Archive for February, 2011

Update: he’s white; he’s just got a shitty photograph.

Radical anti-white activist Jon Christian (senior at Vanderbilt University, Editor-in-Chief of leftist propaganda rag ORBIS Magazine, and possible affirmative action recipient white guy with shitty photograph) is in a rage just jokingly upset (to the point that he had to post about it) over the disgusting news that Texas State students are offering scholarships exclusively for white males.

Turns out that women, gays, and of course blacks and other racial minorities have their own scholarships. So these uppity white men decided it was “fair” and “right” to have their own scholarships, and formed the Former Majority Association for Equality (FMAE)—”a San Marcos-based nonprofit group that is offering five $500 scholarships exclusively to white male students.” Those FASCISTS.

Colby Bohannan [president of the FMAE] said that when he first applied to college, his family didn’t have a huge stockpile of money set aside to pay for school. He found many scholarships for women and minorities, but none aimed at people like him: white men.

“I felt excluded,” said Bohannan, a Texas State University student. “If everyone else can find scholarships, why are we left out?”

Because you’re white, of course. White people are smart, responsible, polite, peaceful, and law abiding, beautiful, inventive, artistic, and (crucially) nice to all the other races, and people like Jon Christian want to take advantage of that. They want to grab power by using your guilt over things you didn’t do, to people who died a long time ago. You might say they want to enslave you. Metaphorically speaking, of course. At least, for now.

But what’s the future for whites in America?

Majority minority

In his rambling post, Christian seems to have confused taking cheap shots out of racial [self-]hatred against whites with argumentation. It starts with Bohannan’s point that “if you’re not a male, and if you’re not white, you’re called a minority.” This designation is used to distinguish the poor, disadvantaged (good) people from the other (bad) people: white men. And yet, Bohannan continues, “I’m not sure white males are the majority anymore,” to which Christian responds with a stupefyingly tedious, humorless, and myopic explanation of the meaning of the word “majority.” Talk about missing the point:

Recent U.S. census data indicate Bohannan is right, at least in Texas, where Hispanics accounted for two-thirds of the population growth over the past decade and where non-Hispanic whites now make up about 45 percent of residents.

Christian goes on to accuse the scholarship fund of wanting to “roll back that pesky women’s suffrage legislation,” then makes fun of Bohannan’s major, mass communication. That’s some real fine debating there, Jon. But the best (by which I mean worst) is yet to come.

White crime

Christian actually bitches about the FMAE executive’s criminal history (gasp). What criminal history could a couple of white college kids have? Well, here it is, in its entirety:

Bohannan said he was charged with theft after authorities found a county speed limit sign in his Texas State dorm room and with writing a bad check for groceries, also while in college. Lake [the FMAE’s treasurer] said he was charged with writing a bad check while managing a now-defunct business he started. Both said the charges have been disposed of.

Complaining about white crime—in this case, stealing road signs and bouncing a couple of checks? Hm. In other news:

You people make me sick. And by you people, I mean you people.

More “anti-racist” hypocrisy

Bohannan and Lake’s crime sprees aside, we all know this scholarship fund is just a front for white racism and misogyny, right?

Bohannan said the nine-member volunteer board includes three women, one Hispanic and one African American.

Oh. But let’s shut them down anyway!

One opinion column that ran in the Texas State newspaper, the University Star, offered praise for evening the scholarship playing field, while another argued aid should not be given on the basis of race or ethnicity at all.

Yeah, aid should never be given on the basis of race or ethnicity!* (*Unless that race or ethnicity is one of those Designated Victim Groups, who can do no wrong: Negroes, Hispanics, and Muslims, yes; whites, East Asians, and Jews, no.)

This is encouraging, though:

Bohannan’s group isn’t the first to offer scholarships only for white students. In 2006, Boston University’s College Republicans created a program with similar requirements. A Republican group at a university in Rhode Island offered a similar award in 2004.

Maybe whites won’t need that race war after all! Awwwwww. Now I’m a sad panda bear (the least racist of all bears!).


Let’s take one more look at what these crazy racist misogynists think (emphasis mine):

Bohannan said his group is not taking any stance for or against affirmative action.

“It’s time in our society to look at the way our culture views race,” he said. “It’s time to give everyone an equal shot.”

Not according to people like Jon Christian, it isn’t. In their minds, it’s always time to keep whitey down.

(Incidentally, Christian also supports the DREAM Act. Meanwhile, in the waking world, illegal alien filth continues to pile up in our once beautiful country.)

In conclusion: Jon Christian, you’re an asshole. (Full disclosure: so am I. More on race denialist debate tactics here. More on the myth of white privilege here).


This is the mind-numbing details regarding the claim that “if you’re not a male, and if you’re not white, you’re called a minority,” but “I’m not sure white males are the majority anymore” update, also known as the “why do I bother putting thought into my comments when my opponents can barely read at a grade twelve level” update.

See, Bohannan was contrasting minorities, which today means “disadvantaged sociological groups” (e.g., women before suffrage and blacks before civil rights), and does not mean numerical minorities (because every group of interest is a numerical minority, so what would be the point of labeling them as such?), with the majority, which—being the opposite of “minority” in the above sense—would mean the dominant, advantaged group (e.g., white men before suffrage and civil rights). That’s what he meant by “majority” vs. “minority”; I suppose this is why “some writers prefer the terms ‘subordinate group’ and ‘dominant group’ rather than ‘minority’ and ‘majority’, respectively,” according to Wikipedia. Less confusing that way.

Now, white men are no longer “the opposite of a minority,” because they are not a dominant, advantaged group (in light of suffrage, civil rights, and their declining share of the population). Thus, if you insist on calling blacks and women “minorities” (i.e., disadvantaged groups; not minorities in the trivial sense that they are less than 50% of the population), then you have to accept that white men aren’t a “majority” (i.e., dominant group) anymore. Therefore Bohannan is correct.

Just keep staring at it until you see why I’m right.

Read Full Post »

Quarantine zone

I recently decided to post some of my more serious attempts at creative writing over at the Fiction Quarantine Zone, where the resulting damage can be minimized (links at top and side). The non-fiction and random silliness will continue here, in the main section of Unamusement Park.

Our first installment is a thin slice of insanity I call Reactor Safety Protocols. As always, if you only came here for the virulent racism (and now sexism, too), feel free to skip.

Read Full Post »

Everybody’s looking for me

Recent search engine terms leading to Unamusement Park:

  • white pride: it’s fun for all ages!
  • “achievement gap” iq: you came to the right place.
  • debate tactics of the ignorant: you came to the wrong place.
  • unamused hot girls: part of me hopes this is just a young man (or lady) who’s really into unamused girls. (Nothing gets me harder than a look of disdain.)
  • france hot girls: this might be one of my searches, actually.
  • hot french girl: oh yeah, definitely me.
  • typical french girl: why bother when you could have a hot one? (Most popular search?!)
  • ordinary french girl: I don’t understand you people.
  • hot french fuk: also me.
  • grels france sexy: the sexiest grels come from France.
  • draw me like your french girls: looking for either this or this, I suppose.
  • french woman’s face: just the face? What about the boobs?
  • traditional french dress or dresses: you definitely came to the right place!
  • french women ethnic heritage: honestly, still kinda turns me on.
  • french things: Unamusement Park is your source for all French things, including hot girls, typical and ordinary girls, hot fuks, sexy grels, women’s faces, traditional dresses, ethnic heritage, and of course . . . boobs.
  • sweden hot girl: psh. Sweden.
  • blowjob practice: keep at it honey, you’ll get there soon. Watch the teeth.
  • women give bj: I like to think it’s a question. Posed by a nine-year-old.
  • female soldier blowjob: so . . . this is a thing now.
  • girl on girl uncensored action: exactly twice as popular as jared taylor on jim crow laws (uncensored action).
  • hot girl fucked very hard: you don’t always have to fuck her hard. In fact, sometimes, that’s not right to do.
  • live fucking with hot girls: I’m basically running a porn site now. It’s time I learned to live with it.
  • x hoot fuck sex: I, too, often hoot while I fuck sex.
  • sexy hot anal no: there’s nothing more sexy hot than anal—NO.
  • hot female pussy: the best kind.
  • sexy fuck girls hard cock: a sexy fuck from a girl’s hard cock—wait a minute . . .
  • irish fuck girl: the best kind of Irish girl is an Irish fuck girl—although I suppose the best kind of Irish fuck is an Irish fuck girl, too.
  • india girl beauty fuck: the best kind of India girl fuck is a—never mind.
  • indiagirlfuck: short and to the point.
  • do white girls like indian men: no. They don’t.
  • mauritania girls: I don’t recommend you try this search yourself . . . shudder.
  • thin girls hight 5.6: can only get off with a thin, 5’6″ girl. Join the club, bro.
  • white girl vs asian girl: ah, the ancient rivalry—although, with as many keystrokes, he could have had “white girl on asian girl.” Unamusement Park is your source for search optimization!
  • black girls fucking white men: er . . . to each his own. Different strokes, as they say.
  • femboi: your kind isn’t welcome here.

