Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Chicago is under attack by “packs” (source) of “wild” (source) Blacks, and the Chicago Tribune thinks you’re racist for noticing. This will be my sixth and final post on the subject. Previously:

  1. Chicago Under Attack by Packs of Wild Blacks; Tribune: You’re Racist for Noticing (introduction)
  2. Black Mobs Attack White People; Tribune Editor: Race Is Not a Factor (race denialist article 1)
  3. Mobs Are All-Black; Tribune: We Won’t Report Race Until All Blacks Are in Mobs (race denialist article 2)
  4. Tribune: “Black” Is to “Criminal” As “Muslim” Is to “Terrorist” (race denialist article 3)
  5. One Week in Chicago (all the crimes, in detail)

I’ve saved the best — by which I mean worst — race denialist article for last. Steve Chapman’s “Race and the ‘flash mob’ attacks” (rating: 1.5 stars) is fully dedicated to shaming White readers for noticing Black criminality. It is almost beyond parody.

Almost.

Here’s my question about the teenagers who have been attacking and robbing people on North Michigan Avenue in recent days: Were they Christians? And if so, what denomination? Baptist? Catholic? Seventh Day Adventist?

Those may sound like ridiculous questions. But so is the question raised by many Tribune readers about our coverage: Why aren’t we mentioning that the culprits are black?

Mm. Let us delve into the thought process at work here.

  • Proposition 1: Black people, and only Black people, are responsible for the assaults and robberies.
  • Proposition 2: They target White people.
  • Proposition 3: The attacks are characterized by extreme, senseless violence.
  • Proposition 4: None of Propositions 1–3 are true if you replace “Black” by “Christian” — let alone “Baptist,” “Catholic,” or “Seventh Day Adventist” — or replace “White” by anything but “White.” They are evidently not targeting the old or the young, men or women, the rich or the poor; they’re not attacking whoever happens to be close by (no “crimes of opportunity” here); and they’re sure as hell not coming after some other racial or ethnic group.
  • Proposition 5: Propositions 1–4 are further strong evidence for an ongoing epidemic of racially motivated Black-on-White violence.
  • Proposition 6: Tribune readers want to be safe from violence, racially motivated or otherwise.
  • Proposition 7: Being aware of Propositions 1–4 would help White readers avoid racially motivated violence (by Proposition 5).
  • Proposition 8: The Tribune refuses to report Propositions 1–4.

Given Propositions 6 and 7, Mr. Chapman is astonished to discover that White readers are complaining about Proposition 8. Why aren’t they complaining about Seventh Day Adventist mobs, a problem which clearly doesn’t exist (by Proposition 4), rather than a problem which clearly does exist (by Propositions 1–3)? “Ridiculous,” he says.

Chapman is full of it: you can’t be a reporter and be stupid enough to believe the parable of the Seventh Day Adventist mobs. (Not unless you’re an affirmative action hire.) The real reason the news media refuse to report Propositions 1–4 is that they inevitably lead to Proposition 5: the recognition of an epidemic of racially motivated Black-on-White violence. Now why would that recognition that be a bad thing? Well, here for comparison is the Tribune’s argument:

  • Proposition 1: Black people, and only Black people, are responsible for the assaults and robberies.
  • Proposition 2: They target White people.
  • Proposition 3: The attacks are characterized by extreme, senseless violence.
  • Proposition 4: None of Propositions 1–3 are true if you replace “Black” by “Christian” or replace “White” by anything but “White.”
  • Proposition 5: Propositions 1–4 are further strong evidence for an ongoing epidemic of racially motivated Black-on-White violence.
  • Assumption X: Black people couldn’t possibly be more criminal/more racist/less intelligent/etc. than White people.
  • Assumption Y: Racism against Black people is the worst thing in the whole world.
  • Proposition 6b: If the Tribune reports Propositions 1–4, readers will believe there is an ongoing epidemic of racially motivated Black-on-White violence (by Proposition 5).
  • Proposition 7b: Believing negative things about Black people is racism, because it can’t possible be true (by Assumption X).
  • Proposition 8b: The Tribune must not report Propositions 1–4 (by Propositions 6b and 7b, and Assumption Y).

The rest of Chapman’s article may now be efficiently rebutted.

There are good reasons not to identify the attackers by race. It’s the newspaper’s sound general policy not to mention race in a story, whether about crime or anything else, unless it has some clear relevance to the topic.

My rebuttal: Propositions 6 and 7.

If a reporter goes out and interviews people about the weather, would it make sense for the story to say, “Joe Smith, who is black, is hoping for a cool front”? If a pedestrian gets run over by a bicyclist, should the story mention that the rider was white?

