Liberal protester committed an assault by fire at President Trump's inauguration
Jenab6
jenab6
At Donald Trump's inauguration as the 45th President of the United States, a crowd of leftist protesters tried to block citizens from attending the event.

Among the liberal protesters was a woman who used a cigarette lighter to set on fire the hair of a female Trump supporter, while other liberals tried (unsuccessfully) to shield her attack from the view of a nearby camera.

After doing the deed, the perpetrator walked away through the crowd of leftists, none of whom tried to stop her. Although the liberals apologized afterward for the attack, their contrition did not extend to the point of holding the criminal for the police. Words are cheap.

The attacking woman bears a resemblance to Norma Zahory, an Administrative Coordinator who works with Communities In Schools in Washington, DC. The identification isn't conclusive, however. The attacker might be someone else. In fact, she probably is someone else. The woman who committed the crime looks more like a spic than a muzzie.

In fact, it might be worthwhile to find out who originally asserted that the woman in the blue-and-white hat was Norma Zahory. Why was he so sure about it? If he was. The Left is sneaky. It would not be above them to tag someone innocent in order to set up right-wingers who echo the false accusation for retaliatory legal actions.

The attacker is the woman wearing the blue and white hat, shown in the images below.


Isn't it strange what gets censored on Yahoo?
Jenab6
jenab6
A question from Yahoo Answers:

Why the perennial stupidity of allowing private ownership of a central bank, together with its right to loan fiat money at interest? You'd think that every time a greedy bunch of parasites proposed this, they'd be laughed out of the Capitol building. After all, no matter how many times a thief comes up to you, and no matter how politely he asks you to entrust your wallet to him, you'll say "no" every single time, right? No matter how many times the fox asks the rooster to unlatch the henhouse gate, the rooster will just crow a no. Yes? Why, then, do the bankers ever get the powers that they want?

If you click on the question, you get sent to a page that says:

This question does not exist or is under review.
Community Guidelines

When I tried to post the same question again (something I've done before, successfully), I got this message in red text:

Sorry, we couldn't post your question right now. Please try again later.

I reworded the question, and it posted. Here is the new question:

Why does the government allow a privately owned central bank to create money by loaning it at interest?

Isn't that really stupid? You'd think that every time a greedy bunch of parasites proposed this, they'd be laughed out of the Capitol building. After all, no matter how many times a thief comes up to you, and no matter how politely he asks you to entrust your wallet to him, you'll say "no" every single time, right? No matter how many times the fox asks the rooster to unlatch the henhouse gate, the rooster will just crow a no. Yes? Why, then, do the bankers ever get the powers that they want?

Super-Earth models
Jenab6
jenab6
I have made some curve fits for super-Earth planets. They work only for the mass domain of 1 Earth mass to 10 Earth masses.

Core temperature in Kelvin, T₀, from planet mass in Earth masses, M.

T₀ = 0.73339160841 M⁴ − 15.353341104 M³ + 72.3213869497 M² + 589.226301468 M + 4673.66666667

Core pressure in gigaPascals, P₀, from planet mass in Earth masses, M.

P₀ = −0.08449883445 M⁴ + 1.69347319243 M³ − 9.58566432781 M² + 395.9090909 M + 18.33333335

Core density in kg/m³, ρ₀, from core pressure in gigaPascals, P₀. (Curve fit to Birch-Mumaghan curve for iron under pressure.)

ρ₀ = −1.338e-10 P₀⁴ + 1.6528e-6 P₀³ − 0.00733 P₀² + 16.1431041 P₀ + 8197.86013

Super-Earth mass-radius relationship. R in Earth radii. M in Earth masses.
R = M^0.27