Read Full Post »

Ned Hamson reports that some dumb, stupid, insane people in Arizona—possibly suffering from sunstroke—want to flood our campuses with guns!

Well, actually, they want to make it easier for law-abiding students to carry weapons. The law would make it neither easier nor more difficult for criminals to carry guns, since criminals break laws—by definition.

Jared Lee Loughner went to Pima Community College in Arizona. So fucking what? Do you think, if he had decided to shoot up his alma mater instead of a parking lot, that a more stringent concealed carry law would have stopped him? Or would it instead have merely prevented any law-abiding student or teacher from carrying the means to defend himself from Mr. Loughner?

Nearly everyone is not a violent criminal. Obviously violent criminals are not having any problem getting, carrying, and using guns; equally obviously, ordinary people are having problems (because of people like Hamson). If everyone had a gun, violent criminals would be so outnumbered that Mr. Loughner’s pulling one in a parking lot would be instant suicide, instead of the start of a massacre. If no one is allowed to have a gun . . . well, people like Mr. Loughner will still have one. That much is perfectly clear. So which of these scenarios is preferable?

Last Action Hero

Hamson responds:

If you think that everyone carrying guns would assure that someone like the Tuscon shooter would not have acted or would have been instantly killed by a gun toting by-stander, you are welcome to think so but why was it that people, in general, stopped carrying guns or, in real life, never really did?

Life may sometimes resemble film but it is not.

Yeah, I hear that a lot: “Life isn’t like the movies.” It’s stupid. Don’t dismiss this as an action movie fantasy. Armed self defense happens, and I honestly don’t see how everyone carrying guns (and knowing how to use them) would not have stopped the Tucson shooter.

Some disagree, though; let’s give them a fair hearing. Hamson quotes an article by Ryan Brown of CampusProgress.org (via WireTap Magazine), who may have reached the pinnacle of gun control stupidity:

Right, because when we allow people to carry guns, justice always triumphs. Remember Loughner’s rampage? At least one man in the parking lot that day had a gun—and in the chaos of the moment nearly used it to shoot the wrong person. And since some 40 percent of Arizona adults own a gun, he almost certainly wasn’t the only one packing heat in that Safeway parking lot. But six people are still dead. No citizen justice came to the rescue that day.

Listen, Ryan Brown, and all you other CampusProgress.org assholes: you can’t take the guns away from the citizens, then sneer when no hero comes to rescue a parking lot full of innocent people. But note that even when an armed bystander doesn’t use his weapon, that’s one more reason to ban non-criminals from carrying guns (non-criminals being the only people affected by gun control laws):

“They always say, ‘What if someone with a concealed weapon was there and could stop this,’ ” said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. “Well there was, and he almost shot the wrong person.” [As always, emphasis mine; stupidity hers.]

As for Zamudio, he said he was glad he had his gun that day and knows he did the right thing, even if he was not able to stop the shooting.

“I wish I had stopped him sooner,” Zamudio said. “We’re all responsible to help.”

“We’re all responsible to help”? Not according to Kristen Rand, you’re not. She’s not a big fan of self defense.

Citizen Justice would actually be a cool name for an action hero

Brown even cites statistics that refute her own suicidally irresponsible anti-gun politics:

In fact, guns are rarely used in self defense at the scene of a crime. Although researchers dispute the exact figure, as few as 0.2 percent of all gun use during a crime is self-defensive—and many of those responsive shots are fired by police officers.

The “logic” of gun control would make Aristotle weep. Apparently, soooo many criminals are using guns against defenseless victims that we, uh—we can’t allow citizens to carry guns. Yes, Brown wants to bring that 0.2 percent down, whereas a rational person would want it to be closer to, say, 100 percent.

Reefer madness

Gun control laws only help campus shooters, and the occasional accidental shooting is no reason to ban guns on campuses.

Dr. Cowie [father of an accidental campus shooting victim] told Senators he believes guns on campus should be left for campus police, not students. He says students are all too frequently drinking and doing drugs.

Yeah, college students. It’s time to turn all your guns over to the proper authorities (who, being paragons of efficiency and competence, will surely make better use of them) because you’re all just drunks and junkies. By that standard, we should ban Negroes from owning guns. Actually, come to think of it . . .

Florida State Police Chief David Perry said, “It’s our job to police the campus and keep them safe. It’s not the students.”

Well, you fail, Police Chief Perry. You can’t keep jack shit safe. So do us all a favor: let the kids have their guns, and take a fucking vacation.

Dear gun control advocates: thank you. Sincerely, criminals.

Home invaders and carjackers would like to thank you, Ned Hamson and Ryan Brown and everyone at WireTap Magazine and CampusProgress.org (H/T destructure). I would merely like to say: go fuck yourselves, and though I would not wish violent crime upon anyone, except violent criminals, who ought to be worked to death in slave labor camps while gleeful schoolchildren on class trips watch and applaud, I nevertheless hope you are very nearly the victim of a gun crime in the very near future.

Update: CampusProgress.org has deleted my comment on Ryan Brown’s article. The comment outlined these same arguments (with documentation), and was a response to a commenter who wrote that the Arizona law was “obviously idiotic and not grounded in fact.” (I suggested it was about time he or she learned that calling an idea “obviously idiotic” does not constitute a rebuttal.)

Read Full Post »

I use WordPress.com’s Tag Surfer feature the way sharks use the lateral line. The way the Predator used infrared vision.

No, not to eat fish. Or Arnold Schwarzenegger. To find prey. (And sometimes, accidentally, people I agree with.)

Disparate impact

Random black guy Perry Redd wonders: do you feel American?

I have to ask myself, like any other American, do I feel American? One thing I know, is that if I voice that I don’t, I may get attacked by the Right as not being so. So I better be careful of what I say…naw, I don’t think so! I don’t feel American; and there’s a damned good reason why.

And what is that “damned good reason”? (Dramatic music . . .) Disparate impact.

I’ve said in several of my commentaries past that “[blacks are] under attack.” . . . What we know is that there’s a disconnect that hinders Blacks from evenly competing in American society. The perks and the work must come at the same rate for all races. If it doesn’t, then we, Black people, fall behind.

You couldn’t ask for a more perfect illustration of the disparate impact fallacy. “We know there’s a ‘disconnect’ hindering blacks, because obviously everyone is equal, so if blacks aren’t getting the same perks and the same work, it must be discrimination!”

What am I talking about? Since Blacks have been shown to “underperform” on standardized tests and graduation rates, getting to the root causes of the “underperformance” is crucial. What we know is that all human beings have pretty much equal potential from birth [emphasis mine; idiocy his]. The environmental circumstances dictate how well a person may or may not do.

