Sunday, February 25, 2018

Race/ethnicity and criminal behavior: Neurohormonal influences

This is an amazingly "incorrect" paper.  It is no wonder that the author is semi-retired. In plain words, what he shows is that blacks are hormonally different and that makes them more criminal

Lee Ellis


Evolutionary neuroandrogenic (ENA) theory asserts that brain exposed to androgens plus the brain's ability to learn accounts for most of the sex and age variations in criminal behavior. Here, the theory is extended to explain race/ethnic variations in offending. The article documents that among seven different racial/ethnic groups, blacks have the highest and East Asians have the lowest criminal involvement. Strictly social environmental explanations for race/ethnic differences in criminality appear to be inadequate for explaining these differences. Two main elements of ENA theory are offered in the present context: (a) criminal behavior is promoted by exposing the brain to testosterone and other androgens. (b) rapid postpubertal declines in offending depend heavily on learning ability. Ten lines of evidence concerning average racial/ethnic variations in androgen exposure are reviewed, and four lines of evidence of racial/ethnic differences in learning ability are reviewed. With some exceptions and qualifications, currently-available evidence seems to support the idea that racial/ethnic variations in offending could be at least partially explained by ENA theory. Closing comments are offered to suggest that biosocial approaches to the study of racial/ethnic variations in criminal behavior can help to supplement strictly social environmental theories in criminology


For over a century, scholars have struggled to explain racial and ethnic differences in criminal behavior (reviewed by Gabbidon, 2015; McNulty & Bellair, 2003). In just the past five years, eight scholarly books have been published dedicated to this topic (Barak, Leighton, & Cotton, 2014; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Gabbidon, 2015; Glynn, 2013; KaluntaCrumpton, 2012; Rowe, 2012; Unnever & Gabbidon, 2011; Walker, Spohn, & DeLone, 2011). And, in a fairly recent presidential address to the American Society of Criminology, Peterson (2012, p. 303) called for “placing race and ethnicity at the center of the study of crime and justice”.

As will be shown, nearly all past and contemporary explanations for racial/ethnic variations in criminal behavior consider only social environmental variables as relevant. The present article proposes that the inclusion of neurohormonal variables along with learning ability and sociocultural variables can provide a more complete explanation for the race/ethnic differences in offending that have been documented.


Out with "nation of immigrants" and "customers," in with "lawful system" and "protecting Americans."

“America First” has been President Donald Trump’s message from the beginning, and it’s what resonated with so many voters tired of Democrats putting Americans last. Trump’s message isn’t just a slogan — it’s now part of the mission statement of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service.

Out with the old: “USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.”

And in with the new: “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”

In a memo explaining the change, USCIS Director Lee Cissna wrote, “We are … responsible for ensuring that those who naturalize are dedicated to this country, share our values, assimilate into our communities, and understand their responsibility to help preserve our freedom and liberty.” That’s what U.S. immigration policy should be all about. Americans, by and large, have always welcomed immigrants who love this country and want to make it and themselves better. The problematic ones come in illegally, commit other crimes and create an economic drain by demanding services they don’t pay for. How hard is it to tell the difference when discussing policy? Impossible if you’re a demagoguing Democrat.

In related news, as we reported in January, California is now a “sanctuary” state because Democrats there put illegal aliens first. Trump fired a shot across the bow yesterday, saying the situation is “a disgrace” and that he’d even consider pulling Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) out of the state. “If we ever pulled our ICE out, if we ever said, ‘Hey, let California alone, let them figure it out for themselves,' in two months they’d be begging for us to come back,” the president said. “And you know what? I’m thinking about doing it.” To be sure, this is far more likely Trumpian hyperbole meant to make a point than it is his actual policy recommendation. But it sure does make that point, does it not?

It’s pretty simple, really. Trump puts America first and Democrats don’t.


‘Dictator,’ ‘Idiot’: Tempers Flare Over Hungary’s Anti-Migrant Campaign

Hungary’s foreign minister, Peter Szijjarto, has called his counterpart from Luxembourg an “idiot” who wants to “flood” Europe with migrants, illustrating again a widening rift between the country’s populist government and the liberal European establishment over immigration policies.

Luxembourg’s foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, had earlier likened Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to a “dictator,” in response to his government’s campaign targeting NGOs that support asylum-seekers.

Asselborn also urged the European Union to punish Hungary by triggering a far-reaching provision of E.U. law that could led to suspension of a member-state’s voting rights.

Responding to the criticism of his government, Szijjarto said in a statement Asselborn had “crossed all possible boundaries” and clearly “hates Hungary.”

