the fields, where they can produce enough to support themselves and their children.

Now, the 49 local bachelors who are left over are going to try hard to lure the polygamist's wives out of the fields and into the bushes. So many of the children born to the Big Man's wives might not be his genetic offspring. But their mothers can support them—which means that some cuckoo's eggs aren't that big of a loss to him.

Likewise, "matrifocal" families are also more common in African cultures. For example, the University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending, who lived with various African tribes for 42 months, recounts that once, when he was about to set out on a dangerous journey through lion country, his worried hosts asked him, "To whom should we send your property in case you are eaten?"

"Uh, to my wife, of course," Henry replied, puzzled.

"To your wife!" the tribespeople exclaimed, aghast at his lack of ordinary human decency."Why don't you want your property to go to your family instead?"

By "family," they meant Henry's birth family—rather than his marriage family.

Where there is low certainty of paternity, it's not too uncommon for the mother's brother to play a major role as the adult male in the lives of the mother's children. After all, he knows for sure that he's at least the half-uncle of his sister's kids. In contrast, her husband might have no genetic relationship to them. These sometimes are "matrilocal" families where the brother lives with his sister and her children, while her husband and other lovers may live with their female kin.

Lack of certainty of paternity is, not coincidentally, a major reason there is so much AIDS in Africa. Helen Epstein wrote in the New York Review of Books:

"Africans are at higher risk of AIDS than people elsewhere not because they have so many partners, but because they often have more than one long-term partner at a time."

Sub-Saharan African husbands are less likely to do what it takes to keep their wives sexually faithful, such as working hard to provide for them. Thus Emily Wax wrote in the Washington Post:

"[W]omen perform 80 percent of daily work, according to studies by African gender groups …"

These men get cuckolded a lot. In turn, they put even less effort into providing for their wives' children, since the odds are lower that they are also their own children.

This logic all makes perfect sense—and it also goes a long way toward explaining why Africa is so poor.

Still, African-American family structures tend to fall midway between African and white American norms. America's dominant culture had actually succeeded fairly well in inculcating monogamy and bring-home-the-bacon traditions in African-Americans by about 1960, when it suddenly lost its self-confidence.

The government then began funding, via Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the traditional African tendency toward mothers supporting their children without much help from their fathers. And society stopped stigmatizing having children out of wedlock.

Our ignorance of African-Americans' African heritage proved costly. In effect, America imported a welfare policy— paying generous welfare benefits to single mothers—that had worked reasonably well in Scandinavia for a generation. Yet, within two or three years, illegitimacy and crime rates among African-Americans were soaring—because they didn't respond to the new incentives like Swedes. The black illegitimacy rate shot upward from 22 percent in the mid-Sixties to 70 percent by the early Nineties. Fortunately, in the harder-headed atmosphere of the last ten years, the rate has drifted down.

Source: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050515_redneck.htm

[Osmium14]

Okay, now you ask me, "But dude, why do illegitimate births matter?" Here's the thing. Almost every social problem we have today can all be traced back to illegitimacy. The lack of a father means a discipline problem, as females can never replace the strict disciplinary punishments and leadership of the household. The family unit is vital to Western civilization. You need both a man and a woman to raise children in a proper environment. If you're missing one or the other, the children will not learn all of the necessary life lessons. This is why I oppose gay marriage, not because of the Bible or Christianity, but to preserve the family. In fact, all organizations that are against gay marriage are run by Christians who name their organizations as Family Research Council, American Family Association, Family Policy Council, or Family Values, etc.

Black children who are raised with strong family values such as discipline, obeying the law, focus on education, etc. are vastly less likely to be criminals. A woman cannot control a big, tall, Black male teenager because usually in all households, the father is the one who metes out rules and punishments. In my household, my mom was very nice to me, she never yelled at me, never hit me, or anything like that. She told me to do things, but I knew that if I didn't obey her, she wouldn't have the power to force me because she is a woman. My father was the disciplinary teacher, he had the guts to yell and scare me, this is the same for most households. If you read into the role of the father, it is very important in controlling wild teenagers. If I never had a father, I would be more wild and reckless with life. Read about single-mother households, they are worse for children in every category, not just poverty, but in everything from teenage pregnancy, child delinquency, teenage drug use, violent and emotionally unstable children, and so forth.