My rebuttal: Proposition 5.

In the attack coverage, what difference does race make, unless police are putting out descriptions or sketches in hopes of getting tips from witnesses? Getting beat up for your iPad, I suspect, feels about the same regardless of the color of the thieves. Police don’t seem to think victims were targeted because of their race.

My rebuttal: Propositions 5, 6, and 7, plus the following maps, showing how far some of these “thieves” — these senselessly violent packs of up to 20 “thieves” — had to travel to find their victims: map 1 (five mob attacks, by 15–20, around Streeterville; felony robbery and mob action), map 2 (two mob attacks, by 15–20, downtown; felony aggravated battery in a public place and mob action), map 3 (same).

Also, how surprising that in a city where asking why the newspapers won’t report the race of Black criminals is considered racist, the police aren’t saying that Blacks might be targeting Whites because of their race. Who could have predicted such a thing.

And what good would it do to trumpet the skin color of the thugs? So pedestrians on Michigan Avenue can run away when they see two or more African-Americans? Lots of black adolescents and young adults can be found on the Magnificent Mile on any given day. I’d guess at least 95 percent of them are harmless.

My response: Propositions 6 and 7. Also, mentioning race is not the same as trumpeting it.

My question to readers accusing us of political correctness is: Why do you care so much about the attackers’ race? If you fear or dislike blacks, I suppose it would confirm your prejudice. But otherwise, it tells you nothing useful.

My response: go fuck yourself, Steve Chapman (by Propositions 7 and 8).

Here I go again.

Aside from correcting typos, this will be the last update of my flyer “Black People Are More Criminal Than White People.” You may notice that some figures have changed. This time, I used the NCVS demographic data, not the Census demographic data, when calculating crime rates from the NCVS crime data. This is the appropriate choice, and it reveals that I underestimated Black criminality in versions 1–3. Also, the crimes covered by the flyer are more specific; for example, simple assault is now separate from aggravated assault. (Aggravated assault shows a bigger Black-White crime gap; usually the gap increases with the violence of the crime, robbery being one notable exception.) In short, wherever version 4 disagrees with the other versions, version 4 should be considered accurate.

Version 4 is available in PDF format here and as a JPEG image here.

One Week in Chicago

If anyone knows any additional information about these attacks, or has a correction to my report, please leave a comment or email me.

Chicago is under attack by “packs” (source) of “wild” Blacks (source), and the Chicago Tribune thinks you’re racist for noticing. Before I get to my final critique of the Tribune’s strict policy of not reporting facts when they make Black people look bad, I think it would be wise to review those facts. I don’t want you to think I’m exaggerating the problem, or over-reacting to the violence.

According to the available evidence (which is scarce, because the mainstream media suppress it), the following attacks were all committed by young Blacks (mostly male) in Chicago between the mornings of Wednesday, June 1 and Thursday, June 9 (I know, it’s eight days, not one week — psh) and every victim was White or (rarely) Asian.

Wednesday–Sunday: Five pepper spray attacks in Lakeview

According to CBS, a “group of robbers” (operating mostly in pairs) in the “trendy Lakeview neighborhood” are using pepper spray to disable their victims (mostly young women) before robbing them. Four such robberies occurred in just two days — 27-year-old woman, a 21-year-old woman, a 19-year-old woman, and a 25-year-old man — followed shortly by a fifth attack, on a 61-year-old woman. They were all “knocked to the ground and personal property was forcibly removed.”

Newspapers will not report the races of the victims, but interestingly enough, the Lakeview neighborhood is 79.5 percent White and 4.4 percent Black.

On June 3, CBS Chicago reported that

[t]he robbers are described as African-American men between the ages of 18 and 30, standing 5 feet 5 to 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighing between 150 to 200 pounds. They all have black hair and a dark complexion, and were seen wearing T-shirts and blue jeans.

Strangely enough, by June 5, the newspaper had forgotten their race:

[t]he suspects were described as being males between the ages of 18 and 30, about 175 pounds, and are 5-foot-5 to 6-foot-3 in height. They have dark complexions, black hair and were wearing t-shirts and blue jeans, according to the alert.

Sources: CBS Chicago (June 3, June 5).

Saturday: Four mob attacks around Streeterville

A mob of 15 to 20 “young men” traveled up to 13 miles at least to attack and rob five people in an area of town once considered completely safe. Note that a gang of fifteen teenagers, or for that matter five teenagers, does not need to beat up a 68-year-old oncologist to convince him to hand over his wallet and phone. Nor did they need to beat up a 42-year-old oncologist moments later. This truly is senseless violence. As the Tribune puts it:

Saturday night’s attacks were senseless and over the top. How many young men does it take to relieve a single unsuspecting citizen of his iPod? The victims all were punched and beaten repeatedly; one was hit in the face with a baseball. The take: a handful of electronic toys, a bicycle, a wallet.

Newspapers will not report the races of the victims. One was definitely White, one was Japanese, and I have a hunch that if any of them were Black, we’d be hearing all about it, and how these mobs couldn’t possibly be targeting White people.

According to CBS Chicago, Northwestern University’s alert described the perpetrators as “a group of 15 to 20 men, all approximately 16 to 20 years old and black.” And here are three of the six “young men” charged in connection with the attacks; in their case, charged as adults with felony robbery and mob action.

Sources: CBS Chicago (June 5, June 6), NBC Chicago (June 6), and the Chicago Tribune (June 6, June 6, June 6).

Sunday: Two mob attacks on city buses

“In two separate incidents, as many as 15 teens have stormed Chicago Transit Authority buses, attacked their victims and darted off with cell phones and other electronic devices,” according to NBC.

In the first attack… a victim was struck multiple times before the thieves ran off with his cell phone. About 25 minutes later, near South Racine Avenue and West 13th Street, a student said he was sitting on a No. 12 bus when as many as 15 black boys and young men boarded the bus without paying. The student was hit in the back of his head with a glass bottle and was robbed of his iPod, said UIC [University of Illinois at Chicago] police.

Again, 15 teens do not need to strike their victim multiple times to obtain his cell phone. They don’t need to hit a student in the back of the head with a glass bottle to get a hold of his iPod. Senseless violence.

Newspapers will not report the races of the victims.

Here are two of the three “teens” charged in connection with the second attack. The “teen” on the left is charged with aggravated battery in a public place, armed robbery, felony unlawful use of a weapon, and two misdemeanors; the “teen” on the right is charged with aggravated battery in a public place and armed robbery with a dangerous weapon.

Sources: NBC Chicago (June 8, June 8).

Tuesday: Two mob attacks downtown

“A mob of about 15 to 20 youths reportedly beat and robbed two people downtown,” according to NBC. According to a witness: “We get there, [the victim was] coughing up blood, his face is like really bloody and he’s all, ‘Oh, they just stole $350 from me.'”

Newspapers will not report the races of the victims, but one commenter thinks he has identified the real problem: “People need to put their cell phones and ipods/ipads away while walking down the street. This will continue to happen until people pay attention.”

Here are two of the three “youths” charged in connection with the attacks: Marcus Clark (left) lives 7 miles away from the scene of the crime, and Keith Alexander (right) lives 11 miles away. Both “face charges of felony aggravated battery in a public place and mob action.”

Sources: NBC Chicago (June 7, June 10).

Wednesday: Five-on-three attack on train

“A man was assaulted and robbed of his iPhone and wallet aboard a CTA train on the Near North Side Wednesday afternoon,” according to NBC.

“People were screaming for help,” said witness Andrew Webb. “One of the guys was bleeding, another looked like he had a black eye.”

Webb said he was on the Brown Line train when he noticed the five males approached three victims.

This attack came hours after Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy “addressed the media about a crime wave affecting downtown Chicago”:

He said the wild teens that have been running rampant through the Streeterville and Gold Coast neighborhoods are more complex than originally reported.

“There’s a number of different categories that we’re talking about,” McCarthy said. “We’re talking about shoplifting, we’re talking about robbery incidents … but they’re getting lumped in to one category.”

… McCarthy said the department made more than 29 arrests since last weekend. …

Newspapers will not report the races of the victims or suspects.

Sources: NBC Chicago (June 8, June 8).

Thursday: Five people attack… Billy Corgan’s brother?

“The brother of Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan was attacked and robbed of his iPod on his way to work early Thursday morning,” according to NBC.

Jesse Anderson, 35, of Evanston, was leaving the Chicago Red Line station on his way to work when five people punched him and took his iPod and cash, Chicago police said.

A woman in the group grabbed his iPod, he told police, and when he tried to get it back, a man punched him in the face. Members of the group are estimated to be between 15 and 25 years old.

Jesse Anderson is, of course, White. Newspapers will not report the races of the perpetrators.

Source: NBC Chicago (June 8).