Szijjarto charged that Asselborn, who he lumped with the Hungarian-born billionaire philanthropist George Soros, wants to “flood” Europe and Hungary with migrants.

“Jean Asselborn is an idiot, but the Hungarians are not,” he said. “The people of Hungary have no need of the Luxembourgian foreign minister’s crazy ideas to know what’s good for them.”

Szijjarto said the government was working to protect the country’s security while “extremist liberals” like Asselborn and Soros want to demolish Hungary’s security fence. The government erected the barrier along Hungary’s southern border in 2015 to stop a flow of migrants from mostly Mideast and African countries.

The flare-up comes ahead of elections in April which Orbán’s populist Fidesz party is expected to win easily.

In a weekend state of the nation speech, Orbán painted Hungary and its allies as a last line of defense against Muslims wanting to inundate the continent in pursuit of “the conversion of Europe to what it calls the true faith.”

In contrast, “the great old European nations in Western Europe have become immigrant countries,” he said. “Day by day their cultural foundations are being transformed, the population raised in a Christian culture is declining, and the major cities are undergoing Islamization.”

Orbán charged that “politicians in Brussels, Berlin and Paris” want Hungary to adopt policies which in their own countries “opened the way for the decline of Christian culture and the expansion of Islam.”

Nationalist opposition was coming not just from Hungary, he said, but from its partners in the Visegrad Four group – Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Orbán also suggested that Austria, Croatia and the German state of Bavaria were moving in the right direction and that Italy’s elections next month could bring that country onboard if the party of the populist former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi wins.

Orbán’s government accuses Soros of wanting to flood Europe with millions of refugees from the Middle East and Africa. The Hungarian-American financier has denied the allegations, accusing the government of trying to “create an outside enemy,” to divert attention away from issues such as healthcare and education.

A draft bill under consideration, dubbed the “Stop Soros” law, builds on controversial legislation passed last summer that targets NGOs who receive foreign funding.

The earlier legislation is being challenged by the E.U. Commission in the European Court of Justice, but the new proposals go further.

NGOs identified as “supporting migration” would be required to apply for a permit from the interior ministry, a process that could take months. Those determined to pose a “national security risk” could be outlawed.

Any foreign funding determined to be promoting migration would incur a 25 percent tax.

A spokesman for the U.N. human rights apparatus on Friday called the draft law an “assault on human rights” and said the proposed tax would likely lead to reduced budgets,  “thereby undermining NGOs’ ability to carry out their activities and services.”

Szijjarto told reporters on Tuesday that anyone who criticizes the “Stop Soros” bill is questioning the right of the government to take sovereign decisions.

He said NGOs promoting migration and open borders were acting against Hungary’s national security interests, and it was the government’s duty to respond.

A senior official at the U.N. refugee agency UNHCR urged Hungarian lawmakers to reject the proposed bill.

“Seeking asylum is a fundamental human right,” Montserrat Feixas Vihé, UNHCR’s Central Europe regional representative, said in a statement Friday.

“People should have access to seek protection and no one should be punished for helping those who seek asylum.”

The E.U. mechanism which Luxembourg’s Asselborn is recommending that the E.U. institutes against Hungary is Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union.

Sometimes dubbed the “nuclear option,” it provides for suspension of voting rights for a member-state deemed to have committed a “serious and persistent breach” of E.U. norms and values. No country has yet lost its voting rights under the mechanism.

Getting it implemented would be an uphill battle for advocates: it would need to be endorsed by a two-thirds majority in the European Parliament as well as four-fifths of the members of the “European Council,” a group comprising the heads of state of the 28 member-states plus two top E.U. officials.


Comedy Central’s Latest Outburst of Bigotry

Last week we noted how the Comedy Central show, "Corporate," assaulted Christ. That was bad enough, but after we flagged what happened on the February 14 episode, Jake Weisman, co-creator and writer of the show, responded by making incendiary remarks about the Catholic Church on Twitter.

Weisman was so incensed by our decision to report him to Viacom president Robert Bakish (Viacom owns Comedy Central), that he went on an obscene Twitter rampage against me. Personally, I really don't care what he says about me, but I do care about his filthy tirade against Jesus Christ.

The worst of Weisman's tweets was a remark he made about Christ, saying that our Lord "sucked his own d---."

We live in a time when Hollywood is engulfed in one sexual scandal after another, and while this has provoked a responsible pushback, stars like Weisman continue to defile Christ with impunity.

If someone spoke about his mother the way he does about Jesus, he would go ballistic. But maybe I overestimate him—he is so crude that he may not care.

Bakish needs to have someone call this guy in and hold him accountable. To do nothing is to say that when it comes to vile hate speech directed at Christianity, Hollywood is incapable of being shamed.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: