It is so well-known that members of ethnic
minorities tend to be more likely to be criminals than the majority, that
I do not have to provide a link to statistics about this. On the other hand,
some ethnic minorities (such as Jews, Chinese and Armenians, for example)
tend, as far as I know, to be less likely to be criminals than the majority.
This fact is a threat to ethnic minorities such as American Blacks and New
Zealand Maoris, some of whom would like to claim that crime is the result
of the oppression of minorities. The existence of minorities which are economically
successful and not so likely to be criminals is a threat to this theory (or
However, once one allows a pro-male perspective to
be considered -- which our viciously anti-male universities, governments
and media do not -- one is able to shed some light on this phenomenon. I assume
that my understanding of evolutionary theory is reasonably correct, and suggest
that different ethnic and racial groups evolve differently because of the
differences in their environments. In this way, the Jews are supposed to be
more intelligent than most/all other ethnic groups, because clever Jews in
Europe, down the centuries of dicrimination, were able to survive better and
have more children than were less intelligent Jews. Note that we are probably
really only talking about male Jews here. Male Jews probably did most of the
economically important work, I assume.
Conversely, in situations of frequent warfare with neighbouring groups (as
with the pre-European Maoris in New Zealand), it may well be that evolution
favoured tribes, sub-tribes and individuals who were good at fighting. Intelligence
is important in warfare, but other skills and personal attributes are equally
(or more) important. Again, we are probably talking only about the males here.
Males did most of the fighting and planning of warfare, I assume.
In modern societies, many women are quite open about wanting to marry millionaires,
and I think it is true to say that women are more upwardly mobile than men
are, because a good-looking woman from whatever class can easily marry a rich
man (This is an empirical issue, and I realise I am making assumptions here).
Men, conversely, generally have to earn a reasonable income if they want to
attract a woman, because good looks in a man are not so socially important
as they are in a woman.
If a particular ethnic minority has evolved (until very recently) in an
environment which is very different from modern Western countries, then it
is understandable that the characteristics needed to succeed in such countries
will not be very common in that minority. This makes socio-economic success
hard to achieve for the males of that minority.
So consider the situation of a male from an ethnic minority such as an American
Black or a New Zealand Maori, whose esperience tells him that he is unlikely
to be able to earn enough to attract the kind of woman he wants. Crime may
well seem to be the only road open to him.
This situation is made worse by Feminism, which pushes women into the workforce,
raises women's average income, and therefore raises their expectations of
the income-level of any man that they would want to marry or live with. The
Feminist media in New Zealand have been full of women complaining about how
hard it was to find men, without "lowering their standards." I find
this phrase "lowering their standards" to be quite extraordinary.
As a man, I am not sure exactly what it means, but I think it must be a reference
to income-level, race and social class. In other words, poor Maori and Polynesian
men need not apply!
The solution is probably to destroy Feminism
(by subjecting it to rational scrutiny, which most women are incapable of)
and to provide government incentives for interracial
marriages and long-term relationships. There is nothing good about
ethnic groups -- all they do is fight with each other -- so let's abolish