Therefore average density,
ρₐ = (5513 kg m⁻³) M^0.19

Therefore surface gravity,
g = (9.806 m sec⁻²) M^0.46

M/Me   R/Re      g     vₑ      ρₐ    T₀(K)   P₀(GPa)    ρ₀
0.95  0.9863   9.591  10978  5459.7  5286.1   387.2  13442.2
1.00  1.0000   9.820  11186  5513.6  5320.6   406.3  13653.6
1.05  1.0132  10.044  11387  5565.4  5355.2   425.3  13860.7
1.10  1.0260  10.261  11582  5615.2  5390.0   444.4  14063.7
1.15  1.0384  10.474  11772  5663.2  5424.9   463.4  14262.6
1.20  1.0504  10.681  11956  5709.5  5459.9   482.4  14457.5
1.25  1.0620  10.884  12136  5754.3  5495.0   501.3  14648.6
1.30  1.0733  11.083  12311  5797.7  5530.2   520.3  14835.7
1.35  1.0842  11.277  12482  5839.7  5565.6   539.2  15019.2
1.40  1.0949  11.468  12649  5880.6  5601.0   558.1  15198.9
1.45  1.1053  11.655  12812  5920.2  5636.5   577.0  15375.1
1.50  1.1155  11.838  12972  5958.8  5672.1   595.9  15547.7
1.55  1.1254  12.019  13128  5996.3  5707.8   614.8  15716.9
1.60  1.1350  12.196  13281  6032.9  5743.5   633.6  15882.6
1.65  1.1445  12.370  13431  6068.5  5779.3   652.5  16045.1
1.70  1.1537  12.542  13578  6103.3  5815.1   671.3  16204.3
1.75  1.1628  12.710  13723  6137.3  5850.9   690.1  16360.3
1.80  1.1716  12.877  13865  6170.5  5886.8   708.9  16513.1
1.85  1.1803  13.040  14004  6203.0  5922.6   727.7  16662.9
1.90  1.1888  13.201  14141  6234.7  5958.5   746.5  16809.7
1.95  1.1972  13.361  14276  6265.8  5994.4   765.2  16953.6
2.00  1.2054  13.517  14409  6296.3  6030.3   784.0  17094.6
M/Me   R/Re      g     vₑ      ρₐ    T₀(K)   P₀(GPa)    ρ₀
2.05  1.2134  13.672  14539  6326.1  6066.2   802.8  17232.7
2.10  1.2213  13.825  14668  6355.4  6102.1   821.5  17368.1
2.15  1.2291  13.976  14795  6384.1  6137.9   840.3  17500.8
2.20  1.2368  14.125  14919  6412.2  6173.7   859.0  17630.8
2.25  1.2443  14.272  15042  6439.9  6209.5   877.7  17758.2
2.30  1.2517  14.417  15164  6467.0  6245.2   896.5  17883.1
2.35  1.2589  14.561  15283  6493.7  6280.9   915.2  18005.5
2.40  1.2661  14.703  15401  6520.0  6316.5   933.9  18125.4
2.45  1.2732  14.843  15517  6545.8  6352.0   952.6  18243.0
2.50  1.2801  14.982  15632  6571.1  6387.5   971.4  18358.1
2.55  1.2870  15.119  15746  6596.1  6422.9   990.1  18471.0
2.60  1.2937  15.255  15858  6620.7  6458.2  1008.8  18581.7
2.65  1.3004  15.390  15969  6644.9  6493.4  1027.5  18690.2
2.70  1.3069  15.523  16078  6668.7  6528.6  1046.3  18796.5
2.75  1.3134  15.655  16186  6692.2  6563.6  1065.0  18900.6
2.80  1.3198  15.785  16293  6715.3  6598.5  1083.7  19002.8
2.85  1.3261  15.915  16399  6738.1  6633.4  1102.4  19102.9
2.90  1.3323  16.043  16503  6760.6  6668.1  1121.2  19201.0
2.95  1.3385  16.170  16607  6782.8  6702.6  1139.9  19297.2
3.00  1.3446  16.296  16709  6804.6  6737.1  1158.7  19391.6
3.05  1.3506  16.420  16810  6826.2  6771.4  1177.4  19484.1
3.10  1.3565  16.544  16910  6847.5  6805.6  1196.2  19574.7
3.15  1.3624  16.666  17009  6868.5  6839.7  1214.9  19663.6
3.20  1.3682  16.788  17107  6889.2  6873.6  1233.7  19750.8
3.25  1.3739  16.908  17205  6909.7  6907.3  1252.5  19836.3
3.30  1.3796  17.028  17301  6930.0  6940.9  1271.3  19920.2
3.35  1.3852  17.146  17396  6949.9  6974.4  1290.1  20002.5
3.40  1.3907  17.264  17490  6969.7  7007.6  1308.9  20083.2
3.45  1.3962  17.380  17584  6989.2  7040.7  1327.7  20162.3
3.50  1.4016  17.496  17677  7008.5  7073.7  1346.5  20240.0
3.55  1.4070  17.611  17768  7027.6  7106.4  1365.4  20316.2
3.60  1.4123  17.724  17859  7046.4  7139.0  1384.2  20391.0
3.65  1.4175  17.838  17950  7065.0  7171.4  1403.0  20464.5
3.70  1.4228  17.950  18039  7083.5  7203.6  1421.9  20536.5
3.75  1.4279  18.061  18128  7101.7  7235.7  1440.8  20607.3
3.80  1.4330  18.172  18216  7119.7  7267.5  1459.7  20676.8
3.85  1.4381  18.282  18303  7137.6  7299.1  1478.6  20745.0
3.90  1.4431  18.391  18389  7155.2  7330.6  1497.5  20812.0
3.95  1.4480  18.499  18475  7172.7  7361.8  1516.4  20877.9
4.00  1.4530  18.607  18560  7190.0  7392.8  1535.3  20942.6
M/Me   R/Re      g     vₑ      ρₐ    T₀(K)   P₀(GPa)    ρ₀
4.05  1.4578  18.713  18645  7207.1  7423.7  1554.3  21006.2
4.10  1.4627  18.820  18728  7224.1  7454.3  1573.3  21068.7
4.15  1.4675  18.925  18811  7240.9  7484.7  1592.2  21130.2
4.20  1.4722  19.030  18894  7257.5  7514.9  1611.2  21190.7
4.25  1.4769  19.134  18976  7274.0  7544.8  1630.2  21250.1
4.30  1.4816  19.237  19057  7290.3  7574.6  1649.3  21308.7
4.35  1.4862  19.340  19138  7306.4  7604.1  1668.3  21366.2
4.40  1.4908  19.442  19218  7322.5  7633.4  1687.3  21423.0
4.45  1.4953  19.544  19297  7338.3  7662.5  1706.4  21478.8
4.50  1.4998  19.645  19376  7354.0  7691.4  1725.5  21533.8
4.55  1.5043  19.745  19454  7369.6  7720.0  1744.6  21588.0
4.60  1.5087  19.845  19532  7385.0  7748.4  1763.7  21641.4
4.65  1.5131  19.944  19609  7400.4  7776.5  1782.8  21694.1
4.70  1.5175  20.043  19686  7415.5  7804.5  1801.9  21746.1
4.75  1.5218  20.141  19762  7430.6  7832.1  1821.1  21797.3
4.80  1.5261  20.238  19838  7445.5  7859.6  1840.3  21847.9
4.85  1.5304  20.335  19913  7460.3  7886.8  1859.5  21897.9
4.90  1.5346  20.431  19988  7474.9  7913.8  1878.7  21947.2
4.95  1.5388  20.527  20062  7489.5  7940.5  1897.9  21996.0
5.00  1.5430  20.623  20136  7503.9  7967.0  1917.1  22044.2
5.05  1.5472  20.717  20210  7518.2  7993.3  1936.4  22091.8
5.10  1.5513  20.812  20282  7532.4  8019.3  1955.6  22139.0
5.15  1.5554  20.906  20355  7546.5  8045.1  1974.9  22185.7
5.20  1.5594  20.999  20427  7560.5  8070.6  1994.2  22231.9
5.25  1.5634  21.092  20498  7574.4  8095.9  2013.5  22277.6
5.30  1.5674  21.184  20569  7588.1  8121.0  2032.8  22323.0
5.35  1.5714  21.276  20640  7601.8  8145.8  2052.2  22368.0
5.40  1.5754  21.367  20710  7615.3  8170.4  2071.5  22412.6
5.45  1.5793  21.458  20780  7628.8  8194.7  2090.9  22456.9
5.50  1.5832  21.549  20850  7642.1  8218.8  2110.3  22500.8
5.55  1.5870  21.639  20919  7655.4  8242.7  2129.7  22544.4
5.60  1.5909  21.729  20987  7668.6  8266.3  2149.1  22587.8
5.65  1.5947  21.818  21055  7681.6  8289.7  2168.6  22630.9
5.70  1.5985  21.907  21123  7694.6  8312.8  2188.0  22673.8
5.75  1.6023  21.995  21191  7707.5  8335.7  2207.5  22716.5
5.80  1.6060  22.083  21258  7720.3  8358.4  2226.9  22759.0
5.85  1.6097  22.171  21325  7733.0  8380.8  2246.4  22801.3
5.90  1.6134  22.258  21391  7745.6  8403.0  2265.9  22843.4
5.95  1.6171  22.344  21457  7758.1  8425.0  2285.5  22885.4
6.00  1.6207  22.431  21523  7770.5  8446.7  2305.0  22927.3
M/Me   R/Re      g     vₑ      ρₐ    T₀(K)   P₀(GPa)    ρ₀
6.05  1.6244  22.517  21588  7782.9  8468.3  2324.5  22969.1
6.10  1.6280  22.602  21653  7795.2  8489.6  2344.1  23010.8
6.15  1.6316  22.688  21718  7807.4  8510.6  2363.7  23052.5
6.20  1.6351  22.772  21782  7819.5  8531.5  2383.2  23094.1
6.25  1.6387  22.857  21846  7831.5  8552.1  2402.8  23135.7
6.30  1.6422  22.941  21910  7843.5  8572.5  2422.4  23177.2
6.35  1.6457  23.025  21973  7855.4  8592.7  2442.1  23218.8
6.40  1.6492  23.108  22036  7867.2  8612.6  2461.7  23260.4
6.45  1.6526  23.191  22099  7878.9  8632.4  2481.3  23302.0
6.50  1.6561  23.274  22161  7890.6  8652.0  2501.0  23343.6
6.55  1.6595  23.356  22223  7902.2  8671.3  2520.6  23385.4
6.60  1.6629  23.438  22285  7913.7  8690.4  2540.3  23427.1
6.65  1.6663  23.520  22347  7925.1  8709.4  2560.0  23469.0
6.70  1.6697  23.601  22408  7936.5  8728.1  2579.7  23511.0
6.75  1.6730  23.682  22469  7947.8  8746.7  2599.4  23553.1
6.80  1.6763  23.763  22530  7959.0  8765.1  2619.1  23595.3
6.85  1.6796  23.844  22590  7970.2  8783.2  2638.8  23637.6
6.90  1.6829  23.924  22650  7981.3  8801.2  2658.5  23680.1
6.95  1.6862  24.003  22710  7992.4  8819.0  2678.2  23722.7
7.00  1.6895  24.083  22769  8003.3  8836.7  2698.0  23765.5
7.05  1.6927  24.162  22829  8014.3  8854.1  2717.7  23808.5
7.10  1.6960  24.241  22888  8025.1  8871.4  2737.5  23851.6
7.15  1.6992  24.319  22946  8035.9  8888.6  2757.2  23895.0
7.20  1.7024  24.398  23005  8046.6  8905.5  2777.0  23938.5
7.25  1.7055  24.476  23063  8057.3  8922.4  2796.7  23982.2
7.30  1.7087  24.553  23121  8067.9  8939.0  2816.5  24026.2
7.35  1.7118  24.631  23179  8078.5  8955.5  2836.2  24070.3
7.40  1.7150  24.708  23236  8089.0  8971.9  2856.0  24114.7
7.45  1.7181  24.785  23293  8099.4  8988.1  2875.8  24159.3
7.50  1.7212  24.861  23350  8109.8  9004.2  2895.5  24204.1
7.55  1.7243  24.937  23407  8120.1  9020.2  2915.3  24249.2
7.60  1.7273  25.013  23464  8130.4  9036.1  2935.1  24294.5
7.65  1.7304  25.089  23520  8140.6  9051.8  2954.8  24340.0
7.70  1.7334  25.165  23576  8150.8  9067.4  2974.6  24385.8
7.75  1.7365  25.240  23632  8160.9  9082.9  2994.3  24431.8
7.80  1.7395  25.315  23687  8170.9  9098.4  3014.1  24478.0
7.85  1.7425  25.389  23743  8180.9  9113.7  3033.9  24524.5
7.90  1.7455  25.464  23798  8190.9  9128.9  3053.6  24571.2
7.95  1.7484  25.538  23853  8200.8  9144.0  3073.3  24618.2
8.00  1.7514  25.612  23907  8210.6  9159.1  3093.1  24665.4
M/Me   R/Re      g     vₑ      ρₐ    T₀(K)   P₀(GPa)    ρ₀
8.05  1.7543  25.686  23962  8220.4  9174.1  3112.8  24712.9
8.10  1.7573  25.759  24016  8230.2  9189.0  3132.5  24760.5
8.15  1.7602  25.832  24070  8239.9  9203.9  3152.2  24808.5
8.20  1.7631  25.905  24124  8249.6  9218.7  3171.9  24856.6
8.25  1.7660  25.978  24178  8259.2  9233.5  3191.6  24905.0
8.30  1.7689  26.050  24231  8268.7  9248.2  3211.3  24953.5
8.35  1.7717  26.123  24284  8278.2  9262.9  3231.0  25002.3
8.40  1.7746  26.195  24337  8287.7  9277.5  3250.6  25051.4
8.45  1.7774  26.266  24390  8297.1  9292.2  3270.3  25100.6
8.50  1.7802  26.338  24443  8306.5  9306.8  3289.9  25150.0
8.55  1.7831  26.409  24495  8315.9  9321.4  3309.5  25199.6
8.60  1.7859  26.480  24547  8325.1  9336.0  3329.1  25249.3
8.65  1.7887  26.551  24599  8334.4  9350.7  3348.7  25299.3
8.70  1.7914  26.622  24651  8343.6  9365.3  3368.3  25349.4
8.75  1.7942  26.692  24703  8352.8  9380.0  3387.8  25399.7
8.80  1.7970  26.762  24754  8361.9  9394.7  3407.3  25450.1
8.85  1.7997  26.832  24806  8371.0  9409.4  3426.8  25500.6
8.90  1.8024  26.902  24857  8380.0  9424.2  3446.3  25551.2
8.95  1.8052  26.972  24908  8389.0  9439.0  3465.8  25602.0
9.00  1.8079  27.041  24958  8397.9  9453.9  3485.2  25652.9
9.05  1.8106  27.110  25009  8406.9  9468.9  3504.6  25703.8
9.10  1.8133  27.179  25059  8415.7  9484.0  3524.0  25754.9
9.15  1.8159  27.248  25109  8424.6  9499.1  3543.4  25805.9
9.20  1.8186  27.316  25160  8433.4  9514.3  3562.7  25857.1
9.25  1.8213  27.385  25209  8442.1  9529.7  3582.0  25908.2
9.30  1.8239  27.453  25259  8450.8  9545.1  3601.3  25959.4
9.35  1.8266  27.521  25309  8459.5  9560.7  3620.5  26010.6
9.40  1.8292  27.589  25358  8468.2  9576.4  3639.7  26061.8
9.45  1.8318  27.656  25407  8476.8  9592.3  3658.9  26112.9
9.50  1.8344  27.724  25456  8485.3  9608.3  3678.1  26164.0
9.55  1.8370  27.791  25505  8493.9  9624.4  3697.2  26215.1
9.60  1.8396  27.858  25554  8502.4  9640.8  3716.2  26266.0
9.65  1.8422  27.924  25602  8510.8  9657.3  3735.3  26316.9
9.70  1.8447  27.991  25651  8519.3  9674.0  3754.3  26367.7
9.75  1.8473  28.057  25699  8527.7  9690.9  3773.2  26418.3
9.80  1.8498  28.124  25747  8536.0  9708.0  3792.1  26468.8
9.85  1.8524  28.190  25795  8544.3  9725.3  3811.0  26519.1
9.90  1.8549  28.256  25842  8552.6  9742.8  3829.8  26569.2
9.95  1.8574  28.321  25890  8560.9  9760.6  3848.6  26619.2
10.0  1.8599  28.387  25938  8569.1  9778.6  3867.3  26668.9

Here is a model of a particular super-earth planet, having a total mass of 3.15 Earth masses of which 32% is in a pure iron core, and of which about 1% consists of an ocean of 178 km average depth. The mantle is assume to be pure magnesium silicate, and although the planet is fully differentiated by composition, there is no attempt to distinguish between liquid and solid parts core, mantle, or ocean (pressure ices).

 r(km)       M(kg)          g       ρ         P (GPa)
   0.0       zero         zero    20039.8   1305.348
 100.0   8.393626e+19    0.5602   20037.3   1304.7870952
 200.0   6.713432e+20    1.1201   20030.0   1303.1038670
 300.0   2.264956e+21    1.6796   20017.8   1300.3006739
 400.0   5.366036e+21    2.2383   20000.7   1296.3807973
 500.0   1.047362e+22    2.7960   19978.6   1291.3488423
 600.0   1.808376e+22    3.3525   19951.6   1285.2107494
 700.0   2.868876e+22    3.9075   19919.4   1277.9738088
 800.0   4.277635e+22    4.4608   19882.1   1269.6466786
 900.0   6.082887e+22    5.0120   19839.6   1260.2394045
1000.0   8.332245e+22    5.5610   19791.8   1249.7634442
1100.0   1.107261e+23    6.1073   19738.5   1238.2316929
1200.0   1.435007e+23    6.6509   19679.7   1225.6585120
1300.0   1.820982e+23    7.1913   19615.2   1212.0597597
1400.0   2.269606e+23    7.7283   19544.9   1197.4528238
1500.0   2.785186e+23    8.2615   19468.7   1181.8566551
1600.0   3.371908e+23    8.7907   19386.3   1165.2918025
1700.0   4.033826e+23    9.3155   19297.7   1147.7804478
1800.0   4.774846e+23    9.8356   19202.6   1129.3464402
1900.0   5.598717e+23   10.3507   19100.9   1110.0153298
2000.0   6.509016e+23   10.8603   18992.3   1089.8143987
2100.0   7.509134e+23   11.3642   18876.8   1068.7726887
2200.0   8.602263e+23   11.8619   18754.1   1046.9210254
2300.0    9.79138e+23   12.3531   18623.9   1024.2920352
2400.0   1.107923e+24   12.8373   18486.2   1000.9201573
2500.0   1.246832e+24   13.3142   18340.8    976.8416449
 r(km)       M(kg)          g       ρ         P (GPa)
2600.0    1.39609e+24   13.7833   18187.4    952.0945583
2700.0   1.555892e+24   14.2442   18025.8    926.7187450
2800.0   1.726406e+24   14.6965   17856.1    900.7558071
2900.0   1.907769e+24   15.1397   17677.9    874.2490532
3000.0   2.100086e+24   15.5734   17491.2    847.2434345
3100.0   2.303429e+24   15.9970   17295.9    819.7854623
3200.0   2.517833e+24   16.4102   17091.9    791.9231066
3300.0   2.743299e+24   16.8125   16879.2    763.7056739
3400.0   2.979791e+24   17.2034   16657.8    735.1836649
3500.0   3.227235e+24   17.5826   16427.7    706.4086100
3600.0   3.485519e+24   17.9494   16189.1    677.4328833
3700.0    3.75449e+24   18.3035   15942.0    648.3094967
3800.0    4.03396e+24   18.6445   15686.6    619.0918734
3900.0   4.323699e+24   18.9720   15423.1    589.8336032
4000.0   4.623442e+24   19.2856   15151.9    560.5881824
4100.0   4.932884e+24   19.5849   14873.2    531.4087395
4200.0   5.251686e+24   19.8695   14587.4    502.3477521
4300.0   5.579474e+24   20.1393   14295.0    473.4567565
4400.0   5.915841e+24   20.3938   13996.5    444.7860554
4500.0   6.144703e+24   20.2518    7131.3    425.9659192
4600.0    6.32935e+24   19.9632    7063.9    411.6959755
4700.0   6.520387e+24   19.7000    6997.6    397.7542435
4800.0    6.71786e+24   19.4597    6932.2    384.1184002
4900.0   6.921814e+24   19.2405    6867.6    370.7682743
5000.0   7.132286e+24   19.0404    6803.7    357.6856591
 r(km)       M(kg)          g       ρ         P (GPa)
5100.0   7.349311e+24   18.8579    6740.4    344.8541437
5200.0   7.572917e+24   18.6915    6677.7    332.2589621
5300.0   7.803124e+24   18.5398    6615.3    319.8868573
5400.0   8.039947e+24   18.4015    6553.2    307.7259595
5500.0   8.283392e+24   18.2755    6491.3    295.7656762
5600.0   8.533456e+24   18.1609    6429.4    283.9965946
5700.0   8.790128e+24   18.0565    6367.4    272.4103923
5800.0   9.053385e+24   17.9615    6305.2    260.9997572
5900.0   9.323197e+24   17.8751    6242.6    249.7583147
6000.0   9.599518e+24   17.7965    6179.6    238.6805610
6100.0   9.882294e+24   17.7250    6116.0    227.7618023
6200.0   1.017146e+25   17.6599    6051.8    216.9980980
6300.0   1.046693e+25   17.6005    5986.7    206.3862081
6400.0   1.076861e+25   17.5464    5920.7    195.9235438
6500.0   1.107639e+25   17.4968    5853.8    185.6081206
6600.0   1.139016e+25   17.4514    5785.8    175.4385134
6700.0   1.170976e+25   17.4095    5716.7    165.4138130
6800.0   1.203506e+25   17.3707    5646.3    155.5335844
6900.0   1.236588e+25   17.3346    5574.6    145.7978251
7000.0   1.270204e+25   17.3008    5501.6    136.2069246
7100.0   1.304334e+25   17.2687    5427.3    126.7616242
7200.0   1.338957e+25   17.2381    5351.5    117.4629762
7300.0    1.37405e+25   17.2085    5274.2    108.3123046
7400.0   1.409588e+25   17.1797    5195.5     99.3111646
7500.0   1.445546e+25   17.1513    5115.4     90.4613027
 r(km)       M(kg)          g       ρ         P (GPa)
7600.0   1.481896e+25   17.1229    5033.9     81.7646168
7700.0   1.518611e+25   17.0943    4950.9     73.2231171
7800.0    1.55566e+25   17.0653    4866.5     64.8388861
7900.0   1.593014e+25   17.0354    4780.9     56.6140411
8000.0   1.630639e+25   17.0046    4694.0     48.5506957
8100.0   1.668505e+25   16.9725    4605.9     40.6509237
8200.0   1.706577e+25   16.9389    4516.7     32.9167238
8300.0   1.744822e+25   16.9037    4426.5     25.3499862
8400.0   1.783206e+25   16.8667    4335.4     17.9524614
8500.0   1.821693e+25   16.8277    4243.5     10.7257306
8600.0    1.86025e+25   16.7866    4151.0      3.6711794
8700.0    1.87209e+25   16.5073    1054.8      1.5683132
8793.2   1.881297e+25   16.2385    1000.0      0.0000739

Splash, a super-earth planet.

Center:
r = 0
Mᵣ = 0
gᵣ = 0
Pᵣ = 1305.348 GPa
ρᵣ = 20039.8 kg m⁻³

Core-Mantle Boundary:
r = 4430524 meters = 0.503855 R
Mᵣ = 6.020149e+24 kg = 1.0080 Me = 0.32 Mʀ
gᵣ = 20.46845 m sec⁻²
Pᵣ = 436.087 GPa
ρᵣ = (13904, 7179) kg m⁻³

Ocean Floor:
R−r = 187455 meters (average depth)
Mᵣ = 1.862484e+25 kg = 3.1185 Me
gᵣ = 16.78411 m sec⁻²
Pᵣ = 3.268 GPa
ρᵣ = (4146, 1113) kg m⁻³

Ocean Surface:
R = 8793247 meters = 1.3802 Re
Mʀ = 1.88130e+25 kg = 3.1500 Me
gʀ = 16.23851 m sec⁻²
Pʀ = 0.0001 GPa
ρʀ = 1000 kg m⁻³

Mass of the ocean: 1.8816e+23 kg = 0.0315051 Me

Splash's exponent for mass-radius relationship is 0.281. Without the oceans it would have been 0.269.


Part 2. The Density of the Earth

I created interpolative curvefits to the graph of Earth's density as a function of radius, shown here:



Earth is assumed to be a sphere of radius 6371 kilometers. The independent variable r is the geocentric distance as a fraction of the Earth's radius; i.e. the range of r is [0,1]. The dependent variable p is Earth's density in kilograms per cubic meter.

If 0 ≤ r < 0.1915,
ρ = −8088.796304 r² − 330.8910692 r + 13100.0

If 0.1915 ≤ r < 0.5469,
ρ = −10693.43214 r² + 1635.478802 r + 12203.95803

If 0.5469 ≤ r < 0.8947,
ρ = −3450.258769 r + 7486.946521

If 0.8947 ≤ r < 0.9953,
ρ = −6212.723658 r + 9558.523857

If 0.9953 ≤ r < 0.9992,
ρ = −102564.1026 r + 105082.0513

If 0.9992 ≤ r ≤ 1,
ρ = −125000.0 r + 126000.0

r/Re    M(r)/Me     ρ(r)       g(r)     P(r) GPa
0.00   0.000000   13100.00    0.00000   364.8373
0.01   0.000002   13095.88    0.23327   364.7400
0.02   0.000019   13090.15    0.46640   364.4482
0.03   0.000064   13082.79    0.69933   363.9622
0.04   0.000152   13073.82    0.93203   363.2826
0.05   0.000296   13063.23    1.16442   362.4098
0.06   0.000512   13051.03    1.39647   361.3446
0.07   0.000812   13037.20    1.62812   360.0878
0.08   0.001211   13021.76    1.85932   358.6403
0.09   0.001723   13004.70    2.09001   357.0031
0.10   0.002362   12986.02    2.32015   355.1774
0.11   0.003141   12965.73    2.54968   353.1645
0.12   0.004073   12943.81    2.77856   350.9656
0.13   0.005173   12920.28    3.00672   348.5823
0.14   0.006453   12895.13    3.23412   346.0162
0.15   0.007927   12868.37    3.46071   343.2689
0.16   0.009607   12839.98    3.68642   340.3423
0.17   0.011507   12809.98    3.91123   337.2383
0.18   0.013639   12778.36    4.13506   333.9589
0.19   0.016016   12745.13    4.35786   330.5063
0.20   0.018541   12103.32    4.55302   327.0398
0.21   0.021305   12075.83    4.74542   323.4590
0.22   0.024338   12046.20    4.93942   319.7381
0.23   0.027651   12014.44    5.13451   315.8775
0.24   0.031256   11980.53    5.33026   311.8781
0.25   0.035162   11944.49    5.52632   307.7410
r/Re    M(r)/Me     ρ(r)       g(r)     P(r) GPa
0.26   0.039381   11906.31    5.72240   303.4678
0.27   0.043922   11865.99    5.91824   299.0602
0.28   0.048795   11823.53    6.11361   294.5203
0.29   0.054010   11778.93    6.30832   289.8505
0.30   0.059575   11732.19    6.50220   285.0532
0.31   0.065500   11683.32    6.69507   280.1312
0.32   0.071793   11632.30    6.88681   275.0874
0.33   0.078461   11579.15    7.07726   269.9247
0.34   0.085514   11523.86    7.26632   264.6466
0.35   0.092957   11466.43    7.45386   259.2562
0.36   0.100797   11406.86    7.63977   253.7573
0.37   0.109042   11345.15    7.82396   248.1534
0.38   0.117696   11281.31    8.00631   242.4483
0.39   0.126766   11215.32    8.18673   236.6459
0.40   0.136256   11147.20    8.36514   230.7503
0.41   0.146171   11076.94    8.54143   224.7657
0.42   0.156515   11004.54    8.71553   218.6962
0.43   0.167291   10930.00    8.88735   212.5462
0.44   0.178502   10853.32    9.05681   206.3203
0.45   0.190151   10774.50    9.22382   200.0228
0.46   0.202239   10693.55    9.38830   193.6586
0.47   0.214768   10610.45    9.55018   187.2322
0.48   0.227738   10525.22    9.70938   180.7485
0.49   0.241150   10437.85    9.86582   174.2123
0.50   0.255003   10348.34   10.01942   167.6287
r/Re    M(r)/Me     ρ(r)       g(r)     P(r) GPa
0.51   0.269295   10256.69   10.17011   161.0025
0.52   0.284025   10162.90   10.31782   154.3390
0.53   0.299191   10066.98   10.46247   147.6431
0.54   0.314789    9968.91   10.60398   140.9202
0.55   0.328639    5589.30   10.67163   135.0875
0.56   0.337975    5554.80   10.58635   131.3145
0.57   0.347591    5520.30   10.50887   127.5935
0.58   0.357488    5485.80   10.43862   123.9216
0.59   0.367668    5451.29   10.37503   120.2961
0.60   0.378133    5416.79   10.31762   116.7143
0.61   0.388884    5382.29   10.26591   113.1740
0.62   0.399922    5347.79   10.21948   109.6732
0.63   0.411248    5313.28   10.17795   106.2097
0.64   0.422864    5278.78   10.14095   102.7819
0.65   0.434771    5244.28   10.10815    99.3882
0.66   0.446970    5209.78   10.07924    96.0269
0.67   0.459461    5175.27   10.05394    92.6968
0.68   0.472244    5140.77   10.03198    89.3966
0.69   0.485322    5106.27   10.01311    86.1251
0.70   0.498693    5071.77    9.99711    82.8813
0.71   0.512358    5037.26    9.98377    79.6643
0.72   0.526318    5002.76    9.97289    76.4730
0.73   0.540573    4968.26    9.96428    73.3068
0.74   0.555122    4933.76    9.95778    70.1648
0.75   0.569966    4899.25    9.95322    67.0465
r/Re    M(r)/Me     ρ(r)       g(r)     P(r) GPa
0.76   0.585103    4864.75    9.95045    63.9512
0.77   0.600535    4830.25    9.94934    60.8784
0.78   0.616259    4795.74    9.94974    57.8275
0.79   0.632277    4761.24    9.95155    54.7982
0.80   0.648587    4726.74    9.95464    51.7900
0.81   0.665188    4692.24    9.95891    48.8026
0.82   0.682079    4657.73    9.96425    45.8356
0.83   0.699259    4623.23    9.97056    42.8888
0.84   0.716728    4588.73    9.97777    39.9620
0.85   0.734484    4554.23    9.98578    37.0548
0.86   0.752525    4519.72    9.99451    34.1672
0.87   0.770850    4485.22   10.00389    31.2989
0.88   0.789458    4450.72   10.01385    28.4498
0.89   0.808346    4416.22   10.02432    25.6199
0.90   0.826568    3967.07   10.02377    22.9477
0.91   0.844103    3904.95   10.01268    20.4355
0.92   0.861745    3842.82   10.00094    17.9658
0.93   0.879486    3780.69    9.98850    15.5386
0.94   0.897317    3718.56    9.97534    13.1540
0.95   0.915229    3656.44    9.96139    10.8121
0.96   0.933214    3594.31    9.94664     8.5130
0.97   0.951264    3532.18    9.93104     6.2567
0.98   0.969368    3470.05    9.91457     4.0433
0.99   0.987517    3407.93    9.89718     1.8729
1.00   1.003515    1000.00    9.85737     0.0000

From these curvefits, the relative errors are less than one percent in each case. The integrated mass of the planet is 5.9953e+24 kilograms, which is in excess of the experimentally measured value by 0.36%. The calculated surface gravity is 9.8579 m/sec², which exceed the measured value by 0.53%. The calculated average density is 5534.8 kg/m³, which is too high by 0.36%.

The absolute maximum for gravitational acceleration inside Earth, g(r), occurs at r=0.5470 Re (at the core-mantle boundary), enclosing 0.3259 Me, resulting in g=10.699 m/sec². There is also a local maximum for g(r) at r=0.8950 Re, enclosing 0.8179 Me, resulting in g=10.029 m/sec².

Facebook censorship
Jenab6
jenab6
At about 9:00 AM on 10 January 2017, I received this...

Message from Facebook:

We removed the post below because it doesn't follow the Facebook Community Standards

Text of censored post:

There's a human-interest story making the rounds just now about how a heroic black former football player, Napoleon Harris, foiled a robbery and helped to apprehend three murder suspects. Most of the news items pertaining to this event are slanted in a way that implies that blacks are typically tough-guy do-gooders. What the news stories usually don't mention is that the bad guys are also Negroes. I have the names of the three robbers: Lawrence Hines, Malik Mayer, and Stephen Crowe. All three are black. Before trying to rob Napoleon Harris, they murdered a white man named Lester Roy Jones and stole his car.
This image was not part of the Facebook post.


Message from Facebook:

You’re Temporarily Blocked From Posting
This temporary block will last 7 days, and you won’t be able to post on Facebook until it’s finished.
Please keep in mind that people who repeatedly post things that aren’t allowed on Facebook may have their accounts permanently disabled.

Further message from Facebook:

Please Review the Community Standards
We created the Facebook Community Standards to help make Facebook a safe place for people to connect with the world around them.
Please read the Facebook Community Standards to learn what kinds of posts are allowed on Facebook.

My readers will notice that nothing in my post on Facebook is untrue. Everything that I wrote is factual, and, furthermore, it's all a matter of public record. No information was disclosed in my post to which anyone might have an expectation of privacy. What I was doing with that post is following up a current events news item by reporting the additional information that the villains of the story, as well as the hero, were black men.

Furthermore, my post doesn't even violate Facebook's Community Standards policy.

• Nothing in my post constitutes a threat to anyone's safety. I did identify the criminals in the story by name, but I got those names from mainstream media sources.
• Nothing in my post is disrespectful. Although I might have placed disrespectful posts on Facebook a time or two in the past, this isn't one of them.
• I am one of a minority of Facebook users who actually do use their real name on Facebook, in accordance with the Community Standards. Many users of Facebook use a pseudonym; I do not.
• Finally, although I got my information from a number of mainstream news sources, I didn't copy anyone else's work. I repeated the information in my own words, and there was no copyright infringement whatsoever.

In other words, I did not violate Facebook's Community Standards policy. A moderator of Facebook FALSELY ASSERTED that I had done so, and that moderator imposed on me an UNDESERVED PENALTY.

So what I think has happened is that a black moderator, hired by Facebook, got a little too uppity and full of himself. He decided that he did not approve of a white man pointing out that a news story had made a big deal about a black who did something good while failing to accord an equal amount of attention to the fact that the same news story involved three blacks who had done some very bad things. In order to punish me for doing that, this Facebook moderator decided to invent his own set of special rules that restrict speech even more than Facebook's Community Standards do, and impose on me a punishment of censorship and a 1-week suspension.

I don't actually know that the person who did this is black. But Jews are typically rule-followers, even if they do cheat while contriving the rules themselves. Breaking rules, e.g. by exceeding them in order to find fault, is something that blacks are more likely to do. And, also, the content of the post is typical of SBPDL (Stuff Black People Don't Like).

How naughty are the Jews?
Jenab6
jenab6
Although it is rare, once in a while Jewish perverts or criminals are caught in their crimes in a place where the law has not been entirely corrupted in their favor. In July 2000, a Jewish college professor named George Schteinberg and an Israeli diplomat named Arie Scher were discovered to be running a child prostitution business for the pleasure of wealthy Jewish tourists from Israel. Additionally, the two Jews were making and selling child pornography. The Brazilian police hastily shut the business down and arrested Schteinberg. However, the wiley Arie Scher managed to hop on an airplane bound for Buenos Aries, Argentina, where he changed planes and flew to Tel Aviv, Israel. The government of Brazil requested the extradition of Arie Scher, so that he could stand trial. The government of Israel refuesed Brazil's request.


A collection of my posts that were censored on Planet Princeton
Jenab6
jenab6
All of the posts below were written by myself during discussions on Planet Princeton, a forum for student interaction run by Krystal Knapp at Princeton University. I participated in discussions ranging from the suspension of the Princeton men's swimming and diving team because of a politically incorrect comment contained in an email sent by a team member, to the individual suspensions of several black members of the Golden Gophers football team for a gang-rape perpetrated in an apartment building near the campus of the University of Minnesota.

At some point, I may have made comments deemed to be politically incorrect during the discussions on Planet Princeton. I was banned from the forum.

Per my usual policy, in which comments of mine that are censored in one place must therefore reappear in a hundred new places, of which this will be one, I present my comments posted to Planet Princeton.


Is it possible that males get more intensely scrutinized for offensive speech than females do? Is it possible that whites get stricter rules for offensive speech than blacks get? I don't know of any actual scientific study that has been done on these and similar subjects. Maybe someone should devise some sort of statistically derived index on how much speech freedom the average member of various demographic groups have, and then do some sort of study to determine their values. It would be interesting to see which groups get imposed on the most, by whom, and why.


Meanwhile, at the University of Minnesota, the university administration suspended 10 black football players who carried out a gang rape of a female student. However, they did not suspend the Gophers football team, for which the suspended players were members.

Thus can we see the difference between black and white in academia. White athletes have their entire team suspended because some of the team made offensive remarks. Black athletes are individually suspended only when they misbehave to the point of committing rape or being an accessory to rape.

That's the politically correct definition of racial equality, I suppose.


You're quite wrong, Lev. I didn't 'introduce' race. I recognized it. Race is often the elephant in the political living room. It tramps around and poops on everyone's shoes, but nobody dares mention it.

No, it isn't an invalid "apples and oranges" comparison. It's a valid "apples and oranges" comparison. The whole idea is that one race is being treated like an apple while the other is being treated like an orange, and that it isn't a matter of both races receiving the same treatment. In other words, the "apples and oranges" metaphor is a metaphor that I, not you, can use to good purpose.

And you don't need to tell me that the offense in Minnesota is more egregious than is the one in Princeton. That, too, is one of my premises, and not one of yours.

While you are so eager to recognize that the ten black student-rapists at UMinn were recommended for expulsion, you should observe that they were not criminally charged. What kind of penalty for rape is EXPULSION? The ten black students are getting off very easy, even if they are expelled, are they not? By rights they should be tried and, if convicted, sent to prison for five to ten years, in addition to whatever other civil and school administrative penalties they'd have to pay. Rape is, after all, a felony.

In short, the blacks got off easy—EASY!—in relation to their offenses.

By the way, in 2014 a white male student at UMinn date-raped a drunken female student after a party. Although she initially said it was consensual, she later changed her mind and said it was rape. The white male student was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison. So here's a control for differences in school admin policies and state laws for you to consider.

Returning now to Princeton, let's try to imagine a quantity that I'll call "the egregiousness ratio." What is the egregiousness ratio? It's easily explained by a simple equation:

Ɛ = (The Blameworthiness of Participating in a Gang Rape) / (The Blameworthiness of Sending a Vulgar Comment in an Email)

I'd say that that particular value of Ɛ is rather high, wouldn't you? You'd expect that the severity of the punishment for the ten black rapist-students at UMinn would be as much greater than the severity of the punishment for the impolite email-senders at Princeton, wouldn't you?

But it wasn't. Not even close.

As I said, race is nearly always a factor that is used by the political left in choosing a punishment an offender, regardless of whether the offense is great or small. It's a factor even when it isn't mentioned, and it usually isn't, because leftists don't like having their contradictions exposed. But mentioned or not, it is very readily discerned by making comparisons of the kind that I made.


An earlier, lengthy reply to your post, just above, is waiting for Planet Princeton moderators to clear. It contains a URL, which seems to trigger an automatic hold. If it doesn't appear, then maybe you got sent an email copy.

In addition to incidents mentioned therein, among them the Duke University rape case of 2006, I have recalled another that might be relevant.

In 2007, at George Washington University, a journalism student named Sarah Marshak decided to manufacture an antisemitic hoax. She drew swastikas on a dry-erase board mounted on her dormitory room door and in several other places. She then reported the swastikas as an antisemitic terrorist threat. The university's Hillel director, Robert Fishman, adamantly called for the perpetrator to be arrested and charged with hate crimes. The FBI was called in. (Woo!)

A local affiliate of NBC News interviewed Sarah Marshak, who delivered a load of b.s. about having "no idea" who drew the swastikas and that she just couldn't believe that anybody would hate her that much.

The FBI, working with the local police, put hidden cameras in the woman's dormitory, and it wasn't long before they caught her drawing the swastikas herself.

When it became known that the swastika drawer was a Jewish girl, the media, the university administration, and Robert Fishman immediately lost all interest in arresting and prosecuting the perpetrator. Suddenly, everyone was expressing sympathy for her and stating that, obviously, she was just crying out for "help."

So, when anyone who isn't a Jew draws a swastika, it's a crime worthy of FBI attention. But when a Jew draws a swastika as part of a hoax, it isn't a crime — even though it might have gotten someone innocent expelled and/or arrested.


I hope you'll excuse me for thinking that you were disagreeing with me about the seriousness of the gang-rape at the University of Minnesota. And you're correct in assuming that I understand the difference between the authority of the University Administration and that of the judicial system. But I didn't intend to convey the idea that the former was the only authority inclined to allow racial politics to corrupt due process. The latter does it also.

You probably remember the 2006 incident in which three Duke University students, players on the Duke men's lacrosse team, were falsely accused of rape by a female stripper named Crystal Gail Mangum. Despite a lack of evidence and questions about Mangum's credibility, District Attorney Mike Nifong brought criminal charges against the accused lacross players, all three of whom were white.

For several months, Nifong concealed DNA evidence that indicated that none of the lacrosse players had raped Mangum, and he was later disbarred for official misconduct. The police noticed that Mangum had changed her story several times. Eventually, the weight of evidence in favor of the lacrosse players was such that the charges were dismissed.

The point, however, is that those charges were FILED, despite the fact that there was insufficient evidence of guilt. A grand jury probably would not have indicted the lacrosse players.

Apparently, then, not having sufficient evidence in hand to ensure a conviction during a trial is a problem only when the accused persons are non-whites.* That's when a prosecutor or the police pretend that they need in hand "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" before they can even make an arrest, when, really, the necessary standard of evidence is probable cause.

(*There is one other situation in which the police do that, namely, when the accused is another police officer.)

When the accused persons are whites, some lesser standard of evidence is enough: say, enough to constitute a reasonable suspicion.

Permit me to help you locate the details of the other rape case at UMinn. The perpetrator was Daniel Drill-Mellum. The victim was Abby Honold. The rape occurred in November 2014. Yes, there was evidence of injuries on the victim. Moreover, the perpetrator confessed to the crime. Ah, I see that you have already found links to relevant information.

In the more recent UMinn case, involving the suspended 10 black football players, DNA evidence from at least two of the accused was found during medical examinations of the victim. So the dispute is mostly about whether the sex was consensual. All of those black football players say it was. The woman says it was not.

The Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (what a self-conflicted name that is) office has said that although the victim's account of events has become more detailed with time, it has remained consistent. However, the stories told by the black football players are neither consistent with each other, nor are they self-consistent over time.

Minnesota president stands by bans: 'Much bigger than football'

So, on the face of things, the side to favor appears to be that of the purported victim. There is enough evidence from testimony for charges to be brought, if the standard for bringing them is probable cause, and the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is left to the trial jury.

And, yet, no charges were filed.

You are correct on one point. The University of Minnesota did as well as it could do, with regard to punishing the black football players for gang-rape. It was law enforcement and local prosecutors who "dropped the ball" that time.

Again, I say that race makes a difference in how laws are enforced, with accused blacks getting more favorable treatment than accused whites would get. In trying to prove as much, I must make use of such offenses and criminal trials as are known to me. I think that I already have a pretty good case, but it can, of course, always become better.

There is good statistical evidence that black offenders, generally, are punished with slightly greater severity than are whites for offenses of equal seriousness. But the reason isn't racism. It's recidivism. For misdemeanor offenses and, sometimes, for felonies, judges will impose a relatively lenient punishment if it is the accused's first offense. On the other hand, if this particular offender is up for his 2nd offense, his punishment will be greater. And more so, even, for a 3rd offense. The idea is that if the previous penalties weren't sufficient to deter repetitions of the crime, then a harsher penalty is called for.

Blacks have a (much) higher per capita rate of perpetration for most crimes. [There are a few exceptions, such as DUI.] Blacks are recidivist criminals (much) more often than are whites. As a result, their average penalty for a given crime is somewhat larger than the average penalty that whites get. It isn't racism, though. It's a result of the fact that the punishment is increased as the rap sheet lengthens.


Hm. Well, the University of Minnesota saw enough evidence in favor of the woman's testimony to act with as much decisiveness as it was able, by expelling the most culpable of the ten black football players. And there is the significant fact that this evidence, once made known to the remaining members of the football team, caused them to reverse their decision to boycott the big games of the season. How evidence so convincing to many, might yet not amount to probable cause with the local police, presents something of a mystery.

I'd like to add a point of clarification to what I said before about recidivism and the racially differing per capita rates for most crimes. Although it is true that the average black jail/prison sentence is somewhat more severe than is the average white jail/prison sentence, mostly on account of the increased punishment imposed on repeat offenders, I don't have data for black and for white offenders for specific crimes, broken down by first offenses, second offenses, third offenses. The FBI's annual publication Crime in the United States only goes so far.

But I would guess that if someone were to locate data on, say,

Armed Robbery
Following convictions for 1st offense
Court imposed punishment on convicted blacks: # days in prison
Court imposed punishment on convicted whites: # days in prison
Following convictions for 2nd offense
Court imposed punishment on convicted blacks: # days in prison
Court imposed punishment on convicted whites: # days in prison
Following convictions for 3rd offense
Court imposed punishment on convicted blacks: # days in prison
Court imposed punishment on convicted whites: # days in prison

Murder, 2nd degree
Following convictions for 1st offense
Court imposed punishment on convicted blacks: # days in prison
Court imposed punishment on convicted whites: # days in prison
Following convictions for 2nd offense
Court imposed punishment on convicted blacks: # days in prison
Court imposed punishment on convicted whites: # days in prison
Following convictions for 3rd offense
Court imposed punishment on convicted blacks: # days in prison
Court imposed punishment on convicted whites: # days in prison

...and so on, that whites would have somewhat the more severe punishments. In other words, recidivism makes the average black penalty a bit harsher than the average white penalty, but not by as much as it ought to.

I don't know that this is the case, of course. I lack the data to prove it either way. But it's a hypothesis that keeps suggesting itself.

Additionally, there should be racial statistics pertaining to an inmate's average time until parole and early release, or, equivalently, how much of the sentence a black or a white prisoner actually served.


He has a point though. The data that would be needed to answer some of the questions we were discussing just aren't available. A reason they aren't available might be the reluctance of the criminologists to collect, process, and present data that calls attention to racial differences in crime rates. Somebody might call the criminologist a racist, if he were to make these truths too plainly obvious.

Also, there are a few ways in which the data that do exist are obfuscated.

For example, the DoJ, including the FBI, lumps mestizos (persons of mixed Amerindian and white ancestry) into their "white offenders" category. Such persons are in fact a separate racial group and should be separately treated. (Some local jurisdictions have done so.) As a rule of thumb, their per capita rates for the perpetration of crimes of violence and crimes against property are near the geometric average of the same per capita rates for blacks and for whites.

This is something I noticed myself. If, say, the per capita rate for murder perpetration among whites is 1 murder per 100000 persons per year, and that of blacks is 9, then that of mestizos is usually around 3.

Another rule of thumb is that a rough correction, for the improper classification of mestizos as whites, to any "black-to-white per capita rate ratio" for the perpetration of a crime derived from Department of Justice sources, can be made by multiplying their ratio by 4/3. The black-to-(real whites) per capita perpetration rate ratio is about 4/3 higher than the black-to-(DoJ whites) per capita perpetration rate ratio.

It isn't a perfect correction, of course, but it's better than nothing.

Feminist Nonsense and Firefighting
Jenab6
jenab6
The near-equality of men and women for strength in modern society is the result of neither sex being (for the most part) particularly well-trained physically.

It's like dumbing down a test in school. Dumb it down far enough, and the retards can ace the test, just like the geniuses can, and nobody looking at the test scores would be able to tell which students were the smart ones. If you make the test harder, the brighter kids will still pass, while the retards will fail.

Just so, when both sexes are as physically developed as they can be, men are usually considerably stronger than women.

Among the weightlifting world champions, the men's records are consistently about 40% higher than the women's records.

Even with respect to lower-body strength, well-trained men excel in performance well-trained women.

In the 100-meter sprint, men run about 10% faster than women.
In the 400-meter sprint, men run about 12% faster than women.
In the 10-kilometer run, men run about 13% faster than women.

Strength is distributed normally within each sex, and there are indeed some women who are stronger than some men. But the average man is stronger than the average woman. The strongest human being is a male human being. If you match the sexes by percentile of strength, you'll find that in every case the men in the men's percentile is stronger than the women in the women's percentile.

And the difference isn't small.

That's the true reason for why the firefighting profession is not suited to women. And the reason that Affirmative Action is a bad thing in this profession is that the lives of innocent people often depend on the firefighter having enough strength to get the job done FAST. The FIRST time. Without having to wait for a radio call to FETCH SOMEONE ELSE who can get the job done.

Women who get jobs as forest rangers or firefighters often can't do the most physically demanding jobs, leaving these to the men who work alongside them, even though both sexes get the same pay. Get it?

Same pay + easier work for the women = resentment from the men

That's the real reason for the so-called "sexual harassment." The male firefighters don't like having to work harder because some of their female counterparts can't do the hard stuff, and so more of the hard stuff falls on their shoulders than would be the case if all firefighters were men.


Part 2. Blacks Like to Tell Themselves Pretty Lies

Some insight into how blacks think can be gained from listening to this video, however unintentionally ridiculous it might be. The narrator is the black holding the camera, not the black in the chair.



From the opening:

Narrator: Peace, family. Underground Railroad here, Nikolas bookstore. We here gettin' with the Brother Rasben. How ya doin' brotha?

Brother Rasben: Thankful. Bless.

Narrator: Brother It's good to have you again brother.

Brother Rasben: Good to be here.

Narrator: It's good to have somebody from the black community dat deals wif, you know, the science of UFOs and extraterrestrials and things of that nature. As I told the Brother Bluepill the other day, man, you gotta examine this from all angles, you know what I'm saying, an' ahm, you know, nobody's wrong, it's just a different pers-pers-perspective on things, you know, we each have our own idea, you know, we each, I guess we each got live in this relative reality or whateva an' you know dis is what you-you expert at, an' if the people can resonate wid it...

When I write a fantasy or a science-fiction story, I know that I'm fabricating for the purpose of entertainment. But that isn't what the blacks making this video are doing.

Nor is Rev. Louis Farrakhan merely trying to entertain when he hoaxes up the existence of an alien spaceship that likes Muslims so much that it will kill everyone else and hand the Earth over to Islam. He is serious, he is lying with the intent that we should be deceived, and he isn't just trying to amuse us with a science fiction story.

Blacks do this.

Also, many blacks subscribe to the idea that truth is like a multi-instance scenario in a computer game. Two players can send their characters into the same area and see different things because the software is written in such a way to enable it. A character in The Elder Scrolls Online summarized this idea of relative reality:

"Truth falls like a cool rain, carving many channels in the mud. My truth is different from the Dunmer's, yet both are still true." —Walks-in-Ash.

But in real life, that isn't how truth behaves. There is no "my truth" and "your truth" and "their truth." There is only the truth, and any opinion in conflict with it is simply wrong. By pretending that truth is relative, that all pers-pers-perspectives are equally correct, the blacks are trying to justify the idea that their views are owed respect, even when they are not, which is to say most of the time.

The Freedom From Religion
Jenab6
jenab6
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I've been an atheist since I was 14 years old. I came to atheism despite being raised as a preacher's son in the religion-heavy ambiance of southern Georgia. For a long time, I believed that the First Amendment in the Constitution of the United States established the separation of church and state. I believed it because lots of other atheists assured me that it was so. Now, however, I want to reconsider what it is that the First Amendment actually means, and what it does not mean.

Am I really an atheist? Yes. Do I consider Christianity to be culturally harmful? Yes. Do I think that mankind would be much better off without dogmatic, theistic religions? Yes. Do I find a "wall of separation" between church and state in the First Amendment? No—not in the sense that most atheists today use that phrase.

What I see is a constitutional prohibition on legislation by the US Congress affecting religion, and, because of the "separation of powers" principle that Congress alone may make federal laws, the prohibition applies to the federal government generally. Also, the principle of limited government, in which the federal government has only those powers delegated to it in the Constitution, implies that federal government agents may not, by their actions, affect religious practices as if there were such laws.

On the other hand, I don't see why this prohibition applies to the legislatures of any of the states. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments make it clear that the people have rights other than those protected explicitly in the US Constitution, and that there are powers which the federal government does not have, but which the states and the people do have.

Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

As a part of constitutional law, the Tenth Amendment is just as powerful, just as authoritative, and just as important as the First Amendment is. It says that any theory based on "extending" a US constitutional prohibition, applicable to the federal government, to include the legislatures of the states, is a specious result of invalid legal thinking. The Tenth Amendment makes clear that powers forbidden to Congress are not necessarily forbidden to the state legislatures. A prohibition upon Congress to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is one such power, forbidden to the federal government, but permitted to the states. Of course, it is certainly possible that the constitution of any state may forbid to the legislature thereof what the US Constitution also forbids to Congress, but this is a matter for the people in each of the states to decide for their own state.

I see that whereas the federal government is forbidden to make any law respecting an establishment of religion, including laws that (either!) combine or separate religion and government, any state may—provided its own constitution and the expressed will of the people both permit—either establish a religion or else establish a separation of church and state. Court decisions about the First Amendment to the contrary do not arise from the language of the Amendment itself, but may seem to arise from what was said in the past by persons contemporary with the Amendment's creation. But here, again, care must be taken not to interpolate into the written words what isn't really there.

For example, in an 1802 letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, then-President Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson believed that the First Amendment established a "separation of church and state" as a prohibition on the legislature "of the whole American people" (i.e., Congress) against making laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How much of a separation is that, exactly? Well, for one thing, Jefferson didn't say that the prohibition extended to state legislatures, since those aren't the legislature of the whole American people, but only part of them. Also, it appears that the wall is one-way. The federal government can "make no law" to coerce people into doing, or into refraining from doing, this or that religious thing, but it also must refrain from making laws (or decrees, or court decisions) preventing religious people from having their proportionate and fair say in how their government shall conduct its affairs.

The constitutional power of the federal government over the form of government held by the states is limited to ensuring that the states have "a republican form of government." No state may be ruled by a king or a tyrant. Beyond that, the federal government has no legal authority to restrict what laws any state may have. If the federal government's authority to intervene in states to guarantee a republican form of government means anything at all, it means that no state may sacrifice the rights of the majority of its people to any minority thereof. One should reflect that the epitome of a minority having all the rights while the majority has none is a dictatorship.

In this way are the rights of religious minorities protected from government coercion: that there can be no (federal) law to prevent their free exercise of religion. On the other hand, religious minorities may not use the powers of the federal government to transgress upon the rights of the majority, by depriving the majority of their right to the kind of government for which the taxes upon their work shall have paid. By "religious minorities," I include atheists, because atheists are certainly a group concerned with religion, even though they are not religious themselves. Atheists have an interest in the outcome and are thus players in the political game, not its officiates. Were the debate to be held around a polygonal table, the atheist chair should not be privileged to be at the center; it would properly be placed at one of the sides, with no more elevation than any of the other seats.

In other words, I believe that the US Supreme Court erred when deciding Engel v. Vitale in 1962, to prohibit the states from allowing schools to sponsor prayers. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing so, but the Tenth Amendment plainly exempts the governments of the states from sharing the burden of that prohibition and clearly means that the federal government, including its Supreme Court, may do nothing to prevent the states from the full use of their power to do whatever is not reserved to the federal government by the US Constitution. Not only was Engel v. Vitale incorrectly decided, but so were Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, on the basis of similar reasoning. Each of these decisions denies to the states powers that the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution recognizes them to have.

None of this reasoning has anything to do with my personal assessment of the wisdom of these rulings or the worth of their results. I'm simply declaring that the relevant portions of the US Constitution, as I understand them, don't mean what the US Supreme Court and numerous media celebrities have asserted them to mean.

In the past, when I supported the "Wall of Separation" idea, I argued that the laws that require the government to collect taxes, and require people to pay them, were laws that must not affect religion. But let us be clear on whom the First Amendment's prohibition falls. It falls on the federal government. Neither the people, nor the governments of the several states, share in that incapacity.

Although it's abundantly clear that Congress may not require prayers in public schools, it is equally clear that it may not forbid them. Either requiring or forbidding school prayer would necessitate a law, and any such laws (if made by Congress) would contravene the clear meaning of the "no law" phrase in the First Amendment.

In general, Congress can make no law that would prevent religious people from having influence on the minds of children in the public schools whose construction was made possible by taxes upon their labor. Such a prohibition would have the effect of enslavement because it would require religious people to work so that the public schools could advance the social agenda of a "religious minority," namely atheists, and thereby work harm to the culture of the very people who had paid to create those schools. It would be as if atheists could require religious people to manufacture knives, and then hand them over to the atheists, so that the atheists could stab the religious people with them.

Someone has proposed a theory in which the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the states to keep prayer out of public schools, even when they would rather include them therein.

However, the 14th Amendment never really became a part of the US Constitution. The bill that led toward such an Amendment was introduced and debated during a rump session of Congress from which representatives from several US states had been forcibly and unlawfully excluded, denying to those states their fair say in how that bill would be worded, what it would provide for, and so on.

Furthermore, the bill in the House of Representatives would have failed to pass a roll call vote if the excluded Southern Representatives had, instead, been seated.

All of the arguments that the Northern Congressmen used to justify the exclusion of the Southern Congressmen, while considering the 14th Amendment, fail for a number of reasons, but one of those reasons stands out in particular: when the Amendment being passed and ratified had been the 13th, the ratification by eight of the Southern states permitted establishment, when otherwise it would have failed.¹ If the Southerners were "good enough" to help the 13th Amendment to pass, then why weren't they allowed to vote on the 14th?

The obvious reason is that in the former case, the Southerners were in accord with a controlling agenda,² such that it and they both wanted slavery ended. But in the latter case, the Southern Representatives and Senators were in conflict with the controlling agenda with respect to some of the bill's provisions, and so in that instance they were blocked from the participation to which they and their states were constitutionally entitled. In other words, the exclusion of the Southerners was a political move: a constitutional crime carried out by pretext and under color of law. There never was a validly formed House-Senate joint resolution made of the bill purported to become the 14th Amendment, and what was submitted to President Andrew Johnson to sign wasn't really fit for his signature.

Then came the ratification fiasco, in which the federal government sent soldiers to hijack the lawfully elected governments of some of the southern states (South Carolina and Louisiana) and replace them with federally appointed stooges who went through the motions of a sham ratification, which the Congress unlawfully counted as if they were valid ratifications. There is no 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and there never was.

But let's pretend, as so many judges do, that the 14th Amendment were law and that its Equal Protection Clause had legal force. The person who proposed the argument to me, that the Equal Protection Clause requires the states to keep prayer out of public schools, said that when schools allow prayers, they infringe on the rights of persons who practice religions different from the person who is leading the school in prayers, thus denying them the equal protection of the laws.

But that argument is itself a sham. If the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is construed to require that religion be kept out of public schools, then the atheists will gain more protection of the laws than any of the religious groups do. The agenda of the atheists will have been served at the expense of the wishes of all of the religious groups, thus denying every religious group the equal protection of the laws.

Bottom line. Interests on the subject of religion in public schools are irreconcilable. There is no possible neutrality in the matter, and the pretense that favoring an atheist policy is the same thing as neutrality is a whopping big lie. Someone is necessarily going to have their toes stepped on.

Since you can't help but step on someone's toes, the law should seek to step on the fewest toes. Which means that the decision of whether to have prayer in the public schools, and, if so, then which religion should be preferred, should be a matter for the people in each state to decide democratically. This is a fairer solution because the majority, which pays most of the taxes to build the schools, will also have its way in the matter of religion. Minorities, if they feel strongly about it, can always build themselves private schools and send their children to be educated in them, or they can emigrate to a place where their religion is held by the majority of the people.


(1) If the 13th Amendment had failed, then there would have been no particular reason for the prior parts of the bill purported to be the 14th Amendment. But so far as the Jewish bankers were concerned, the primary purpose of the "14th Amendment," and the reason for which the Union sent armies to strip Louisiana and South Carolina of their republican forms of government—in direct violation of the constitution—and conduct sham ratifications by means of imported stooges, was one of the later provisions of the bill's text, specifically Section 4:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Combine that with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and you can see where the Jews were going.

(2) The "controlling agenda" to which I referred was that of the Jewish bankers in Britain and in Europe, for whom the usefulness of slavery in America had run its course. Thenceforth, the international Jews preferred a new program of using racial tensions between the whites and the descendants of the former slaves to distract the Americans from Jewish political moves, such as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, and the slavish devotion of US politicians to the gains and the goals of world Zionism.

The Evolution of the Worldwide Jewish Banking Scam
Jenab6
jenab6
You might be wondering how the worldwide Jewish money scam evolved historically. Most people assume that their governments and the banks acted in good faith in the public interest. They could not be more wrong.

During the middle ages, gold coins were used as money. Gold is heavy, and thieves would try to steal it. So people who had a lot of gold, but who didn't have any safe places of their own to keep it, began renting strongboxes from others who promised to keep the gold secure. For a fee, of course. Think of it as a rented locker for gold coins.

Most of the people who owned the deposited gold were European nobles. Most of the people to whom the gold was entrusted for safekeeping were goldsmiths, and most of the goldsmiths were Jews. Whenever a European noble would leave some gold with a Jewish goldsmith for safekeeping, he would get a receipt for the amount of gold he'd deposited, and by this receipt he would claim his gold again when he had need of it, reduced by the amount the Jew charged as his fee.

As the years went by, the nobles discovered that they could use the receipts as money of the "bearer bond" sort. Whenever the noble wanted to buy something, he didn't like to go running to the Jew to make a partial withdrawal of his deposit—especially since the Jew was charging for that service also. Instead, when he made his deposit, he had the Jew write him receipts for 1%, 5%, 10% portions of the gold on deposit, which added up to 100% altogether. And when the noble bought something from somebody, he would sign over the ownership of one of these fractional receipts to the seller. By this means paper money came into common use. Originally, it was a certificate by which an amount of precious metal could be claimed.

For a while, it is possible that the Jewish goldsmiths were scrupulously honest in their accounting. Maybe. But things didn't stay that way. Over time, the Jews discovered that the nobles had come to rely on their paper receipts as money, and they hardly ever came to call upon him for a return of their deposited gold. By careful estimation, the Jews calculated that they could safely begin using about 90% of this gold as they pleased. So what they started doing was lending the gold to third parties at interest. The Jews had no right to do this, since the gold didn't really belong to them, and each loan carried a risk of default or of simply being stolen by thieves.

Remember that the whole point of the Jews keeping the nobles' gold was to keep it safe, in a strongbox, so that thieves would not have an opportunity to steal it. So not only did the Jews begin taking income from lending valuable property that was not theirs to lend, the very act of their using the deposited gold in this manner was a breach of contract with the nobles who really did own the gold. The Jews had begun putting at risk what they had promised to shield from risk.

More time went by, and a further financial development came about. Instead of releasing to borrowers any of the gold right away, the Jews started writing promissory notes on the deposited gold. That's a note that promised to pay gold to someone who borrowed it—from the Jewish goldsmith, who didn't really own the gold that he was promising to pay with. Instead of walking out of the goldsmith's office with any actual gold, a borrower walked out with a promise written on a piece of paper. (A Jew's promise was supposed to be "as good as gold." Go ahead and laugh.) So now there was, upon each coin of gold in the Jews' strongbox, two written instruments by which it might be claimed. The first one was the receipt that the Jew had given to the noble, whose property the gold really was. The second one was the promissory note that the Jew had given to a borrower. And both the receipts and the promissory notes entered general circulation as paper money.

Since the Jews had taken the step of creating more possible claims on gold coins than could be satisfied by the number of gold coins they had, there didn't seem to be any reason for them to hesitate about issuing a second promissory note upon each gold coin, and then a third, and so on. And charge the full rate of interest against each borrower, as if they could have paid them all in real gold.

But although each gold coin could be claimed by more than one written instrument, the rate at which the Jews had to produce the actual gold coins was low enough that they never got caught short. If anyone had known that the Jews would be caught short of gold were all of the possible claimants to present their demands, there would have been a "run on the bank" as each depositor and each borrower tried to make sure that he wasn't one of the persons upon whom the Jew would have to default. But by maintaining the illusion that there was enough gold to pay everybody, the Jews were able to continue making promises to pay that they could not keep, and so they were also able to continue extracting interest on loans of gold whose aggregate principal was several times greater than the amount of gold—other people's gold!—that was actually in their strongboxes.

This was sort of a gamble for the Jews, during these early days of the Jewish banking swindle. If the nobles and the kings had caught on to the Jews' tricks soon enough, then matters could have been set aright by sending the king's soldiers to forcibly seize all the gold and to execute the offending, presumptuous Jews. But the European nobility did not catch on in time, or else they did not see where the Jews were going with their scam and so did not muster the necessary amount of concern to nip it in the bud.

And so the devil's seed grew. The Jews kept getting richer and richer by lending out other people's gold, and lending it in several different directions at once, while the working classes kept getting poorer and poorer because of the interest that the Jews charged on their loans. (For an explanation of how usury impoverishes nations, see the video Swindling the Goyim at the link below.)

Eventually, the Jews had so much money by this means that kings who found themselves in need of funding started coming to them for loans, which meant that the Jews began to have financial leverage over the governments of Europe. Leverage that could be used, for example, to start wars. The Jews had an incentive to start wars because, being expensive, wars forced governments to borrow from them further and going ever more deeply into debt, which provided the Jews with an income from the interest. The more war, the more borrowing, the more debt, the more interest, the more wealthy the Jews got, the more the Jews could incite more wars, forcing governments to do more borrowing... and so on.

And that's why Europe's history went the way it did, for the past 400 years.

Several Jewish families, including the Rothschilds and the Warburgs, formalized their financial swindles as banking houses. It was still the same assortment of cheats and tricks, only now it had a patina of respectability from the spaciousness of the lobby, the sumptuousness of its furnishings, the dress and grooming of its employees, etc. And this predatory Jewish activity continues today as the Federal Reserve System,* the Bank of England, the House of Rothschild, and other institutions that might strike you as respectable until you know what they really are: huge financial frauds, the like of which the law should never treat with friendly hands, improperly, immorally, and treasonously given legal sanction.

Henry Ford, writing in the Cleveland News on 20 September 1923, recognized that the only way for the world to escape from the snare of Jewish finance was to round up all of the Jews who were involved in its scams and "control them"; i.e., either execute them or hold them fast and incommunicado in a prison until they died.

"Get hold of fifty of the wealthiest Jewish financiers, the men who are interested in making wars for their own profit. Control them, and you will put an end to it all." —Henry Ford

Here's a YouTube video by Bamboo Delight Productions that gives a humorous but factual examination of the Jewish banking system, explaining why usury, or charging interest on a loan, is always a scam.

* The current FRS chairman, Janet Yellen, is Jewish. She’s the 15th Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, and the 7th Jewish Chairman. The names of the Jewish chairmen of the FRS are: Eugene Isaac Meyer, Eugene Robert Black, Arthur Frank Burns, Paul Adolph Volcker, Alan C. Greenspan, Ben Shalom Bernanke, and Janet Yellen. Of the remaining eight, two Chairmen (William P. G. Harding and Daniel Richard Crissinger) were of near-Jewish ancestry. And we can probably assume that the other six were men whom the Jews believed friendly to themselves. (I’ve heard conflicting summaries of the ancestry of Roy Archibald Young.)

The population of the United States is 2% Jewish.


Part 2. Swindling the Goyim: Secrets of Banking


Other videos.

We're All Debt Slaves, by Black Pigeon.
The Money Masters, on the Youtube channel of Educate Plus.
A System of Tyranny Built on Debt, on the Youtube channel of Charlie Galvis.


Part 3. The Swallow and the Other Birds
A Fable by Aesop

It happened that a Countryman was sowing some hemp seeds in a field where a Swallow and some other birds were hopping about picking up their food.

"Beware of that man," said the Swallow.

"Why, what is he doing?" asked the other birds.

"That is hemp seed he is sowing. Be careful to pick up every one of those seeds, or else you will regret it."

But the birds paid no heed to the Swallow's warning, and by and by the hemp grew up and was made into cord. Of this cord, nets were made, and many of the birds who had disregarded the Swallow's advice was caught in those nets.

"What did I tell you?" asked the Swallow of the doomed birds.

MORAL: Destroy the seed of evil, or it will grow up to your ruin.

The Folly of Disparate Impact Laws
Jenab6
jenab6
Yes, the disparate impact doctrine certainly is unsound.

Those differing groups of people that we commonly call “races” — as we might as well since the word exists, and there’s a real phenomenon to which it refers, and there’s no particular reason to go inventing other words that mean the same thing — differ in many ways. Some of the differences are trivial, unimportant, or “cosmetic.” Other difference have profound social significance: so much of it, in fact, that no social order built in ignorance of them, or in defiance of them, will long endure.

One of the most important ways in which races are known to differ is in average intelligence. The African blacks have the lowest average IQs, which range into the IQ 50s up to about IQ 75, depending on which African country you may be studying. The mulattoes residing in North America have, on the average, about 20% white ancestry, and that is enough to elevate their IQs to about 85, which is significantly greater than that of the more racially pure African blacks.

Whites have, on the average, an IQ of about 102, which is much higher than the average IQ of North American blacks.

Modern society requires people who are able to learn quickly and learn much, in order to create and to maintain its technical infrastructure. If that infrastructure is to be prevented from failing, to the harm of us all, then the people selected to do the creating and the maintenance must be people who actually can do the necessary work.

Let us suppose that for a particular job, a minimum IQ of 130 is required for satisfactory performance. The employer does not care what race of worker he hires, but he does demand that all of his workers be able to do their work well. So he offers his job openings to all applicants on equal terms.

f(μ) = ½ − [σ√(2π)]⁻¹ ∫(x̄,μ) exp{ −[(x−x̄)/σ]²/2 } dx

You can avoid integrating the probability density function if you have a handy error function to call.

f(μ) = 1 − ½ { 1 + erf [(μ-x̄)/(σ√2)] }

For US-resident whites, x̄=102 and σ=15.

For US-resident blacks, x̄=85 and σ=13.

Here’s the result, in the table below (μ, f for whites, f for blacks, w/b ratio):

100, 0.553035117, 0.124281624, 4.449854277
105, 0.420740291, 0.061967903, 6.789648694
110, 0.296901429, 0.027235195, 10.90138802
115, 0.193062337, 0.010508128, 18.37266686
120, 0.115069670, 0.003547972, 32.43251678
125, 0.062596873, 0.001045746, 59.85856319
130, 0.030974076, 0.000268549, 115.3387727 ← employer’s required minimum
135, 0.013903448, 0.000059993, 231.7503113
140, 0.005649173, 0.000011645, 485.1292607

If the minimum IQ required for satisfactory job performance is 130, then about 3% whites who might apply for the job would actually deserve to get it, while only 0.027% of black who might apply for the job would be worthy of serious consideration. If the white and black population sizes were the same, then you would expect the employer to hire 115 whites for each black that he hires.

But in the United States, whites outnumber blacks by a ratio of about five. So in a demographically typical part of the USA, a completely fair employers, without using the slightest bit of racism, would hire 577 whites for each black that he hires.

And that’s why high-tech industries are mostly white. It isn’t racism during the hiring process. It’s a real difference between the races in who qualifies on the basis of intelligence, and who does not qualify on the same basis.

Laws that try to force industries hire minorities in proportions that reflect their demographic percentages do nothing more than sabotage the effectiveness and the competitiveness of those industries. That is what disparate impact laws do, and that is why disparate impact laws are intellectually unsound.

?

Log in