Black Illegitimacy Rate Declines
by Steve Sailer

UPI, June 27, 2003

The good news from the federal government's preliminary birthrate data for 2002 is that the black illegitimacy rate has not only stopped getting worse, but it is now in a gradual decline. Last year, 68.0 percent of the black women who had babies were unmarried, down from 68.4 percent in 2001. The peak was 70.4 percent in 1994.

Unfortunately, if the rate keeps falling 0.4 percentage points per year, it will take 115 years to return to the 22 percent level of the early 1960s that so alarmed Johnson Administration adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan when he wrote a controversial report called "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action."

Ever since, the percentage of babies whose mothers are unmarried has been widely viewed as a crucial marker of social problems. University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending told United Press International, "I don't think that high levels of fatherlessness are compatible with modern technological society for long."

More bad news is that the illegitimacy proportion is increasing in the overall population, according to the National Vital Statistics System. The U.S. percentage of new mothers who were unwed hit 33.8 percent in 2002, up from 33.5 percent in 2001. That compares to 18 percent in 1980 and only eight percent when Moynihan wrote his report.

American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray (author of The Bell Curve), author of the influential 1984 book "Losing Ground" that helped launched the welfare reform movement, said, "Illegitimacy is the single most important social problem of our time -- more important than crime, drugs, poverty, illiteracy, welfare, or homelessness because it drives everything else."

"The Moynihan report spawned a cottage industry of studies of father absent families," noted Harpending. They were shown to "yield sons with sharply reduced quantitative and spatial abilities, mildly increased verbal abilities, who had difficulty with pair bonding. They were much more likely to divorce, and relative to controls, they lacked drive or ambition."

Harpending was one of the first to focus attention on the impact on daughters. "Father-absent girls have higher rates of illegitimate pregnancy, earlier and more sex, higher divorce rates." He theorized that young women develop expectations about men from whether their father was a "dad or a cad." If their father was a faithful provider, they will tend to hold out for a man who lives up to that standard. When they do, that encourages young men to behave in socially responsible ways.

When young women fail to ask much of young men, Harpending argued, this in turn leads to antisocial behavior in not just their children, but in the kids' fathers as well.

Indeed, the illegitimacy rate among non-Hispanic whites (22.9 percent in 2002, up from 22.5 percent the previous year) is now higher than that 22 percent black rate of four decades ago. By way of contrast, the white illegitimacy rate was 16.9 percent in 1990, and only 1.9 percent back in 1956.

In a much-discussed 1993 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Murray predicted that the rise in illegitimacy among whites would lead to a "coming white underclass." He told UPI this week, "Essentially, affluent white Americans think of truck drivers and supermarket clerks as the lowest rung on the white socio-economic ladder ladder, and have no idea of the size of the white population that works sporadically, doesn't marry, and commits a lot crime. Living in rural America, I see more of that population than most of my fellow 'cognitive eliters,' but all my data are anecdotes."

The highest illegitimacy rates among whites are found in certain rural states such as Maine (33 percent), a state that has quietly developed a lot of social problems in recent years. Vermont, West Virginia, and Indiana follow Maine on the list.

Although Hispanics are widely considered morally traditionalist, their illegitimacy rate is almost midway between the white and black rates. It grew to 43.4 percent in 2002, up from 42.5 percent in 2001 and 37.6 percent in 1990, the first year the government kept separate statistics on the Hispanic category.

Although the black illegitimacy rate is higher, because Latinos are more fertile than blacks, there are now almost as many illegitimate children born to Hispanics (379,000 in 2002) as to blacks (402,000). The largest number of illegitimate children is still born to non-Hispanic whites (528,000), but if current trends continue, Hispanics will account for the largest number of illegitimate babies within a decade.

Using 1997 data, an NVSS study released in 2001 showed the underlying patterns of the three main groups. The frequency of pregnancies among unwed blacks (167 per 1,000 unmarried women per year) and unwed Latinos (166) were virtually the same, almost three times the white unmarried pregnancy rated (58). Unwed blacks had the most abortions (74), followed by Hispanics (57) and whites (23).

The illegitimacy rate for Hispanics born in the U.S. (48 percent in 2000) is notably higher than it is for Hispanic immigrants born in Latin America (39 percent). This suggests that the overall Latino illegitimacy rate will continue to rise as the children of today's immigrants assimilate to urban American norms.

Among Hispanics, Puerto Ricans have the highest percentage of babies born to unwed mothers, while Cubans have the lowest. The largest Latino group, Mexicans, is about average.

Northeast Asians have the lowest illegitimacy rate among Americans, with both Chinese and Japanese being under ten percent in 2000, the latest year for which data on Asians are available.

Arthur Hu, who maintains one of the largest Web pages of statistical profiles of Asian Americans notes that the low rates of Asian single births may be one of the most important "secrets" to the so-called myth of the model minority.

"These figures also correlated with higher rates of marriage and living as extended families, low rates of divorce, births delayed until after careers are established, low rates of infant mortality, and low rates of drug, alcohol or tobacco use while pregnant, even among the poor," Hu said.

Illegitimacy rates differ dramatically by state, from 17 percent in mostly Mormon Utah in 2002 to 56 percent in the mostly black District of Columbia. The next highest states are Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico (all 47 percent). Among American dependencies, the highest unwed motherhood rate is found in the inaptly named Virgin Islands -- 68 percent.

On the other hand, the black rate in Hawaii, for example, is extraordinarily low -- only 18.5 percent in 2002, barely higher than the state's white rate of 17.3 percent.

This illustrates that nowhere do blacks and whites behave more similarly than in the Aloha State. For example, the results of the National Assessment of Educational Performance tests for 4th and 8th grade reading were released last month, and the narrowest black-white test score gaps were found in Hawaii.

This level of equality is probably due to a large fraction of Hawaii's small black community having ties to the Armed Services, where a high degree of racial similarity is on display.

Most of the other states with low black illegitimacy rates are in cold weather regions like Idaho (33 percent), where the number of blacks is so small that blacks are well integrated into the mainstream community and its norms of behavior. Similarly, in these almost all white states, blacks are much more likely to marry interracially than in states with large black communities.

The highest percentage of black unwed mothers is found in Wisconsin (82 percent). The problems of Milwaukee's African-American community are given little national attention, but they are severe. Wisconsin is followed by the District of Columbia (77 percent).

In sharp contrast, Washington D.C. has the lowest non-Hispanic white illegitimacy rate (8 percent). Next are Utah (13 percent) and the heavily Catholic and Jewish New Jersey (also 13 percent).

Long the butt of jokes, New Jersey has emerged in recent years as one of the wealthiest, best educated, and most respectable of all states. Although New Jersey is popularly associated with white crime families like HBO's "The Sopranos," a 2001 study found that the imprisonment rate of its white population was the second lowest in the nation.

Hispanic illegitimacy rates are highest in states with heavily Puerto Rican or Dominican populations, such as Connecticut (62 percent).

Murray somberly summed up his views on why media concern over illegitimacy seems to have declined even while it hits a record level nationally: "The underclass has dropped out of sight -- because it's no longer in our (the cognitive elite's) face. They don't bother us like they used to (crime, graffiti, bused to our schools, and so forth). All the pathologies are about the same as before -- even crime, if one thinks in terms of criminality instead of the crime rate (in other words, the propensity of young underclass males to commit crimes). These days we've just got a lot more of them behind bars than we used to."

Steve Sailer (www.iSteve.com) is a columnist for VDARE.com and the film critic for The American Conservative.

Source: http://www.isteve.com/2003_Black_Illegitimacy_Rate_Declines.htm

[Osmium14]

The crime rate of African-Americans was drastically lower before 1960 when their family structure was more intact and monogamous, their illegitimacy rates were at 20%, the same as White rates today. Here is my favorite Indian conservative named Dinesh D' Souza, he writes on this issue in the article below. He talks about how the Asian-American illegitimacy rate is at 2 percent! Imagine that, Asians have strong families, they are less likely to divorce a spouse after marriage, they are more dedicated to their children, focused on education, etc. Asians have higher IQ than Whites, and they perform better academically on a per capita basis. Asians also have vastly lower crime rates than Whites do too! Can this all be a coincidence? Whites are savages compared to Asians. The Asian race is more civilized, more educated, less crime-prone, and more peaceful than the violent, stupid, criminal White race. The same could be said of Blacks' savageness, but the main evidence for this is not biological, it is cultural. It is illegitimacy.

Round Two: Concluding Remarks

DINESH D'SOUZA

M. David Martin is right: Christopher Edley's continuing effort to impugn the motives of those who oppose racial preferences illustrates the bankruptcy of his position. Supporters of preferences have lost so much intellectual ground in recent years that the best they can do now is to point to the low enrollments of blacks and Hispanics at Berkeley and the University of Texas, for example, and say: we need affirmative action because we should not be willing to live with these outcomes.

But that view will only command broad support if it can be shown that racial discrimination is responsible for producing the low enrollments. In fact there is no evidence that this is the case. No one has revealed the existence of bigots in the Berkeley or Texas admissions office working to keep blacks and Hispanics out.

The problem, rather, is that white and Asian-American applicants are on average outperforming their black and Hispanic counterparts. Even poor Asians do better on math tests than upper-middle-class blacks. There is no mystery why this is so. Studies show that Asian-Americans score higher because they study a lot harder. And one reason for this may be that two-parent families are in a better position to discipline their children and supervise their study habits than single-parent households. I hope that I will not be considered churlish for pointing out that the illegitimacy rate in the Asian-American community is 2-3 percent, while in the African-American community it is 70 percent!

So, to answer Robert Tagorda's question about the role of the other nonwhite minorities in America's race debate, the success of these groups (including Asians and also black immigrants, such as West Indians and Nigerians) exposes a myth that the civil-rights establishment has been peddling for a generation -- namely, that in this country you have to be white in order to succeed, because if you are not then racism will stifle your aspirations.

Myths don't die easily. When I first argued in The End of Racism that racism was no longer the main obstacle to black progress, and that cultural pathologies such as racial paranoia, excessive dependency on government, and high crime and illegitimacy rates were preventing blacks from achieving their full potential, Glenn Loury joined the civil-rights leadership in responding with an indignant shriek.

Now we discover that Loury is reluctantly willing to concede the merits of my position, and has shifted the focus of his complaint. These cultural pathologies, he alleges, are themselves the product of oppression. He writes that the causal relationship between historical injustice and black cultural pathology is "demonstrable beyond doubt." Nick Lemann seconds this point, insisting that the disorders of the ghetto are "quite clearly" the "direct result of slavery, segregation, and racism." The sociologist William Julius Wilson has been making this argument for some time. Loury and Lemann draw the conclusion that all Americans, but especially the white middle class, owe a continuing obligation to the black underclass that goes beyond an assurance of equal rights under the law.

Unfortunately the premise of this argument is wrong. Consider the breakdown of the black family. Many people, including some scholars and pundits, routinely allege that this problem was caused by slavery, because marriage was nowhere legal in the slave states. But in fact the illegitimacy rate for blacks between 1900 and 1960 remained roughly constant at around 20 percent. That's less than one third the current rate. Scholars are in agreement that the steep increase in black illegitimacy has occurred during the past generation, so slavery and segregation are not the main sources of the problem, after all.

Similarly, black crime rates were much lower during the first half of this century -- even during the Great Depression, even in the Deep South -- than during the past three decades. Those who automatically assume -- like Loury, Lemann, and their apparent mentor Wilson -- that black cultural pathology is due to historical oppression have offered no explanation for why many of these pathologies were much less serious when the discrimination and hardship facing the African-American community were vastly more intense.

None of this to deny that Americans must work together as a nation to address the country's problems, including its race problem. But the best way to do this is to appeal to the goodwill of whites and other citizens. Human nature dictates that we who are not black are more likely to want to help if we see that blacks acknowledge the nature of the problem, and are taking concrete actions to do something about it.

Americans are unlikely to respond favorably to Loury's strategy of moral intimidation. Already it is a bit comical to see this economist put on his preacher's robes and subject middle-class whites and the rest of us to tiresome lectures on our supposed moral duties. If Loury is so concerned about the underclass why doesn't he give up his prestige-press punditry, get off the lecture circuit, and devote his energies full-time to teaching disadvantaged kids in an inner-city school?

The point is not that Loury should put his resources where his mouth is. It is that as a black man, Loury is more likely to influence the thinking and cultural practices of other African-Americans than a non-black would be. If Nick Lemann or I showed up in a predominantly black neighborhood to talk about skills and responsibility, we would be viewed with suspicion and even hostility. Although it has been repeatedly denied in this symposium, my point is an obvious one: as a practical matter, African-American preachers, teachers, and parents are often in the best position to reform the mores of the black community.

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/forum/race/dsouza3.htm

[Osmium14]

Now, let me explain what causes illegitimacy and what aggravates it. One major factor that has been hidden from the public by the liberal media is abortion. Abortion, the Roe v. Wade, 1973 court decision to legalize abortion, has destroyed all notions of responsible sexual intercourse. After abortions became widespread and accepted, the illegitimacy rates for Whites had increased from 2% in 1940 to 3% in 1960 to a huge 22% today! Black illegitimacy rates were 16.8% in 1940, 23.6% in 1960, and now over 70% today! These rates have increased due to massive culture shifts, such as feminism, gay rights becoming widely accepted, the attack on the family, attack on traditional marriage, and attack on Western culture itself.

Of course, money and class comes into play as well. Rich White families such as my own have insulated me from the social problems of illegitimacy and cultural degeneracy that comes with being poor. Rich White people are on average more educated, more intelligent and more stable than poor non-whites, so we are less affected by the Cultural Marxism that has infected the poor people. I have not been exposed to drugs, crime, or teenage pregnancy. In fact, I am rabidly anti-drug (which is part of the Republican conservative GOP platform) unlike drug addicts and drug users like Helios Propane, Aule, and Jake Featherman who smoke weed, do mushrooms, or drop acid, and abuse other illegal substances. Ewww. LOL! These people are nasty. :sick:

Did Roe v. Wade Cause Illegitimacy?
by David R. Usher

Those who oppose abortion on moral grounds often make the mistake of believing they must endorse the child-support state so women will not “choose” abortion.

John R. Lott’s Wall Street Journal article, titled "It's Not Enough to Be 'Wanted'," imperfectly points out the essential dynamics underlying how Roe v. Wade led to rampant illegitimacy. But, this is only a rest stop half-way to Peoria.

Briefly, Lott explains how Roe may have led to lax attitudes towards premarital sex by women, who upon getting pregnant out of wedlock, had choices to keep or abort the baby.

In Lott's theory, women who once married or put the baby up for adoption now had other options: abortion or single motherhood. Lott's analysis is fatally flawed because he does not incorporate the controlling role of contraceptives in sexual behavior or explain its impact on marriage, abortion, and illegitimacy. Lott weighs the importance of contraceptives with extraordinarily passive abandon:

With abortion seen as a backup, women as well as men became less careful in using contraceptives as well as more likely to have premarital sex.

This is a backwards analysis: Contraceptives are what brought on the “free sex” revolution. Contraceptives disconnected sex from reproduction (and abortion), and made abortion largely unnecessary. The availability of abortion as a “backup” has little impact on women being “less careful” about using contraceptives.

Lott assumes that women “accidentally” get pregnant out of wedlock, and then for moral reasons want to keep the baby or then want an abortion. Lott thinks the polarizing nexus is between abortion and “pro-life” illegitimacy. He is tragically wrong on both counts.

Few women “accidentally” get pregnant out of wedlock. Birth control is more effective than at any time in human civilization. The birth control pill has been widely available since its introduction in 1960 – during which time illegitimacy exploded.

The most effective forms of birth control are invisible to the male, who has no way to know that birth control is actually being used. Women who do not want to get pregnant use birth control. They do not get pregnant. Abortion is rarely an issue in this picture because responsible women use contraceptives to avoid the traps of illegitimacy, single-motherhood, abortion, or marriage to a man they do not really wish to marry.

The Powerful Effect of Welfare and Child-Support Entitlements

Women who want to become single mothers merely say they are using birth control, get pregnant out of wedlock, and marry the welfare state (now the child-support state), dragging suckered men into peonage as servants and political scapegoats of it all. Abortion is not a major element for these women: they want to get pregnant out of wedlock.

Those who oppose abortion on moral grounds often make the mistake of believing they must endorse the child-support state so women will not “choose” abortion. This caused the “moral majority” to tragically drive the problem of illegitimacy it claims to oppose. Automated child support and welfare entitlements have been hyper-stimulating millions of women to intentionally get pregnant out of wedlock for many years. In parallel, imagine for a moment what would happen if abortion were an entitled activity!

Lott’s analysis on men’s response is particularly slothful. He does not consider why record numbers of women get pregnant out of wedlock in the first place:

Many men, feeling tricked into unwanted fatherhood, will likely wash their hands of the affair altogether, thinking, "I never wanted a baby. It's her choice, so let her raise the baby herself."

Illegitimacy Prior to 1973

If Lott’s analysis is correct, a palpable increase in illegitimacy rates would correlate with the Roe. V. Wade decision. There is no substantive correlation to be found.

Illegitimacy was already rampant in the black community in the 1960’s. Black illegitimacy rates had climbed from 16.8% in 1940 to 23.6% in 1960, with one in four black families headed by a single mother. White illegitimacy went from 2% to 3.07%. The rise of illegitimacy was then attributed to high unemployment rates among black males.

Even back then, Senator Patrick Moynihan attributed the continuing black illegitimacy rate to an already-established pathology of intergenerational illegitimacy and under-parented children. But the Johnson Great Society, glibly marketed as the way "to help the American Negro move beyond opportunity to achievement," instead entitled the pathology, leaving even more single mothers addicted to welfare benefits derived by having more children out of wedlock.

Between 1960 and 1970, the overall illegitimacy rate doubled from 5.3% to 10.7% of all births.

Illegitimacy After 1973

Between 1970 and 1994, overall illegitimacy rates rose from 10.7% to 32.6% of all births, roughly a 10% increase per decade. We see that the trend line of illegitimacy before and after Roe is reasonably straight, representing a steady continual increase in illegitimacy. Clearly, where about half of children are now raised by single mothers, we can no longer attribute either illegitimacy or divorce to male unemployment. The primary causal factor today is that non-marital childbearing and childrearing is heavily entitled by the largest line item in the Federal budget.

How Roe Magnifies the War On Fatherhood

America is experiencing record illegitimacy rates – today predominantly driven by women over the age of twenty who are not sexual neophytes and who know how to use (or not use) birth control as the trump in the deadly feminist card game of socio-political power.

We see that America’s modern dark age is, in fact, a result of the war on fatherhood. Authors such as David Kupelian, Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, and Dr. Stephen Baskerville have documented this in breathtaking detail.

The war on fatherhood is powered by the tenet established in Roe holding that reproductive choice and decision-making is the unquestionable sole right of women – the world required to cater to the manifest destiny of the female reproductive tract.

Roe – enhanced by women’s sole right to “choose” birth control and to subsequently marry or not marry –moved procreation from the cooperative realm of responsible marriage into a brave new world of willful welfarism which no one is permitted to question but everyone must pay for. Most politically-inclined men and women fall all over themselves in a race to enhance unrestrained sexual availability of women – and to subsequently force other men into peonage to it — but at the expense of their own marital and social futures. The blame is improperly placed at the feet of men, who in fact have little sway in the face of entitled feminist reproductive manifest destiny.

Contemporary Political Ramifications

On June 15th, Barack Obama harshly criticized poor fathers for causing all the social problems of the black community – as if men have substantive control in matters of birth control and marriage.

Obama has staked his position on dangerous ground: he would continue mass sacrifices of young black men on the platter of entitled radical feminism — expanding a $612-billion federal enterprise — thus keeping the black family weak, broken, and living in urban violence. Barack Obama is one very dangerous Candy Man who intends to sacrifice the men of his own black community for political power. He must be avoided at all costs.

Senator John McCain is no better. Neither is Hillary, Giuliani, or Thompson. In fact, the only presidential candidates in either party who weighed in positively on this critical keystone electoral issue are Governor Mike Huckabee and Dr. Mark Klein.

Few members of Congress have honestly stepped up to the plate. In fact, the vast majority of them are chronic supporters of congressional false-paternalism, and do so against the wishes of thousands of Americans who contact them. America is not stupid: The latest Gallup poll shows Congressional approval at a new historic low of 14%, a full 4% lower than the previous record. This is astonishingly poor for a newly-elected Congress. Congress must start serving America, not the reverse.

Marriage is the most important issue in the 2008 elections. The War on marriage is just as important as the war on terror – because this war has caused more casualties and human suffering of Americans right here on American soil than any other event in American history.

When marriage is important, abortion is not needed. When marriage is important, the child support state will become a bygone relic of the suffocating radical feminist entitlement era. When marriage is important, few women and children will live in poverty, and the working poor will have a stronger socioeconomic foundation on which to base advancement.

We will reap exactly what we sow (and what we entitle). We must demand that politicians stop ramming the child-support state down our throats. We need programs that encourage and reward marital responsibility, and help spouses work through the common problems and processes of marriage and aging. The first party or presidential candidate to deliver on this need will win a landslide victory that makes the Republican takeover of 1994 look like Sputnik’s first flight.

David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition.
davidrusher@swbell.net
http://www.dadsnow.org/ACFC-MO/

Source: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/06/22/did-roe-v-wade-cause-illegitimacy/

[Opus131]

That liberalism is what destroyed black society (and is currently beating whites senseless) should be obvious to anybody with a decent historical perspective. The idea blacks have a sort of "crime" gene is preposterous. They can be tamed, and they can be civilized the same way whites were civilized, through family and proper upbringing.