I felt compelled to respond to that remark: “That is completely false, which I will now prove.

“Human potential varies wildly from person to person, and from group to group, because of genetic differences. For example, the heritability of human height is 60–80%, which means only 20–40% is environmental. If your parents are both five foot five, sorry, you’re not getting into the NBA.

“The heritability of intelligence, as measured by IQ, is about 0.75, according to the best available data: twin studies (Steven Pinker). Furthermore, IQ tests of over 800,000 people, all over the world, show significant race differences in average IQ, the most significant example for our purposes being: white people 99, sub-Saharan Africans 67 (80 after accounting for environmental factors).

“I [almost] forgot to mention these fifty experts who agree with all of the above.” Five days One month later, my comment is still awaiting moderation. (I don’t know what I thought would happen . . .)

Mr. Redd’s also got some specific thoughts on our education system.

Blacks (and the Supreme Court) have learned that a lack of resources, lack of exposure and/or a lack of proper teaching methods can hinder a student from attaining superior results. When this happens, its not accidental.

A Pennsylvania high school has scrapped a mentoring program, which allowed students to be taught by instructors of their same race for a few minutes each day. What followed was a storm of criticism over the initiative. Why the criticism?

Maybe because it wasn’t quite as benign as allowing “students to be taught by instructors of their same race for a few minutes each day.” Or I guess it could be evil white racists keeping Negroes down? Let’s find out.

McCaskey East High School in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, instituted what it described as a pilot program meant to enrich “students’ experiences through mentoring” and was derived from research “that shows grouping black students by gender with a strong role model can help boost their academic achievement and self esteem,” according to a school statement. The junior class at McCaskey East voluntarily divided themselves “by gender, race and/or language.” The groups met for six minutes each day and for 20 minutes twice a month.

Educators at the school said they initially “noticed strong bonds being formed between all students and mentor teachers,” according to a statement.

So in this case, the myth that blacks learn better from other blacks lead directly to a school instituting (self-)re-segregation. Here is the whole story. It’s not a completely terrible idea: get black girls together once a day to talk about black girl issues, and the same for black boys, and all the other race/gender combinations. It’s a little unsavory—I mean, why can’t white kids be around while blacks are talking about black issues? Wouldn’t every race and gender benefit from an open discussion of the unique failings of black boys and girls? And then there’s the principle of the matter:

Though the principal of the school defended the policy, some analysts—critics—said the experiment was misguided. . . . A 1954 Supreme Court case ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, overturning an earlier ruling in a decision that determined “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The critics used Brown v. Board to undergird their argument.

. . . These critics are the epitome of attacking black (and minority) men. Unfortunately, corporate mainstream media giant, CNN, reported the story I refer to, and thus failed to identify the critics. That’s sort of like, the Klu Klux Klan [sic]: you know someone opposes you, but their hood keeps them anonymous.

Yes, failing to identify by name those who dare to cite Brown v. Board of Education in opposition to school segregation based on the the myth of black learning styles is certainly “sort of like” the “Klu Klux Klan.”

How subtle this institutional racism really is: you can’t even see it.


Samantha Peterson is reflecting on diversity education.

My assignment for this week is to reflect on what I would present to a group of professionals if I had five minutes to discuss the issue of diversity. . . . Our goal as educators is first and foremost to develop children into respectful, productive members of society. We want each and every child to realize his/her potential and create a meaningful existence. We also strive to help children develop into good, moral, and virtuous individuals. To help every child reach these goals we need to be not only aware but also active about recognizing the differences that exist within our classrooms and in our society as a whole. These differences are what make each student unique and special, but are also what challenge us as educators.

I’m with her so far.

How do we address so many differences in our teaching practice? To be successful in teaching a diverse student body we as educators must become culturally competent. Cultural competence means “(1) creating a nurturing classroom that honors and incorporates the cultural and linguistic heritages of all student members, (2) making connections with students as individuals and understanding how context influences their interactions with others, (3) providing structured communal learning opportunities, (4) using dynamic instructional techniques combined with positive and corrective feedback, (5) monitoring at-risk students frequently, (6) maintaining high expectations and affirming learning for all students, and (7) providing necessary services for students such as ELL” (Banks, J., 2009). All of these factors are components of a multicultural education.

Aha—here, I believe, is a problem. She (or rather, Banks 2009) snuck it in right before all the good stuff. This whole “creating a nurturing classroom that honors and incorporates the cultural and linguistic heritages of all student members” business sounds just swell . . . until you take a hard look at what those cultural heritages really are. Yes, I know, it’s terribly unfashionable to be a cultural absolutist, or whatever the opposite of a cultural relativist is, but there’s a whole big bag of things you could reasonably consider a part of black culture, say, or Middle Eastern culture, that have no place in an American classroom. Where do you draw the line?

Similarly, where does incorporating linguistic heritages (whatever that means) stop, and simply teaching every first-generation American in their native language begin?

This may seem like a minor detail, considering that I agree with just about everything else Ms. Peterson writes, but it’s actually crucial. At what point should a teacher tell her students, “that’s not how we do things in this country”—”that’s not how we speak in America”? Who decides that? You’ll get very different answers from an education theorist than from the average American white (who is still more or less the average American).

What are practical ways that I can apply a transformative multicultural education? The goals of a multicultural education are to effectively reduce prejudice against oppressed groups and to work toward social justice for all groups so that all students can achieve academically. Multicultural education is transformative because the major goal is to “change variables in the school such as, – its culture, its power relationships, the curriculum and materials, and the attitudes and beliefs of the staff – so that educational equality from diverse groups is promoted” (Banks, J., 2009). To achieve these goals teachers can implement differentiated instruction.

Unfortunately, even in the total absence of prejudice against these allegedly oppressed groups, no amount of social justice (which, in my little fantasy world, means equality under the law) is going to close the black-white(-Asian-Hispanic-Native American-etc.) achievement gap. Not even social injustice is going to work! Here I’m talking about affirmative action, racial quotas, and all the other flotsam and jetsam swept in by the tide of diversity. The gap is in our genes.

Only by acknowledging our differences and sharing our unique perspectives will students learn to effectively interact in a diverse environment.

Amen to that. Acknowledging our differences is what I do best.

Racial categorization

Blogger (possible superheroine?) Incognito Mom says enough with the racial categorization!

It started out innocently enough. The question had to do with race. “Please check all that apply.” Okay, I have no problem with that. I’ll be checking Asian and White because, well, that’s what Shorty is. I understand the logic behind allowing people to choose more than one race as we now have so many who come from more than one racial background.

But then I read this: “Please number in the order you would like them entered.” (Them being the race(s) checked off.) So, I now have to choose whether I consider my son more Asian or more white. Excuse my language but … WHAT THE FUCK?!!! . . . Why this need then on this form to force parents to number the race they want to be listed first? Is it because the computer program being used won’t make exceptions and insists on ordering things? (Then change the program being used please.) Is it because somewhere down the line if my child should qualify for scholarships or some other program he will only qualify if one or the other race is listed as his first race? [Emphasis mine.] Or is it just that this stupid world of ours still can’t accept that people don’t always fit nicely into categories but some people can’t accept that and insist we choose a category anyway?

Gotta make sure the right people get the right special treatment! Heaven forbid a white/Asian child should get a scholarship over an Asian/white child. I guess if you want to really cash in on the diversity sweepstakes, you should say your child is a black/black/black/gay/crippled/black hermaphrodite.

Kid’s gonna get teased some.

Okay, so I’m not actually arguing with Incognito Mom. Or Ms. Peterson, for that matter. I guess should have called this series “Unamused wanders around the internet picking blogs at random to talk about and maybe trying to start some shit.” Oh well.

Regarding the First Lady’s badonkadonk . . .

Unamusement Park: your source for pointless, whimsical, knee-jerk black/female solidarity.

First lady Michelle Obama, like alot of other black women are thick and curvacious, we are not all pencil thin. However, first lady Michelle exemplifies a confident black woman, who is extremely ‘comfortable in the hips that she’s in’.

So they Obama haters, need to back-up off her and stop examining her plate!

You go, girl.

Read Full Post »

It’s announcements day.

Unamusement Park is now uncensored for coarse language and nudity (not that there’s any of that). So you can say “fuck” and “shit” all you like, you fucking shitheads. However, use of the word “nigger” is still prohibited.

You n*ggers.

Along those lines, for those of you who missed it, this week’s theme was: Happy Valentine’s Day! Go fuck your hot cousin!

A record number of hits today, almost half of them on one particular post. And a record number of clicks, on one particular French honey. The things I would do to that jolie fille, you cannot imagine.

Hint: they are sex.

So what have we learned?

  1. Call your post “Hot white girls.”
  2. Link a hot French girl.
  3. Profit.

Also make sure Ferdinand Bardamu links you. Thanks, you magnificent bastard.

Speaking of unspeakable things, the little girl with pink hair makes me feel funny. Not in a bad way, I guess . . . just in a weird way. “It’s a piece of cake to bake a pretty cake”—yeah, I know what she really means, but that kind of consent won’t hold up in a court of law, will it? (Dual H/T: Riding with the King and In Mala Fide—you sick fucks.)

Pyrrhic victory: is there any other kind?

Finally, seriously, commenter DKH has some insights on affirmative action:

My company is a consulting engineering firm in Pennsylvania. We are highly qualified in the area of our expertise. We are locked out of nearly all City of Philadelphia work and a significant amount of state work because of the unfair Affirmative Action requirements.

. . . Affirmative Action is being abused today. It is a form of patronage not a form of positive training for minority and women business owners. Look at the statistics in Philadelphia and I suspect you will find that a few companies have become rich in the name of Affirmative Action but only a few have learned to compete in the real business world, moved on and opened a position for the next [Minority Business Enterprise/Woman Business Enterprise] company to have a chance.

As a citizen of this great country and a business owner who employs people in Pennsylvania, I feel it is about time all people and the companies they own are treated equally under the law – even white people!

What can be done? Or am I going to spend my entire working life in a racially outcast class unable to participate in the programs my tax dollars fund?

It’s time to end race-based affirmative action.

Read Full Post »

Via Reuters (Feb. 15):

CBS correspondent Lara Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the jubilation in Cairo’s Tahrir Square on the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, the U.S. broadcasting network said on Tuesday.

Logan, a 39-year-old South Africa native and longtime war correspondent, has since flown back to the United States and is recovering in hospital. She was one of dozens of journalists attacked during the three weeks of protests throughout Egypt.

CBS News said in a statement Logan was covering the celebrations for CBS’s “60 Minutes” program on Feb. 11 when she and her team were surrounded by “a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy.”

“In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers,” CBS said.

Not sure what this is doing in the article, though:

“Egypt’s old regime orchestrated a ferocious campaign to stop the news of this movement for change,” Paul Steiger, a member of the CPJ’s board and former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal said. . . . Steiger said attacks on Internet journalists, which often include cyberattacks [sic] and attacks on websites, must be closely monitored.

“The often invisible, sophisticated attacks constitute a new front in the fight for press freedom,” he said. “We need to pay close attention to Internet censorship.”

Yes, we certainly need to pay close attention to Internet censorship.

This is not “a ferocious campaign” by “Egypt’s old regime” we’re talking about here. This not a cyber attack. This is the completely predictable result of putting an attractive white woman in a crowd of hundreds of non-white rioters. (White people don’t riot or gang-rape anyone. We’re classy like that.) Steiger is just there to distract us from the real story, which CBS would rather cover up.

It doesn’t seem to be working.

Ferdinand Bardamu over at In Mala Fide can’t make up his mind whether Lara Logan is an idiot or a liar:

Fuck Lara Logan. Fuck her and the shit-for-brains idiot who thought it was a good idea to send a WOMAN to report from a war zone. Am I the only one with the balls to point out these undeniable facts:

  1. Women are the weaker, frailer sex. The average man is physically stronger than the average woman, and absent physical protection (in the form of other men, be they police, military or family) women are COMPLETELY at the mercy of men.
  2. Egypt is a nation resistant to feminism. Egyptian men do not “respect” women, unlike the pale, porn-addicted, gelded fembois [sic] of America and Europe.
  3. A riot, by definition, is an event defined by its lack of law and order – meaning that the structures that protect women from the predations of men do NOT exist.
  4. Logan is a white foreigner, and is thus despised by the violent hordes who believe their government to be in thrall to hers.

You send a chick into a situation like the one in Egypt, you might as well hang a sign around her neck that says “FREE FUCKTOY”. . . . Did she really think that the teeming, America-hating, angry, sex-starved crowds of men she was surrounded by wouldn’t view her as a tasty treat? Is she THAT clueless about the non-Western world? Or did she truly think that her crew of yes-men could protect her every time she touched down in Surprise Sex Country?

dissention has similar questions:

Did she seriously expect to be not manhandled in an environment with tens of thousands of young non-pussy whipped men and no law enforcement?

In Iraq, she was ’embedded’ with US soldiers and things were under control. Did she really think that being around whipped soldiers is the same as standing in a crowd of young aggressive men?

Harsh. But fair? I wonder: who is ultimately to blame for Logan’s dangerously irresponsible behavior?

Yes, women are the weaker sex, so without male protectors, women are at the mercy of male aggressors—like the rioters she knew she would be covering. Hurray for patriarchy! Yes, foreign countries—like the one she knew she would be visiting—are full of these “violent hordes” who do not respect women, and hate and attack whites wherever they find them. Hurray for white people! So how could Logan possibly think this was a good idea?

Does it have something to do with living in a society of “pale, porn-addicted, gelded fembois”?

Logan is absolutely that clueless about the non-Western world. She’s one more victim of America’s sick masochistic fetish for anti-white, anti-male (in other words, anti-success) bigotry, including feminism, multiculturalism, anti-racism, and all the other symptoms of the cancer of our decadence. Logan is the natural, inevitable product of a civilization

We are well and truly fucked, ladies and gentlemen, and it’s because you’re not ladies and gentlemen: you’re sluts and players, feminists and faggots, shrieking harpies and supplicating eunuchs. You should have kept Lara Logan home—forcibly, if necessary. You should have taught her to respect the right men and fear the wrong ones. Hell, you should have just taught her right from wrong.

I hate you all.

Appendix A: false accusation?

Ferdinand Bardamu goes on:

Of course, this all assumes that Logan is even telling the truth. There’s a non-zero chance that she didn’t get raped at all, and that she made the whole thing up to garner attention and sympathy from the weepy, chivalrous masses. It’s certainly a story that the white nationalist types would buy – innocent, virginal Nordic angel gets ravished and defiled by a gang of smelly, swarthy, sleazy sand-niggers. Remember, (White) Women Don’t Lie About Rape!

Well, it’s possible, but there’s a reason the story is plausible and garners attention and sympathy: it happens. A lot. Minus the “gang” element, it is in fact the typical rape.

Appendix B: white Americans—zookeepers of the world

At Gucci Little Piggy, we find an excellent analogy (emphasis mine) but no sympathy at all for Ms. Logan:

. . . I prefer to focus on the natural fallout of a person being in a dangerous situation rather than victim-blaming. Mainly, if I were to engage in victim-blaming I’d have to presume that Lara Logan is a victim. . . . The reason that there aren’t communities of highly-paid journalists who never leave their apartments is the same reason that Lara Logan immersed herself in a dangerous revolution. Since the job is not easy and since Logan is willing to take on the job—her safety becomes a function of multiple factors. In short, sexual assault has always been a danger for any reporter—especially one like Lara Logan—which puts her in the same class as a long-haul truck driver who runs the risk of skidding out on a highway and ending up dead or in ICU. Since Logan’s job is to report on the events of thousands of raucous protestors [sic] in the throes of revolution, physical harm is an occupational hazard; in short, Logan’s private parts lose a certain amount of their privacy. To make another trite analogy, zookeepers occasionally get mauled by their bestial captives.

Appendix C: sleeping Sunday morning update

Variously punctuated blogger hbd* chick thinks part of the problem is that Egyptians are really into cousin-fucking. Tim Wise would fit right in.

i’d like to throw out there one other reason why i think sexual harassment has been increasing in egypt lately. it’s prolly ’cause increasing numbers of women have been moving to urban areas (i.e. away from their homeplaces) for college or work or whatever. they’ve been moving to places where they are not very related to the men, unlike back at home. . . . in an inbred society, the more you are NOT related to your neighbors, the more you are likely to treat them harshly.

It makes more sense when she says it.

Read Full Post »

Hot white girls

I got to quit drinking.

So it was coming up on Valentine’s Day and, being horny and looking forward to meeting some desperate women (I can smell them from miles away), I linked some girls in my post on white pride: Swedish, French, German, Italian, Canadian, and New Zealander, choosing white majority nations more or less at random. I ranked those countries by the number of clicks they got the next day:

  1. German
  2. Swedish
  3. Italian, French, Canadian
  4. New Zealander

Interestingly enough, this is also my own personal ranking. Or it would be, if I wasn’t such a sucker for French girls and their je ne sais quoi’s and their voulez-vous couchez avec moi’s and their penchant pour les blowjobs (Fuck. Yes.), bumping them up above those sexy Italians and those maple-syrupy Canadians. The expanded ranking system goes like this:

  1. white girls, precedence given to Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland, followed by France and Italy, then anywhere but America, then America
  2. Hispanic and Middle Eastern girls, as long as they look pretty white
  3. East Asian girls, as long as they’re not too Asian
  4. meh . . . obviously-non-white Hispanic and Middle Eastern girls (without the burka)
  5. uh . . . the other brown girls? I guess? Those would be Native American and South Asian—scraping the barrel here a bit
  6. black chicks
  7. fatties

What can I say? I don’t find black girls attractive. Never have. This has led to some awkward conversations.

FRIEND: Check out that black girl. She’s cute.

UNAMUSED: Meh. I guess.

FRIEND: What are you talking about?

UNAMUSED: I don’t like black chicks.

FRIEND?: You’re such a racist.

UNAMUSED: Don’t make me lynch you.

FRIEND??: I’m . . . white.

UNAMUSED: I have the rope right here.

FRIEND???: But that doesn’t even—

UNAMUSED: Right. Here.

Most of my friends seem to think my preferences for women are racist. (Yet we’re still friends—what does that say about them? Fucking racists.) What’s the problem here? I discriminate against fat women, ugly women, old women (meaning over 29), stupid women, really smart women, annoying women, women who bore me, women who don’t put out (bitch), women who give it up too easily (whore), women who only look good when I’m wasted, women who don’t swallow, women who swallow too much (I have a phobia), women who taste funny, women who have slept with my friends (exception: women who have slept with my female friends), and women who aren’t white. Well excuse me for having standards.

I used to think that a man’s (well, man-child’s) preference for one kind of girl or another was off-limits for political correctness. Sadly, this is no longer the case. Setting aside the most egregious violations of this ancient unwritten law, like the fat acceptance movement and the casual heterophobia of the gay-feminist alliance, it seems to be unacceptable to say “I like girls with pale skin.” How is that worse than liking tan girls? I mean, sure, I go a little further, what with the fanatical bigotry and all, but the principle is the same.

I also don’t like black music, and have been known to shout words to that effect (“NO BLACK MUSIC”) at social gatherings. Not infrequently.


An anonymous commenter on Steve Sailer’s post on Portland writes

Awesome, so how about this. Steve Sailer and his white nationalist readers can all migrate to Portland. We’ll get the 20% non-whites there to all agree to leave. From then on, Portland can become the white nationalist Utopia in America. Everyone else will agree that Portland should be 100% white. And finally, Steve Sailer will stop whining like a little bitch over and over and over again. He might even go back to working a normal job and doing something productive for society. Imagine that!

What a great idea! All the white people (plus the East Asians) who understand how much better off they would be without all these annoying (non-East Asian) minorities can go hang out in Portland! And if there’s too many of us, we can take a few other cities too, like New York, LA, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Miami, Austin . . . actually, you know what? It would be easier to just list the places minorities get to keep:

  • Harlem
  • South Central LA
  • Indian reservations
  • the alley behind my apartment where they sell their drugs
  • federal prison
  • the White House (LOL jk)
  • ?

Everything else is ours.

On a serious note, I pray for the day when white people will actually treat minorities the way they claim they’re being treated now.

Negro: I’m taking it back

That’s right. I’m taking it back. From now on, I’m not going to call them “people of color” or “blacks” or “African-Americans” or “Nubians” or whatever the fuck else they want to be called. I’m going to call them “Negroes.”

It’s a perfectly good word. Well, it was good enough for Martin Luther King, Jr., who liked the white girls too—high five bro. Psych! Ooooh got you. Anyway, it’s not as dated as “colored,” and it doesn’t piss people off like “nigger,” which I save for special occasions (street fights, drug deals gone bad, Bar Mitzvahs, receiving awards and commendations). So “Negro” it is.

I’m even going to capitalize it.

The Great Obsidian Debate (Part 9,000,000)

I am pleased to present a complete, unabridged, unedited account of my recent debate with typical, garden-variety Negro internet personality Obsidian on the subject of human biodiversity (HBD):

OBSIDIAN (O): I am ready to discuss things with you in a calm and dispassionate manner. Your serve.

UNAMUSED (U): Excellent. Let me begin with this: I respectfully submit that the average black IQ is approximately one standard deviation lower than the average white IQ, a claim which is supported by the following data—

O: Fuck you! Fucking cracker! I hate all you fucking crackers! White-skin-havin’ motherfuckers!

U: I don’t follow you, Mr. Obsidian.

O: Rise up, my black brothers, and kill the crackers wherever you find them! BLACK POWER!

U: Well now, good sir, I take exception to the tone of this—

O: Oh, oh, “I take exception to the tone of this—” NIGGA PLEASE. I will RAPE YOUR GRANDMOTHER UNTIL SHE HAS SUPER-AIDS.

U: Please, Obsidian, let’s keep our respective grandmothers out of this—


U: If the quality of your, er, argumentation does not improve, I’m afraid I’m going to close this debate.


Obsidian went on to write out, in full, an apparently improvised and exceptionally graphic novella entitled Me and President Obama kill some crackas [sic] and suck each other’s dicks, in which—no, I’m going to leave it to your imagination. At this point, I deemed the debate unproductive, and closed it. To view Obsidian’s twelve thousand subsequent replies, please visit his website.

Here is a quiz

Here it is. I am a Sigma.

Read Full Post »

Ladies and gentlemen, at long last, here’s what nobody has been waiting for: the stunning, stupefying conclusion to the great radio debate between Jared Taylor (race realist, editor of American Renaissance, and all-around spiffy bloke) and Tim Wise (hater of white people, firm believer in incest as an adaptive strategy, and all-around chubby twit), hosted by The Infidel Guy, Reggie Finley.

According to Finley, the topic is the “merits of racial and cultural diversity in [American] society,” and “Tim Wise will argue it’s a positive, and should be encouraged and embraced, while Jared Taylor will oppose him.” Unfortunately, Wise’s arguments are about as far from establishing the merits of diversity as a blow job is from pissing on an electric fence—which is to say, quite far.

Quite far indeed.


Last time we covered parts one through five, and learned SEVERAL amazing things:

  1. People of all races, ethnicities and nationalities should put aside their differences and come together to fuck their cousins and kick the shit out of short, slow, weak people. Evolutionarily speaking, that is.
  2. Supposedly a black person has managed to befriend at least one white person. I don’t buy it.
  3. Only white people can be racist.
  4. The family is a social construct, and if you disagree, then it’s straight to bed with no dessert, mister, and you don’t get to fuck your hot cousin. Plus, you’ll have no free will.
  5. The Pharaohs decided a stone marker was enough to keep black people out of Egypt. Have we tried putting up a stone marker next to Mexico? Do the Mexicans even use Egyptian hieroglyphics anymore?
  6. Parents only care for their children because they are legally obligated to do so. That explains so much about my childhood.
  7. My subconscious fantasizes about ravioli.

Let’s see what’s next!

The model minority

Part five ended with a caller asking Wise how institutional racism can be causing blacks’ elevated crime and illegitimacy rates and lower test scores and incomes, if Asians—working away in those same white supremacist institutions like the busy bees they are—are outperforming whites in every way. In part six, Wise responds that Asians only seem to have higher incomes than whites because they have larger families, and these surveys measure family income, not per capita income. Hold the presses: this is actually true. In 2000, Asians were trailing whites in median personal income:

  1. Whites: $23,640
  2. Asians: $20,200
  3. Blacks: $16,300
  4. Native Americans: $14,500
  5. Hispanics: $14,400

On the other hand,

among the five major racial/ethnic groups in the U.S., Asian Americans have the highest college degree attainment rate [one], rates of having an advanced degree (professional or Ph.D.) [two], median family income [see above], being in the labor force [three], rate of working in a “high skill” occupation (executive, professional, technical, or upper management) [four], and median Socioeconomic Index (SEI) score that measures occupational prestige [five]. Yes, in these categories, Asians even outperform Whites.

So that’s one point for Wise—well, half a point, since Asians still outperform all the other races—and eight points for me, after I throw in (six) illegitimacy rates, (seven) crimes rates, and (eight) the black-white-Asian achievement gaps (IQ, SAT, GRE, etc.).

Taylor points out that different kinds of Asians are—well, different. Specifically, North(-East) Asians outperform South(-East) Asians. Referring to everyone from East Asia as simply “Asians,” as if they were all members of the same race, is deceptive.

Tim Wise on dark skin: it doesn’t necessarily make you good at basketball

Wise lies about the statistical significance of a 3–4 point difference in average IQ, then attempts to disprove both (a) the fact that the races differ in intelligence, and (b) the heredity of IQ, claiming (among other things) that American blacks’ IQ scores mysteriously rise 7–8 points during college, i.e., between the ages of about 17 and 21. Quick, someone tell these fifty experts that unnamed researchers at Washington University have debunked a hundred years of IQ testing like a metaphorical Red Kite kills chickens: in one fell swoop! On to part seven.

Wise explains: there’s no reason to believe traits like athleticism and intelligence cluster into these so-called make-believe fake stupid “races.” Well, Tim, there’s one reason to believe they do: because they do. Yes, even though the genes for skin color don’t control intelligence or, uh, morality. There are even sub-racial differences in specific sports, as you seem to be vaguely aware. Running, for instance: East Africans dominate distance running; West Africans, sprinting. Steve Sailer writes

The current record [in the 100 meters] is Usain Bolt’s 9.58 in 2009. Before today, the 10.00 [second] barrier had been officially broken 446 times, 445 of those times by men of West African descent.

By the way, no East African has broken 10.00.

Football is another good example.

At this point, I can only assume Wise suffers a minor stroke. What else could explain . . . this?

  • African Americans dominate the NBA.
  • West Africans aren’t nearly as good at basketball.
  • West Africans are blacker than African Americans.
  • Nasty evil white supremacist Klansmen (like my opponent) think that blackness is concordant with basketball skill.
  • Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I are so smrt.

It’s called “Lewontin’s Fallacy,” not “Lewontin’s Valid Proof of the Non-Existence of Race”

Wise follows up that scintillating gem of argumentation with an equally, but much more subtly stupid claim, called Lewontin’s Fallacy (which I discussed briefly in Part 1). From Wikipedia:

because the overwhelming majority of human genetic variation (85%) is between individuals within the same population, and about 6–10% is between populations within the same continent, racial classification can only account for between 5–10% of human variation, and is therefore of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.

Lewontin’s Fallacy was wrong (so very wrong) when Lewontin said it. (If you don’t believe me, ask Edward O. Wilson. He’s still kicking around.) It’s irredeemably stupid when Wise repeats it.

To make it as simple as possible: consider human height variation. There is enormous variation in both male and female height (from dwarfs to giants), while the difference in average height between men and women is relatively small: 5.6 inches in the United States. Are we to conclude that the height difference between men and women is insignificant?

Also note the backwards direction of Wise’s thinking. An honest, science-y type person would start with the obvious fact that the races differ greatly in intelligence, athletic ability, and many other traits with large heritable components, and conclude that there are significant (not to say large percentage-wise) genetic differences at work. That would agree perfectly with the less obvious historical fact that the races evolved in reproductive isolation for hundreds of generations. Wise, however, starts with the subtle and difficult problem of estimating genetic variation between populations, takes whatever numbers Lewontin came up with in the ’70s, ignores the fact that even an undetectably small change in DNA can be highly significant (indeed, can mean the difference between life and death), and concludes that the obvious differences in hereditary traits between the races must have nothing to do with genetics. This is a man who has already decided what the answer is, and is desperate to justify it.

2105: A Race Odyssey

On to part eight, and the future of America. What will America look like in 2105? Take it away, Jared (from 3:45):

That depends ultimately on what white people decide to do. If white people don’t change, if they are perfectly pleased to be dispossessed by people who are unlike themselves, then there will continue to be immigration from the third world, and the United States will become increasingly a third world country with a third world population, a third world culture, and all the problems the third world has.

If white people wake up and realize that their biological group and that their culture are under threat, then they will put a stop to this; they will maintain Western civilization in North America. It’s really a choice that’s up to white people.

. . . Left to themselves, non-whites from every failed society will continue to come into this country, and they will continue to remake it in their own image . . . [The United States] will become increasingly like Guatemala or Haiti, or some other place where Americans, living here today, would not want to live . . .

“Jeez” is right, Reggie. Wake up, white people!

Wise follows with a typically moronic remark: if race were really genetic, then obviously white people would instinctively vote for more restricted immigration, and we wouldn’t need Jared Taylor to keep reminding us. You see, if white people in this particular country at this particular time don’t rise up and fight their dispossession, we must be genetically inferior. As Taylor points out, culture does sometimes overcome biology, whereas in Tim Wise’s mind, DNA is a strange and magical substance with unlimited power to mold the minds of men, every second of every day.

V. Morrison (1967). “Cardiac arrhythmia, memory loss, and stadium-adjacent sexual promiscuity in brown-eyed females.”

Discriminate on the basis of race? Finley scoffs: “We might as well discriminate against eye color!” Sure, if brown-eyed people were genetically predisposed to violent crime and low intelligence . . .

Again, Wise doesn’t believe Europeans are all the same race. This time he takes it further: he wants to celebrate national achievements, not racial achievements. Well, alright. List for me, please, the cultural and scientific achievements of Zimbabwe. How about Mauritania? Venezuela? Papua New Guinea? (No, cannibalism doesn’t count—although if a cannibal ever asked me that to my face, I might suddenly change my mind.) If we’re counting Excellence in Genocide, we could talk about Uganda, Rwanda, Nigeria, Cambodia, East Timor, Ethiopia, and the Congo (ooh, cannibal genocide, that’s a new one). Hurray for diversity. This keeps going in part nine.

Taylor talks about black solidarity. Finley doesn’t see it. Wise chalks it up to oppression, just like the (European) Jews. So how are the Jews doing, by the way? After millennia of religious/ethnic/racial persecution, culminating in the enslavement and murder of two thirds of their population (in Europe; over one third worldwide), they seem to be doing pretty okay. Must be all the affirmative action. On to part ten.

The End

Thank FUCK, it’s the last part. Tim Wise babbles about how mythical white solidarity is hurting the economy or some other nonsense. I wasn’t paying attention—someone was sexting me. Then Jared Taylor makes some nice remarks about cultural preservation, which would no doubt be interpreted as virulently racist by the kind of left-wing drones who run the country, especially the schools and universities—that is, if they were listening to Taylor, which they are not. And thus ends the Great Race Debate: Jared Taylor vs. Tim Wise.

Let’s wrap things up on a romantic note. Happy Valentine’s Day! Go fuck your hot cousin!

Mr. Wise agreed to be photographed with his opponent only under the condition that Mr. Taylor's head be clumsily Photoshopped onto a middle-aged black woman's torso. He also insisted on capturing and beheading the middle-aged black woman himself. Unamusement Park reluctantly agreed.

Read Full Post »

Today, in response to my post about Jared Taylor (a personal hero of mine), the optimistically named Truth suggested I link this video (the first of ten, the rest easily accessed from the sidebar). It’s a debate between Jared Taylor and Tim Wise on the merits of racial diversity, hosted by The Infidel Guy, Reggie Finley, on his radio show.

Yes, Tim Wise: the same fanatical, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-white bigot you may have heard about in the wake of the November 2010 elections.

I’m a fan of Mr. Finley, and I regret that I missed this debate—not that I missed much, besides the opportunity to ask a few pointed questions of Mr. Wise. The whole thing is so dreary, I have to split my remarks into two posts. I just can’t subject myself to a full hour of Tim Wise. That’s 4.2% of my day!

Without further ado, here is my analysis of parts one through five of the debate.

Introduction to Destruction

Finley sets the parameters of the debate. The topic is the “merits of racial and cultural diversity in [American] society. . . . Tim Wise will argue it’s a positive, and should be encouraged and embraced, while Jared Taylor will oppose him.” Keep that in mind, as Wise’s arguments tend to wander.

Taylor begins by pointing out the undeniable fact that racial diversity is, without exception, a source of conflict all over the world, and always has been, just like religious diversity.

Wise admits he doesn’t disagree—certainly a novel debate tactic, if not a particularly sound one—before professing disbelief in race as a valid scientific categorization of human beings. He’s wrong: see here and here and here and here and here and here and here. Or you could go check to see if white parents have white children, black parents have black children, Asian parents have Asian children, and so on. That might work too.

That last link is a rebuttal to a common race denialist fallacy, Lewontin’s Fallacy, named after one of the two famous biologists who led the politically motivated attacks on Edward O. Wilson’s theory of sociobiology, a precursor to evolutionary psychology, in the 1970s—a theory since vindicated by science. In Wilson’s words:

The question of interest is no longer whether human social behavior is genetically determined; it is to what extent.

Tim Wise’s firm grasp of evolutionary biology

Next, Taylor gives even more evidence that diversity, racial or otherwise, is a source of lethal conflict all over the world, from ancient times up to the present, making it a historical constant.

But Wise explains that Europeans can’t possibly be considered one race—I’m sorry, one “race,” unless of course you’re a white nationalist. He also reminds us that Europeans have waged countless wars against each other in spite of their racial homogeneity. Now, this seems to contradict his previous claim, but in any case, are we to believe racial diversity is “a positive, and should be encouraged and embraced” (Wise’s position) simply because it’s possible to have wars without it? Because it only adds to the existing violence? Let’s embrace gangrene, too: it’s possible for your flesh to rot off without it!

In a characteristically bizarre turn, he tells us that people can’t be biologically predisposed to seek out the company of their own race as a result of evolution, because it would be so much more rational to form groups based on running speed, height, or strength. According to Wise,

. . . it is definitely true . . . that we develop in-groups and out-groups, as a matter of evolution. I don’t doubt that for a second. But what I doubt is the idea that race is the natural delineator or the natural dividing line. So, for example, if you were thinking about it in evolutionary terms, it would actually make a lot more sense for us to divide in-group and out-group on the basis of speed, or height, or strength—things that actually matter in catching prey and surviving in the wilderness . . . not something as silly as skin color.

A brilliant argument. And yet . . .

  1. We did evolve.
  2. We do not divide up into groups on the basis of speed, height, or strength.
  3. We do discriminate on the basis of race.

Of course, speed, height, and strength are all subject to (fairly obvious) evolutionary pressures much more powerful than in-groups and out-groups: if your ancestors didn’t have enough of all three, they would have been eaten by a woolly mammoth or fallen down a crevasse or something. For that matter, don’t women consistently discriminate on the basis of height and strength in choosing mates? I mean, good grief, the mistakes are endless.

Also note how he conflates race with skin color—has he never seen an albino black person?

Then Taylor points out that the aforementioned European conflicts arose largely from diversity: in nationality, in language, in religion.

A zero tolerance policy on facts

Wise claims that the “vast majority” of violence, in schools and in the rest of the country, is between people of the same race. Well, sure, that makes sense—if by “between people of the same race” you mean “by blacks against themselves and everybody else.” In schools:

  1. “An earlier NCES study found that 18 percent of the nation’s schools accounted for 75 percent of the reported incidents of violence, and 6.6 percent accounted for 50 percent. So far as serious violence, murder and rapes, 1.9 percent of schools reported 50 percent of the incidents. The preponderance of school violence occurs in big-city schools attended by black students.” (Source.)
  2. “Anyone who was observing the Chicago schools with even just one eye open could see that disproportionate black student violence is real. The idea that graduates of what is likely the most left-wing educational institution in the country—teachers ed schools—suddenly become red-necked bigots once they start teaching in or managing schools is preposterous. To the contrary, black students are undoubtedly being under-disciplined, not over-disciplined, compared to their rates of classroom violence and disruption.” (Source.)

And in the rest of the country:

  1. “Blacks are 3 times more likely to commit violent crime than whites, and . . . black thugs prefer white victims, selecting them 64 times more than white thugs choose black victims.” (Source.)
  2. “In its last complete National Criminal Victimization Survey (1994), the Justice Department revealed blacks to have committed 1,600,951 violent crimes against whites. . . . While blacks were committing these 1.6 million crimes against whites, whites were reciprocating with 165,345 violent offenses against blacks. Blacks, representing thirteen percent of the nation, committed more than 90 percent of the violent interracial crime. Fifty-seven percent of the violent crime committed by blacks had white victims. Less than 3 percent of violence committed by whites had black victims. In 1994, a black was 64 times more likely to attack a white than vice versa. This is the real story of hate in America.” (Source.)
  3. Look at these pretty pie charts.
  4. Please consider reading Jared Taylor’s classic book Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. It’s illuminating.

Taylor suggests that the overall decline in school violence is due to the end of forced busing. That is, not forcing different races to mix mitigates the conflict caused by racial diversity. He starts to say how ridiculous it is to think white students commit violence at school at the same rate as black students, but he’s cut off by the end of the video. On to part two.

Babies be hatin’

Wise thinks kids don’t discriminate between races until high school, when the pervasive racism of our (white) society begins to take hold. He’s wrong, and Taylor knows it. Plus, if self-segregation along racial lines really is cultural in origin, it’s universal among human cultures, which suggests there’s an ultimate biological cause (what we used to call human nature).

Here, Finley interjects with an anecdote about how he, as a young black student (of above average intelligence), got along just fine with a white girl. One white girl, by the name of Angela Petty. Taylor suggests that assimilation works when there’s an overwhelming racial majority, whether that majority is black, white, or Asian. I think this underscores the importance of maintaining a white majority in America through sane immigration policies. A little later, Finley wants to know where Taylor would “draw the line.” Well, the lines draw themselves: Iceland wants to stay Icelandic, Japan wants to stay Japanese—why don’t white Americans want to remain a majority? Or do they?

Wise continues to argue that young kids don’t discriminate on the basis of race, while acknowledging that adults do. Am I missing something, or is he still not telling us why racial diversity is a strength?

I was glad to see Taylor didn’t let him get away with baseless accusations of white racist school teacher conspiracies.

People are like noodles: they both stick together, they both taste delicious, and they’re both racist

According to Taylor, racial conflicts are based on instincts that can’t be legislated away. Wise responds: if people naturally tend to stick together by race, then we wouldn’t have needed to pass Jim Crow laws.

I don’t even know how to address a non-argument like that. It seems I have to decipher what he meant to say before I can rebut it. Look, Wise: small numbers of influential people, called “politicians,” can pass laws that force larger numbers of ordinary people to mingle or not mingle. Regardless of the law, racial tensions are still there beneath the surface, and it leads to all those conflicts associated with racial diversity, in all places, at all times, between all different races.

Wise goes on to claim that only white people want to separate themselves from other races. Someone should tell blacks and Hispanics. And blacks. And Hispanics (with Asians on the side). On to part three.

This White Flight Tonight

Taylor introduces white flight as evidence that white people just want to hang out with white people most of the time. Wise immediately counters! White flight could just as easily demonstrate the effectiveness of racial propaganda, which teaches whites that blacks are criminal, and want to rob them, and don’t make good neighbors. “Racial propaganda,” in this case, means “crime statistics.”

Note how far we are from establishing the “merits of racial and cultural diversity.” Are you bored yet? I am. Stay with me, it’s about to get crazy up in here.

Ethnocentrism is like sex: something sticky always gets in your hair. Wait, no. That’s noodles again.

Taylor points out that if ethnocentrism were a cultural construct, it is a universal one. Some people think sex roles are a social construct, too. Doesn’t the fact that these things turn up in every culture, around the world and throughout history, suggest that it’s not a product of culture?

Wise responds to Taylor’s “diatribe” by failing to grasp the point: he’s not conflating ethnocentrism and sex roles, he’s drawing an analogy. That’s still legal in this country. Conflating would be saying that ethnocentrism and sex roles are the same thing, or arguing that one is biological and therefore the other is too.

Taylor gives the same rebuttal he’s been giving all damn day. I think I dozed off for a minute or two here. I was having the most wonderful dream. In it, I was eating two kinds of noodles at once! No, wait, that time it was sex. Anyway one of them was flat and one of them was stuffed with cheese. Moving on . . .

Tim Wise on the family: Darwin wants you to have sex with your sister

A listener poses Taylor a question: isn’t he committing the naturalistic fallacy, arguing that because racism is natural, we should accept it? No, he isn’t, you poor, dumb bastard. He’s arguing that ethnocentrism—to the extent that white people generally prefer to hang out with white people, black people with black people, and so on—is partly biological, and therefore impossible to eradicate. He thinks we should acknowledge that reality; in particular, the fact that diversity has always lead and will always lead to strife.

And this is where Wise’s argumentation really starts to deteriorate. First he denies that races are big extended families—but that’s nothing. He just uses it as a jumping-off point to make perhaps the stupidest claim in the whole debate: that the concept of family is socially constructed. That’s right, family: perhaps the most biological concept known to man.

You see, according to Wise, parents love their adopted children just as much as their biological children. Furthermore, we don’t marry people in our family. Therefore the family is a “socially constructed thing.” What can one possibly say to that? We shall see in part four.

First Taylor demolishes Wise’s claim that race is a recent concept. People have understood race since at least the 19th century BC, when an Egyptian Pharaoh set up a stone marker telling blacks to keep out of his country. (Where’s a Pharaoh and a block of stone when you need them?)

As for this adoption nonsense, a simple internet search for “abuse rates, biological, adoptive” reveals evidence to the contrary:

Children residing in households with adults unrelated to them were 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children in households with 2 biological parents (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 8.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6-21.5). Risk of maltreatment death also was elevated for children residing with step, foster, or adoptive parents (aOR: 4.7; 95% CI: 1.6-12.0), and in households with other adult relatives present (aOR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1-4.5).

Source: Pediatrics (April 2002), 109:4, p. 615; via Google Answers.

This is in no way intended to disparage adopters, most of whom are perfectly normal, which is to say loving, parents. It is merely a statistical difference—which happens to destroy Wise’s argument. The host agrees since, you know, he’s not an idiot.

Wise, on the other hand, thinks a child murder rate 200–300% higher for adoptive parents than biological parents doesn’t matter, since the child murder rate for biological parents was so low to begin with. And there he goes again with his wife. Did you know that if we can’t choose our families, it follows that we don’t have free will? Then he changes the subject to varying levels of education among white people—I’m sorry, “white” people.

But Taylor’s still on this whole “family = cultural not biological” thing. It turns out half of all marriages end in divorce, but surprisingly, most divorced parents remain attached to their children. Why is that?

Oh, it’s because parents have a legal obligation to care for their kids. That, to Tim Wise, is an equally likely explanation for why divorced parents often fight so bitterly over child custody. Gee, parents must take their legal obligations really seriously, if they’re hiring lawyers to prove they have more legal obligations than their spouses, whose legal obligations apparently should only cover alternate weekends.

Plus, if the family were biological, we would all want to marry our siblings. So there.

Everybody’s favorite study

I’ll skip ahead over a digression into African promiscuity and Taylor’s religious beliefs, which he prefers not to discuss publicly (his beliefs, that is, not the promiscuity). On to part five, where Wise drags out the infamous Chicago study. Here’s the complete abstract:

To measure whether there is racial discrimination in the labor market, we send fictitious resumes in response to help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston newspapers. We manipulate perceived race by randomly assigning to the resumes either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. Employers are 50 percent more likely to call back resumes with White names for interviews. Moreover, we find that the returns to better credentials differ significantly by race. For White names, higher quality resumes elicit 30 percent more callbacks. For African Americans, however, higher quality resumes elicit a far smaller increase in callbacks. Applicants living in better neighborhoods are also more likely to receive callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and, to a lesser extent, industries. Federal contractors and employers who list “Equal Opportunity Employer” in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. In Chicago, we find that employers located in more African American neighborhoods discriminate slightly less.

Let’s assume that this prejudice against black names is unwarranted. Let’s assume that even though affirmative action is essentially a concerted effort, by all levels of government, to inflate blacks’ credentials, employers won’t think for a second that an “equally” qualified black might not be. Let’s assume this prejudice—and there’s no evidence it’s conscious—is not the result of actual negative experiences with blacks, possibly as a result of their higher crime rates, lower average IQ, or propensity for racial paranoia. Under those assumptions, I submit that it is perfectly reasonable for white employers—hence most employers—to believe they would get along better with a white person, or at least a person with a white name, than with a Lakisha or a Jamal. That has certainly been my (limited) personal experience. Which, of course, supports Taylor’s case: employers agree, diversity is not a strength.

Bad white people and good white people: it’s all so confusing and depressing

Wise fantasizes for a while about what all the bad white people would do if they were in charge: they would decide they want to live where black people are living now, and then kick them all out. Oh no! As fantasies go, it’s pretty tame. No one—and I mean no one—gets stuffed with cheese.

Plus: miscegenation (inter-racial breeding) wouldn’t solve our racial problems. Taylor wants to know: why not? Good question. Think about it.

Finally, it turns out even Wise knows white people aren’t inveterate racists: they don’t give discrimination a second thought, according to him. However, white institutions are full of discrimination—obviously. Taylor wants to know: are you suggesting we should tear down all our institutions to root out the systematic discrimination (you know, the discrimination that kept a black man out of the White House, and prevents blacks from contributing to popular culture, and won’t let blacks play professional sports?), even though the (white) people in them have done no wrong? Good question. Think about that too.

Okay, that’s it, I can’t watch any more today. It’s just too depressing, listening to this bigoted fanatic spew misinformation.

Meaning Tim Wise, of course.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: