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 excuse).
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 them!