Appendix: Hey, look — another mob of “teens”

The violence hasn’t stopped, and it’s getting harder and harder to ignore the “race angle.” Reporting on a mob of 50 “teens” attacking a Michigan Avenue Walgreen’s Tuesday (June 21), the Chicago News Report tells us what no major newspaper will — in the headline, even: “Black mob attacks Michigan Avenue Walgreens” (June 23).

Another black mob attack recently hit Chicago’s Michigan Avenue.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011, an estimated 50 teens, described by one source as an African-American mob, robbed the Walgreens at 757 North Michigan Avenue.

How awful, how raciss of them to report this fact. This obvious fact. This fact that demands an explanation — and no, speculating about “White racism” doesn’t count. This fact that could save lives if more people knew it and — oh, sorry. That would be racial profiling.

Chicago is under attack by packs of wild Blacks (that’s “groups of people who are (a) wild and (b) Black”), and Dawn Turner Trice of the Tribune is worried about racism. No, not Black criminals targeting White people. In “Mob attacks: Fear, too, is often skin deep” (rating: 1.5 stars) she disregards that inconvenient fact, just like she disregards the victims — the actual victims of actual crimes — so she can devote 450 words to condemning future potential racial profiling (which is justified) and Chicago residents’ fear of Black thugs (which is also justified).

I am the mother of a 16-year-old daughter. But if I had a 16-year-old son instead, I wouldn’t want him to hang out downtown with his buds this summer. I’d be afraid the group would be racially profiled.

Yes, Ms. Trice is Black, and she’s terribly frightened her hypothetical son would be subject to greater police scrutiny — that’s suspicious looks — and maybe even questioning (the horror!), just because he (hypothetically) happens to be a member of a visually distinguishable population with an outrageously high crime rate compared to non-members (even after controlling for poverty, unemployment, and lack of education — you know, all those bullshit liberal excuses for Black thugs). Sort of like how men have a high crime rate compared to women, which of course is exactly why Ms. Trice isn’t concerned about her (actual) daughter suffering racial profiling.

Logic, Ms. Trice: try it sometime.

Last weekend, a mob of youths attacked people in Streeterville and along the Gold Coast and the lakefront. The group’s activities have sparked an array of emotions and a whole lot of conversation, at the core of which is: How does a person become part of a marauding band that attacks a 68-year-old?

Speak for yourself. The core of my conversation is: When are the Chicago police going to realize that they’ll get accused of “racism” no matter what they do, so they might as well be proactive and treat Blacks the way they claim they’re being treated now, for instance by questioning every young Black man found wandering around a White part of town at night. Now that might actually prevent crime.

Whatever the explanation, we won’t find the answer in their race. And yet, that’s exactly where some people have been searching. And though the phrase “flash mob” has been used for attacks like this — creating an aura of something that happened quickly — the ramifications are complex and anything but cut and dried.

We won’t find the answer in their race? Well, that settles that. By the way, according to the 2000 census, Chicago is 36.77 percent Black, 4.35 percent Asian, and 41.97 percent White (including some Hispanics). Northwestern University estimates there were 15–20 attackers (CBS Chicago), and at least 5 attacks occurred over the weekend in question (Chicago Tribune). If a randomly-selected mob of 15 people attacked 5 random victims every day in Chicago, then by chance the attackers would all be Black and their victims White or Asian* an average of once every 423,000 years.

* As far as I can tell, four of the victims were White (one confirmed) and one of them was Japanese — he was one of the two visiting oncologists (Chicago Tribune). The media will not report the victims’ races, but I’m positive they would if they could show that Black thugs were attacking other Blacks. (Can there really be any doubt about this?)

There’s nothing about being black that makes a person inherently predatory. The same is true of being a young black male. It’s too bad that young black men have become the poster children for so many of society’s ills.

Really? There’s nothing about being Black that makes a person inherently** predatory? On what evidence do you base that conclusion, Ms. Trice? You’re obviously wrong about young Black males (testosterone, anyone?). As for Black people in general, please note the following.

  1. race is genetic (sources here)
  2. all human behavioral traits are heritable (source)
  3. criminality is a human behavioral trait (duh)
  4. Blacks are more criminal than Whites — more likely to commit crime, especially violent crime, multiple-offender crime, and inter-racial crime (data and sources here)
  5. race differences in criminality persist after controlling for socioeconomic status (source, p. 66)
  6. there is an 81 percent correlation between the level of violent crime in an area and the proportion of Blacks and Hispanics; this correlation only drops to 78 percent after controlling for poverty, unemployment, and lack of education (source)

** Remember: we at Unamusement Park always speak in probabilities (as in “Blacks are inherently — meaning genetically — more likely to commit crime”), not absolutes (as in “all Blacks are criminals, grrrr I hate them SO MUCH”), because — well, because we’re not idiots, and we understand means and correlations and other such things.

What happened over the weekend appears to have been vicious crimes of opportunity — totally senseless acts carried out by totally senseless people.

Let’s review some of the details of these “crimes of opportunity,” which occurred in Streeterville, about 6 to 13 miles from the homes of the three Blacks charged as adults with felony robbery and mob action. From the Tribune:

The first victim, insurance salesman Krzysztof Wilkowski, 34, said he was sitting on his motor scooter checking his cellphone around 8:30 p.m. when he was hit in the head with a baseball, which knocked his helmet off.

“The next thing I know is I’m being hit by the helmet, then being dragged into the street,” Wilkowski said. “I couldn’t believe it. It was broad daylight outside, there were people around, and this happened.”

Moments later, Singer, who was sitting on a park bench smoking a cigar and typing an email, was attacked by members of the same group. The teens then ran east to Lake Shore Drive, where they allegedly attacked the doctor from Japan and two other people along the bike path just south of Chicago Avenue.

Well, those sure sound like “crimes of opportunity” to me! You were saying, Ms. Trice?

Still, race has been and will be front and center. Going forward this summer, some gatherings of black kids will almost certainly be singled out. We’ve heard of “driving while black.” Well, we can prepare for “walking while black” or “sitting on a bench while black.”

Thank God!

I don’t envy the police who have to balance keeping downtown safe for the city’s residents and tourists while remaining racially sensitive. It’s as difficult a task as trying to predict who’s going to slip a bomb into his or her shoe and get on an airplane.

No comment necessary.

It’s too bad that the young black guys who are strivers and law-abiding continue to be rendered invisible by the bad guys.

“Black thugs are attacking White people? Oh, won’t someone please think of the poor striving Black men, and how those awful White people keep rendering them invisible by forcing the bad — I’m sorry, morally disadvantaged Black men to roam around their neighborhoods, beating and robbing them. I mean, what were they thinking? Flaunting their Blackberries and iPads and oncology conventions, and just a twenty-minute drive from the ghetto!”

Obvious racial bias: Black thugs target White people. Less obvious racial bias: Black reporter cares more about “young black guys who are strivers” being “rendered invisible” by (White) racists than she does about actual victims of actual crimes.

And yet, I know fear is real. And mobs in general, and mobs of young black men in particular, spark fear. I have felt it.

We all are hardwired for survival mode. We want to categorize and try to figure out who the bad guys are. We look for cues and clues, and race just happens to be an easy one. But our answer to why a terrible crime was committed can’t be distilled down to race alone.

Ms. Trice? I’m Doctor Unamused. I’m afraid you have a bad case of the SLAWBs — that’s Stupid, Liberal, Anti-White Bigotry. It’s common among African-Americans. Symptoms include:

  • inability to think clearly when it comes to Blacks
  • repetitive chanting (“racism… racism… racism…”)
  • writing for the Tribune

What’s that? A cure? Well… it’s risky, very risky, but many patients respond positively to prolonged exposure to inner-city youths.

The ones that survive the treatment, that is.

Chicago is under attack by packs of wild Blacks (that’s “groups of people who are (a) wild and (b) Black”), and the Chicago Tribune thinks you’re racist for noticing. Reporter Mary Schmich wonders, “When a news story omits race, do we really know any less?” (June 8). If you think the answer is “yes, obviously,” you’re not alone: readers gave her a one-star rating, just like they did her editor.

You probably know the basic facts.

It happened Saturday night.

A dozen or so teenage males went on the prowl near North Michigan Avenue in Chicago’s toniest shopping district. They attacked five people, ages 20 to 68. Their loot included a backpack, a wallet, a bike, an iPad, a BlackBerry and an iPod Touch. The cops quickly arrested five alleged assailants, at least three of them from the South Side, and vowed to find the rest.

Right. A dozen — or was it 15 to 20? — young Black people went “on the prowl” for “loot” (accurate and obnoxiously unserious phrasing) and attacked five people, four apparently White (so difficult to find out, when reporters like Ms. Schmich won’t do their job) and one visiting Japanese oncologist (CBS Chicago, June 5 and June 6; Chicago Tribune, June 6). The police have charged five Blacks for the attacks; a sixth has been charged with mob action, and at least 20 arrested, in connection with the attacks.

Well done, Ms. Schmich. You got the “basic facts” — well, not right, but close.

If you’ve followed the story — and who hasn’t? — there’s another fact that you also know, but it’s one you haven’t read in the Tribune or seen explicitly stated by most of the official media: The young men were black.

Quelle surprise.

The reader response gives me some hope for the future of America:

“Shame on you and the Chicago Tribune for your politically correct crap when doing these type of stories,” one reader emailed several Tribune writers. “This is a diverse city and when you don’t physically describe them, we don’t know who to protect ourselves from.”

I’ve omitted the portion of his note that referred to “them” in ugly language.

God forbid someone should use “ugly language” to refer to these savages! (That’s “people who are savage.”) Why, that could hurt — no, not someone’s face, that’s what baseballs and fists do — no, not Chicago’s economy, that’s what packs of wild Blacks “prowling” around robbing people in rich neighborhoods do — but it could definitely probably hurt someone’s feelings!

Another reader wrote: “I can’t imagine that if a gang of white teenagers went to the South Side of Chicago and began attacking African-Americans including a 68-year-old that the race card would be left out of your coverage. … I see a media double standard here.”

You are absolutely correct, anonymous reader: the news media are thoroughly biased in favor of Black people.

So why would a news organization avoid a fact? This fact?

It’s a reasonable question, even if many of the people asking it on Internet comment boards have wrapped it up in irrational, irresponsible venom.

You mean they dared to notice the Black crime epidemic destroying American cities — destroying their city — and reacted like rational, responsible people should react (namely, with venom)?

I’m ambivalent about the omission of the attackers’ race in the news accounts, but I think I would have decided to leave it out too.

As an editor pointed out when I asked about it, the crimes don’t appear to be racially motivated. There’s no sign the criminals picked victims because they were of a certain race. They picked them because they had certain stuff.

Well, sure. No racial motivation here. It’s just gangs of Blacks, and only Blacks, crossing the city to attack Whites and Asians, and only Whites and Asians — well, as far as I can tell. It’s not like reporters in Chicago are actually reporting this story.

“People see it as a media conspiracy,” he said of the decision to leave out their race. “It’s a media quandary.”

How could anyone be so irrational and irresponsible as to see this universal media censorship of the race angle as a “conspiracy”? Why, that’s no different from believing the government is controlled by lizard men from the center of the Earth!

Here’s the quandary, for editors, for cops, for all of us:

Race alone doesn’t predict or explain behavior. Just because this mob was young and black hardly means that all young, black people in groups are a violent mob. Knowing the race of these attackers is no form of protection.

Wrong, Ms. Schmich. You moron. First, race alone does predict and explain behavior. It doesn’t predict or explain it perfectly, but it’s better than nothing. Knowing that the animal outside your front door is a tiger doesn’t predict or explain its behavior perfectly either, but it’s useful information if your objective is to not get eaten. That’s why stereotyping is justified. The potential benefits of learning, from further contact with the tiger, that this particular tiger is not dangerous (e.g., the benefit of leaving through the front door of the house, rather than the back) are outweighed by the potential costs of learning that it is, in fact, dangerous (e.g., the cost of getting eaten).

Now how can skin color predict and explain behavior? Trick question. Race isn’t just skin color; it’s in your blood, it’s in your bones, and it’s in your DNA. You see, race is genetic, and every human behavioral trait is heritable (Eric Turkheimer’s First Law of Behavior Genetics). That’s why there are innate race differences in intelligence and criminality.

Second, everyone knows that not all groups of young Blacks are violent mobs. You moron. On the other hand, a lot of them are. The same cannot be said, at this time and in this place, of groups of young Whites or young Chinese or young Eskimos. Do you see any reason for reporting the race of these mobs yet?

Third, knowing the race of these attackers is absolutely a form of protection. You moron. (See my example of the tiger, above.) We get it, Black-apologist cretins: not every group of two or more Blacks is a violent mob. How about groups of two or more Blacks at night, in a (formerly) safe — meaning White (and/or Asian) — part of town, dressed like — well, like ghetto Black thugs? How about then, when race is part of a more complete profile? Oh, wait, the cretins demand that race alone predict criminality with 100 percent accuracy. Otherwise they won’t report it. And you’re racist for noticing it.

Unless of course the races are reversed.

And yet race is an aspect of what happened Saturday night.

This oughta be good.

It’s a piece of the story simply because we notice. Young men from poor black neighborhoods create mayhem in a wealthy, predominantly white, touristed neighborhood? In the image capital of this historically segregated city? Of course we notice. By “we,” I mean everybody.

Yes, certainly, the real problems here are historical segregation and people noticing Black crime.

A friend recounts talking about the attacks with two of her friends. All three are black. One of their first thoughts was: “Oh my God, are they black kids?”

My friend wondered about their race because she worried about how their acts will reflect on all the good black kids.

Oh, those poor good Black kids (wherever they may be). They’re being reflected upon by Black criminals! That must be… agonizing.

The mother of one of the accused attackers noticed the racial aspect too. The Sun-Times quoted her as saying bails would have been lower if the crimes were on the South or West sides.

“If it’s black-on-black crime,” she said, “nobody cares.”

Look at that, we’ve identified another real problem: racism in the justice system! Except there isn’t any (Unamusement Park’s First Law of Race and Crime). Still, it’s good we brought it up. It distracted everyone from Black criminals, preventing any horrific, disfiguring reflections on “good black kids.”

So, yes, the attackers were black. We notice. But how to measure the relevance of the fact?

Here’s a thought, Ms. Schmich: measure it in White victims.

I have re-updated my flyer on race and crime. The newer and more improved Version 3 is available in PDF format here and as a JPEG image below (click for the full-size image).

Special thanks to commenters Leonard, Annie L., and Olave d’Estienne for their suggestions. Any mistakes and/or bad decisions are mine, of course.

Chicago is under attack by packs of wild Blacks (that’s “groups of people who are (a) wild and (b) Black”), and the Chicago Tribune thinks you’re racist for noticing. Editor Gerould W. Kern explains to his paper’s hopelessly racist White readers in a recent article, “When race is relevant in news coverage” (June 10), that race is never relevant when it might make Black people look bad. If you think that’s a stupid policy, you’re not alone: Kern’s propaganda apologia has a one-star rating, the lowest possible, based on over 500 reader responses.

This week the Chicago Tribune published several news stories and related columns about assaults by groups of youths in the Streeterville area of downtown Chicago. More coverage appears Sunday.

A number of readers have asked why we have not included racial descriptions of the assailants and the victims in these incidents.

To be precise, the readers have asked why the Tribune refuses to report that all the assailants are Black and, as far as I can tell, all the victims were White except for one visiting Japanese oncologist. It’s not a coincidence: the assailants are Black because Blacks are more criminal than Whites, and the victims are almost exclusively White because Blacks deliberately target them.

It’s what you might call a “racially motivated hate crime,” except of course only White people can commit those.

Some of the victims of Black thugs in Chicago.

We do not reference race unless it is a fact that is central to telling the story.

By all indication, these attacks were motivated by theft, not race. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the victims were singled out because of their race. Therefore we did not include racial descriptions in our initial news reports.

Bullshit. Here’s how we know these animals (that’s “people who are behaving like animals”) were hunting White people: they come from the South side of Chicago, and their victims live on the North side. From CBS Chicago (June 6):

Three of the teens – Dvonte Sikes, 17, of the 7500 block of South Normal Avenue [map 1]; Travolus Pickett, 17, of the 8400 block of South Dorchester avenue [map 2]; and Derodte Wright, 18, of the 3500 block of South State Street [map 3] — have been charged as adults with felony robbery and mob action.

… The attacks are raising serious concerns about safety in the busy, Manhattan-like neighborhood [Streeterville] just north of downtown.

In the same article, we learn that this has been going on for months:

A man walking his dog early Monday morning said he is so disturbed by the flash mob attacks that he is planning on moving out of the neighborhood. He said the latest incidents are not isolated, and the flash mobs have been hitting the area for several months.

And speaking of victim blaming:

Asked whether tourists and people wanting to enjoy the lakefront should be concerned, [Police Supt. Garry] McCarthy said, “No. No. But, what we do have to do is have awareness. You don’t want to walk in dark areas by yourself after having a fight at a bar with a friend and you’re going home. We still have to pay attention to common-sense things to do. We have to be aware. That’s the nature of the world today. But, nobody should be afraid of this.”

Yeah, I’m sure Black thugs only ever attack White people and Japanese oncologists after bar fights.

He didn't get those bruises in a bar fight.

Returning to Kern’s article:

There are circumstances when race may be relevant, such as describing a criminal suspect being sought by police. But this description must be accompanied by other detailed information, such as height, weight, scars, clothing, etc. By adhering to this practice, we guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion because of the color of their skin.

Kern’s fantasy world: Blacks are exactly the same as White people, because race is only skin deep. Therefore it would be irrational and racist to be suspicious of Blacks. But White readers are stupid. If we tell them the race of the thugs who are attacking them, they’ll start thinking irrational, racist things.

Reality: Blacks are less intelligent and more criminal than White people, and this seems to have a significant genetic (innate) component. In particular, race is genetic. Therefore it is rational to be suspicious of Blacks. But Gerould W. Kern of the Chicago Tribune lives in a rich White neighborhood, far away from Black savages (that’s “people who are (a) Black and (b) savages”). If you mention unflattering things about them, he will call you racist.

A couple of Black savages.

The story had another dimension: The public discussion that followed the attacks. That did involve race.

Tribune columnists John Kass, Mary Schmich and Dawn Turner Trice wrote extensively about fears, perceptions, accusations and assumptions regarding the role of race in these attacks. These commentaries took the temperature of this public debate and put it in context.

Justified “fears.” Accurate “perceptions.” Well-founded “accusations.” Empirically supported “assumptions.” Don’t worry: all of it vanishes in the proper race-denialist “context.”

We’ll deal with those clowns later.

Pardon the unintentional rhyme, but Chicago is under attack by packs of wild Blacks. (That’s “groups of people who are (a) wild and (b) Black.” Go ahead, tell me it’s not an accurate description.) Paul Kersey is all over this. They’re storming buses 15 at a time, beating White people with bottles and robbing them (NBC Chicago, June 8). Gangs of 15 or 20 are ambushing White pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as one visiting Japanese oncologist (CBS Chicago, June 5 and June 6; Chicago Tribune, June 6). Smaller groups are using pepper spray to disable their victims (CBS Chicago, June 3 and June 5). Contrary to media reports, the problem isn’t “teens” or “youths” or “kids” or “people.”

The problem is Black people.

These thugs are the problem. Concealed carry might be the solution.

Until recently, the hopelessly biased mainstream media were content merely to ignore, suppress, censor the race — not races — of these savages. (That’s “people who are savage.”) But censorship wasn’t enough. It couldn’t stop readers from seeing the photos. It couldn’t stop them from watching the videos. It couldn’t stop them from looking out their windows at the dark-skinned mobs rampaging outside. And it couldn’t stop the White victims from telling everyone they knew.

So the readers noticed, and pretty soon they cracked the secret code: if a story omits the race of the perpetrators, it’s not because the reporter doesn’t know what race they were. It’s because they were all Black.

That’s when readers started to complain. Oh, those complainers. I guess they don’t enjoy being beaten with bottles and baseballs — and fists and feet, of course — or sprayed with mace, then robbed of the things they bought with the money they earned working jobs — yes, jobs, something many Blacks just can’t be bothered with anymore. Stampeding over welfare application forms? Sure. But jobs? Not so much.

The Chicago Tribune reacted to the complaints of their customers in a way that shouldn’t be surprising to Park readers: they denounced — no, not the Black thugs, of course not — their own readers, for being so darn raciss. Yes, if you notice the race of a criminal, and that race happens to be Black (which it frequently is), then you are a racist — doubly so if you write in to ask why Tribune staff don’t notice it themselves.

There will be no five-month anniversary spectacular for Unamusement Park. It is canceled on account of Black savages (that’s “people who are (a) Black and (b) savage”) destroying our cities. Sorry, maybe next month. Instead, please enjoy a short series on the savages’ apologists (not to say accomplices) at the Chicago Tribune, winner of Unamusement Park’s first annual Most White-Hating Newspaper Award. I’m going to cover the following dishonest, despicable stories:

  1. “When race is relevant in news coverage” (June 10), by Gerould W. Kern, Editor
  2. “When a news story omits race, do we really know any less?” (June 8), by Mary Schmich
  3. “Mob attacks: Fear, too, is often skin deep” (June 8), by Dawn Turner Trice
  4. “Race and the ‘flash mob’ attacks” (June 8), by Steve Chapman

Please enjoy.

No, scratch that. Please get mad as hell.

I have updated my flyer on race and intelligence. The new and improved Version 2 is available in PDF format here and as a JPEG image below (click for the full-size image).

Again, I encourage you to share this flyer with anyone, anywhere. Give it to your friends. Give it to your enemies. Give it to your college professor. Go crazy. And use this information to utterly destroy your debate opponents.

Let me know if you find any mistakes, or if you would prefer a version with a less outrageous title.

I have updated my flyer on race and crime. The new and improved Version 2 is available in PDF format here and as a JPEG image below (click for the full-size image).

I encourage you to share this flyer with anyone, anywhere. Put them up around town. Leave them on benches or chairs or desks. Go nuts. And use this information to utterly destroy your debate opponents.

Let me know if you find any mistakes, or if you would prefer a version with a less outrageous title.

%d bloggers like this: