Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Liberalism’

Happy Independence Day.

Besides the three (white) cops shot to death (by blacks) in St. Petersburg in early 2011, at least four other Florida police officers have been shot and killed since June 2010.

Just days before the violent, child-abusing black sex offender Hydra Lacy Jr. killed Sergeant Tom Baitinger and Officer Jeffrey Yaslowitz, two Miami-Dade detectives, Roger Castillo (41, 23-year veteran, married father of three) and Amanda Haworth (44, 21-year veteran, single mother of one) were killed in a shootout with violent, drug-dealing black fugitive Johnny Simms (Miami Herald, January 20, January 20; NBC Miami, January 21; Miami New Times, January 21).

Roger Castillo and Amanda Haworth.

Simms had a long criminal history, according to the Miami Herald (January 20):

In October 2005 and December 2005, Simms was arrested for separate armed robberies, one with a pistol and the second with a rifle. Prosecutors did not file charges in either case.

In 2007, Simms… went to state prison for a different 2005 armed robbery and auto theft. He was released in February 2009 on probation.

Simms violated his probation when he was again arrested in June 2010, this time for robbery with a deadly weapon and selling cocaine. He pleaded guilty and Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Julio Jimenez sentenced him to one year in prison plus five years’ probation.

But Simms served only one month because he had earned credit for time served earlier in a Miami-Dade jail. He was released in September 2010 on five years of court-mandated “administrative probation,” a low-level form of supervision that does not require regular check-ins with authorities.

Simms hadn’t been out a month before he was again implicated in a violent act.

According to Miami homicide detectives, Simms shot and killed Cornelious Larry, 27, on Oct. 16 in the parking lot of an Overtown apartment complex, 1535 NW First Pl.

Simms had been on the lam since.

Cop-killer Johnny Simms.

The police finally tracked him down in Liberty City.

Castillo’s and Haworth’s squad, wearing body armor labeled “Police,” were dispatched to a duplex at 6112 NW Sixth Ct., in a gritty section of Liberty City just west of Interstate 95.

… [T]he detectives knocked on the door, and Simms’ mother let them inside.

Just inside the living room, investigators believe, Simms jumped out of another room, firing his gun.

Haworth was shot in the head inside the home. Beecher was not hit. Castillo was shot dead just outside, in the walkway.

Plasencia, who had been behind the duplex, ran back around and — under fire — shot Simms dead in front of the door.

Well, that’s what we get for giving the blacks Liberty (City).

Black man accused of writing a bad check and murdering five people

One year ago, on June 29, Tampa Police Officers David Curtis (31, three years on the job, married father of four) and Jeffrey Kocab (31, one year on the job, survived by his pregnant wife) were shot and killed by Dontae Morris during a traffic stop (St. Petersburg Times, June 11).

David Curtis and Jeffrey Kocab.

According to the St. Petersburg Times, Morris, now in custody, is accused of murdering a total of five people.

Morris ambushed Derek Anderson at his doorstep when he returned home from doing his laundry on May 18, 2010, apparently because Anderson had argued with him on a basketball court earlier in the day. The night Morris killed the police officers, he believed he was wanted for Anderson’s murder.

Morris killed Rodney “Scarface” Jones outside the Cotton Club bar in West Tampa on May 31, 2010, partly for money, partly for revenge. Jones had flashed thick wads of cash during an oldies karaoke show that night. But detectives said Jones also had once held Morris at gunpoint during a drug ripoff, leaving him stranded on a roadside.

Morris killed drug dealer Harold Wright on June 8, 2010, because Wright was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Wright delivered drugs to Morris for another dealer who was the intended target. Morris decided to kill Wright anyway to “send a message” to the dealer who hadn’t shown up.

Cop-killer Dontae Morris.

According to detectives,

Morris killed Tampa police Officers Jeffrey Kocab and David Curtis during a traffic stop on June 29, 2010, because he thought they were about to arrest him for murder. He was wrong. They wanted to arrest him on a bad-check warrant.

No [murder] warrant existed. But detectives said Morris told Price he “had to shoot the officers to get away.” According to Price, when Curtis and Kocab asked Morris to step from the car, he pulled a gun from under the seat and fired point-blank at both officers.

He told Price, “I shot those crackers.”

“I shot those crackers,” said the “nigger.”

How many of you are more upset about the N-word than you are about the two dead “crackers” and the murderer’s clear racial bias?

How do you think black people would answer the same question?

The score so far

  • June 2010: black thug shoots and kills two white cops in Tampa
  • January 2011: black thug shoots and kills white female cop and (fairly white-looking) Hispanic cop in Miami
  • January 2011: black thug shoots and kills two white cops in St. Petersburg
  • February 2011: black thug shoots and kills white cop in St. Petersburg

Remember: pattern recognition is racist.

Read Full Post »

St. Petersburg, Florida: where the only thing more dangerous than black thugs are the politicians who cover for them.

Officer David Crawford’s death on February 21 came less than a month after two other SPPD officers, 14-year veteran Sergeant Tom Baitinger (48, married) and 11-year veteran Officer Jeffrey Yaslowitz (39, married, father of three) were killed in a shootout with registered sex offender Hydra Lacy Jr. (St. Petersburg Times via Miami Herald, January 24; FOX, January 24).

Tom Baitinger and Jeffrey Yaslowitz.

Lacy was wanted for aggravated battery and two other felonies. He had previously been sentenced to 15 years for sexual battery with a weapon or force, five years for false imprisonment and aggravated child abuse, and five years for battery on a law enforcement officer. When police entered the house he was hiding in (having absconded from his known address), Lacy opened fire from the attic, beginning a ten-hour standoff which ended with a bulldozer demolishing the building to reveal his corpse.

Cop-killer Hydra Lacy Jr.

I don’t have a precise scale for measuring the worth of a human being, but if Baitinger and Yaslowitz’s lives averaged out to, say, 115 points, then Hydra Lacy Jr.’s was worth approximately zero. If a speeding train were about to crush a hundred million Hydra Lacy Jr.’s to death, and I had ten seconds to divert the train to kill one white SPPD cop instead, I would check my text messages.

Twice.

Pompous black former police chief skips three cops’ funerals but attends cop-killer’s

St. Petersburg’s first and only black chief of police was a man named Goliath Davis III, Ph.D. (If you ever wondered how blacks who aren’t into bling manage to look ridiculous while trying to seem important…) He held the title from 1997 until 2001, when he retired and became deputy mayor for economic development in Midtown (a black ghetto), a pointless position for which he received $150,000 per year (St. Petersburg Times via tampabay.com, October 5 2009) —

— until he was fired for decidedly vague reasons by Mayor Bill Foster (who also investigates cops for citing crime stats) just two weeks after Crawford’s shooting. Goliath Davis III, Ph.D. claims he got fired just because he skipped the funerals for Sergeant Baitinger and Officers Yaslowitz and Crawford — all shot to death by blacks in the preceding six weeks — and attended the funeral for cop-killer Hydra Lacy Jr. instead, for which Lacy’s family publicly thanked him (TBO, March 4; WTSP, February 10).

I’m not suggesting we should ship all the blacks back to Africa — that would just be crazy — but maybe we should consider it in the case of Goliath Davis III, Ph.D.

Black solidarity: Goliath Davis III, Ph.D. pays his respects to a cop killer.

Since Goliath Davis III, Ph.D. is black, other blacks, and the politicians who pander to them, will brook no criticism of him or his horrible decisions. After his firing, the St. Petersburg Times ran a revealing article, “Firing of Goliath Davis leaves St. Petersburg more divided” (via TBO, March 7). Per Unamusement Park policy, I have noted race wherever it is relevant, which is to say everywhere.

Whatever Goliath Davis III [who is black] chose to do when it came to attending the funerals of the fallen [white] St. Petersburg police officers and [black] killer Hydra Lacy Jr., he needed to ask an important question: What’s best in helping heal and unite the entire community? [But really only the black “community” counts.]

However, [white] Mayor Bill Foster clumsily handled Davis’ dismissal, failing to offer assurances that his administration would continue to address Midtown [black] issues.

Meaning he failed to immediately appoint another black to City Hall.

The firing may have been more palatable to the black community if Foster had spent his first year grooming other [black] leaders in his administration who could be new conduits at City Hall.

Called it.

Black State Rep./crackhead stands by cop-killer supporter, worried City Hall will be too white

Black State Representative and former crackhead Darryl Rouson was concerned by Davis’ firing (TBO, March 4): what if it meant more white people in city hall?

Rouson said he’s concerned now for black leadership in city government.

“I don’t want to see a bleached [white] city hall,” he said.

In reality, blacks make up 22 percent of the city’s population and 27 percent of city staff according to payroll records. We should be worried about a darkened City Hall, not a bleached one.

Darryl Rouson used to be addicted to crack. Now he's a State Representative. We'd be safer if he was still a crackhead.

You can read about Rousson’s past in the St. Petersburg Times (via tampabay.com, September 21, 2008):

Rouson’s hometown connections [meaning race], outgoing personality [meaning race] and grass roots activism [meaning race] have helped him. But his critics take umbrage at the seeming ease with which he sidesteps controversies and obstacles [because of his race].

He was reprimanded by the Florida Bar for snooping through an opposing counsel’s files during a courtroom recess in 2000.

But Rouson’s darkest story is the one that has defined his political career: a 19-year [crack] cocaine addiction that began when he was a law student at the University of Florida.

He addresses poor black neighborhoods with street slang, then drives his Mercedes to his 5,469-square-foot home in greater Pinellas Point.

Four years ago, Rouson walked into the Purple Haze Tobacco and Accessories Shop on 34th St S and asked for a pipe to smoke crack. When he was asked to leave, he walked behind a display counter and allegedly shook it.

A jury convicted Rouson of misdemeanor trespassing, but others praised him.

“It took real courage to really push that aggressively against people who were clearly selling drug paraphernalia,” said council member Karl Nurse, who paid Rouson’s fine. “That’s a rare commodity in politics.”

City Councilman Karl Nurse and Rousson were two of the five top city officials at St. Pete’s secret June crime summit. Nice to see pals sticking together.

You’ve seen the bad. Now for the just plain crazy:

[Rousson] once chained himself to a chair at City Hall when officials didn’t hire him as their first black bond attorney. He has called for the secession of [black ghetto] Midtown and criticized Baker’s polices there.

When a Tampa radio host sought to expose Davis’ evident support for black cop killers and disdain for white police, Rousson — whose personal history, again, includes “drug addiction, bankruptcy, divorce, homelessness, civil disobedience,” and “professional misconduct” (St. Petersburg Times via tampabay.com, September 21, 2008), none of which should be particularly surprising individually, given that he’s black — said the jock’s questions should be dismissed, calling him “a bumbling idiot” (St. Petersburg Times via tampabay.com, February 8).

Yes, more fanatical race loyalty from the historically (and genetically) disadvantaged race that brought you a 96 percent approval rating for Obama, Obama’s contempt for white cops, a standing ovation for a black gang that ambushed and hospitalized a white student, and of course black jurors who won’t convict black rapists and murderers (you know, the “niggers” you’ve heard so much about?), at least not if the victim was white.

Read Full Post »

St. Petersburg, Florida: where a model cop was investigated for allegedly citing crime stats to the father of an armed-robbery victim, and the property crime rate is over 50 percent in at least one downtown neighborhood. Could it get any worse?

Yes. Yes it could.

February 21, 2011: 16-year-old sophomore Nicholas Lindsey (allegedly) pops the lock on a white Dodge Neon, breaks the steering column with a brick, but can’t get it started. A witness calls 911, and Lindsey flees. Officer David Crawford (46, married with one daughter), a 25-year veteran of the SPPD, responds to the call and spots Lindsey half a block away from the scene of the crime. Crawford calls out to him.

David Crawford.

Lindsey (allegedly) immediately turns and shoots Crawford four times in the chest (missing once) with a .380 pistol, killing him. He then runs to his mother’s apartment, where he is arrested the next day on a first-degree murder charge (Tampa Bay Online, February 24; ODMP).

Cop-killer Nicholas Lindsey.

Lindsey has already confessed to the murder, and is scheduled to stand trial on December 12 (Bay News 9, March 7, June 28). The justice system may consider him innocent until proven guilty, but the day after the murder, Lindsey’s guilt “almost seemed like an open secret” in the community, according to tampabay.com (April 12):

One witness heard two women talking about it in a crab shop on 16th Street S. Another woman heard two drug dealers talking about it. But people are scared and don’t want to be seen talking to police.

One neighbor sidled up to one of the backup officers to say they had the right man. Lindsey ran through his back yard the night before as helicopters flew overhead. But don’t question me here, the witness said, not in front of people.

Some witnesses who came forward did so fearing retaliation. Others said they felt uneasy after word of their cooperation quickly spread.

The day after the teen’s arrest… an upset high school student told his teacher he saw Lindsey return to Citrus Grove the night of the shooting with a gun.

The witness said he knew “someone took care” of the gun and no one will ever find it. But he refused to say more.

The student said he “had to take the secret to the grave,” telling the officer:

“In my neighborhood you don’t snitch.”

According to WTSP, the cop-killer’s (single) mother, Deneen Sweat, blames the gun (February 23):

“[The officer] said, ‘Take your hands out of your pockets,’ and he said he knew he had gun on them. [Nicholas said,] ‘I just tried to break into this car. I took my hands out of my pockets and the gun came out with it.’ He thought the safety was on. It fired and it kept firing and it was jerking. He did not mean to shoot the officer,” she explained.

He didn’t mean to shoot Officer Crawford. He just heard him call out, turned around, stepped forward, reached from his waistband, and upon pointing his hand at the police officer with the notepad, was surprised to find a gun had somehow come out with it. Then the .380 just went ahead and fired, and it kept firing until Crawford had four bullets in his chest (tampabay.com, April 12).

Crawford was the third St. Petersburg cop shot to death in less than a month, and at least the seventh in Florida since June 2010. Here’s a game you can play at home: guess the races of the six other cops, and the three other cop killers. Answers later today.

Read Full Post »

BULLETIN (2011-06-05): The War on Hate escalated early Tuesday afternoon, as fighting broke out along the Unamusement Park-Sociological Images border.

Sources say the Park’s Hate Battalion Delta (HBD or “The Fighting Sofias”) crossed into Images-controlled Race-Differences-in-Attractiveness Valley, where they encountered elements of the 2nd Diverse Minority Battalion, attached to the 4th White-Opposed Race Denialists (2-DMB 4-WORDs).

By Wednesday evening, the battle had spread to the nearby town of I’m-Not-Racist-But, where the 2-DMB 4-WORDs were reinforced by the Progressive Race-Apologists, E Company (ProRApE). However, ProRApE infantry proved ineffective as they refused to engage HBD units if it meant moving through the poor part of town, with reports of widespread purse-clutching.

The Fighting Sofias defend the strategically important Field of Evolutionary Psychology from a 2-DMB 4-WORDs incursion. Give 'em hell, boys.

Over two days, the 2-DMB 4-WORDs suffered heavy losses on both fronts, which Central Hate Command attributes to three factors:

  1. being colorblind, they could not distinguish camouflaged HBD units in their environment, reportedly shouting “it can’t be HBD, there must be an environmental explanation” seconds before an ambush
  2. they had dug their foxholes in beaches — as it turns out, burying your head in the sand does not reliably protect it from an HBD grenade
  3. they were colossal idiots

HBD morale is said to be at an all-time high.

This Is the End

It’s time to wrap up Hatred, Unamusement Park’s five-part documentary on the War on Hate. What a long, strange trip it’s been. Previously,

  1. we considered my all-time favorite “hate fact”: Black people are less intelligent than White people.
  2. we discussed rape and responsibility in light of the anti-feminist “hate theory” which notes that rape is about sex, not power and control.
  3. we explored how the unofficial, unconstitutional ban on “hate speech,” which is to say the systematic suppression of uncomfortable truths about race, immigration, etc., has made it impossible to dispel myths like “Hispanic isn’t a race.”
  4. we talked about the word “nigger.”

Park forces stand ready to engage the enemy wherever he may hide, on land, at sea, and in the air! (What? You didn't know Unamusement Park had helicopters? Psh, OBVIOUSLY.)

Today’s mission is counterintelligence. Well, I guess I gave that away in the title. See, this is exactly why we need better counterintelligence. So if any of you brought exploding cigars, laser wristwatches, or shoes that shoot poison darts, now would be the perfect time to share them with the class.

What do I mean by “counterintelligence”? I wander around the Internet, correcting liberal lies and misinformation about various interesting topics, including race. The responses I get are generally ignorant, stupid, hateful, and prejudiced, so they don’t really help us understand the topics, but they do offer a glimpse into the world of race denialism, anti-White racism, feminism, and general liberalism.

Welcome to the World of Activism, According to the Asinine, Hypocritical Haters, also known as WAAAHH.

Trigger Warning

Over at Sociological Images: “I’m Not a Racist But… (Trigger Warning).”

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and Tyrone Forman wrote a wonderful article [“‘I Am Not a Racist But…’: Mapping White College Students’ Racial Ideology in the USA,” available online] examining the discursive strategies white college students use to distance themselves from racism, while still blaming people of color for their own disadvantage or being, straightforwardly, racist. Among other strategies, they noted that these students would often preface their comments with the phrase “I am not a racist but…”

Translation: White college students have noticed how we radical social scientists accuse anyone who disagrees with us of “racism,” which despite our best efforts still isn’t meaningless to most people; so they feel the need to preface every statement even tangentially related to race with a disclaimer. BUT WE WON’T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!

By “still blaming people of color for their [Whites’] own disadvantage,” I can only assume they mean noticing that affirmative action is discriminatory; and by “being, straightforwardly, racist,” being insufficiently anti-white.

We’ve documented this strategy before with a series of PostSecret confessions and we certainly saw it used by UCLA’s Alexandra Wallace in her famous anti-Asian rant. Now Karen alerted me to a new blog collecting instances of this type of language on Facebook, titled simply I’m Not Racist But… It’s pretty stunning what often follows. Here are some examples (trigger warning for, um, some seriously racist talk):

Okay, stop right there. “Trigger Warning”? I understand the principle: a recent or even not-so-recent victim of some horrible crime probably doesn’t want to read graphic descriptions or see images of similar crimes. I can see how that would be a concern. I slap a “disturbing content” warning on some of my links for that reason, like this one, courtesy of Stormfront.

This, however, is a trigger warning for “um, some seriously racist talk.” What is that going to trigger? Hurt feelings? If you can’t hear about “dumb-ass nig-nugs chimping out at Mickey D’s” or “dirty chinks multiplying like rats and chinking up UCLA” or “greasy spics taking all our jobs and all our tacos back to Mexico to feed their brood of brown babies” or “raghead Mohammedans jerkin’ it to 72 virgins in a cave somewhere in Ali Baba land” (that was kind of fun) without having a nervous breakdown, then you are not capable of participating in an open discussion of race. Not because race realists say those things, but because you are clearly prone to wild overreaction, and will probably shut down the conversation as soon as any unflattering facts about NAMs come out.

Which, now that I think about it, is exactly the point of treating race-related discussion as trigger-warning-worthy: to shut down the conversation. “You can’t say that! It’s not in good taste!” This avoids the difficulty of actually addressing the facts which underlie the “seriously racist talk,” examples of which are discussed below.

Harassment

Before that, it is worth reading the I’m Not Racist But… blog’s philosophy on harassment. From the FAQs:

Why do you censor the names of these racist assholes? I mean, you even found them on public facebook search!

I really wish I didn’t; these people do indeed deserve whatever harassment you’d like to throw at them!

One recent example of potential harassment, which the following people “do indeed deserve”: “taking a sledgehammer to this [young woman’s] skull” for noticing race differences in intelligence.

Remind me: who’s on what side of the War on Hate?

But I don’t want to get into any legal trouble with anyone for inciting harassment, even if they deserve it [which, if you recall, they do indeed]. However, if the post is recent enough, you could try searching for their post content to find them. (Also, something I feel should be pointed out – I only censor the names of idiots, while people calling the idiots out get both their name and photo censored.)

Translation: these people deserve whatever harassment you’d like to throw at them, but I’m scared of the possible legal consequences, so I disguise their identities as little as possible. Anyway, here’s how you can find them.

Alright, now let’s see what kind of extremist rhetoric warranted a trigger warning.

Tacos and Burrito Stands Everywhere

i aint no racist. but theyre taking our jobs. theyre takin over pretty soon american food wont even exist in america. it’ll be tacos and burrito stands everyplace. u will have to drive to canada just to eat a fuckin hamburger! does that sound righht to u, a america without hamburgers? of course not! so vote republican

Note that he never actually mentions race. If he is talking about a race, as opposed to a set of nationalities including Mexico, then it must be the Hispanic race — yet another example of how everyone knows Hispanic is a race.

It happens to be true that Hispanic immigrants, legal or illegal, are taking our jobs. It is also true that they are trying to take over; that is their stated objective. Furthermore, they really do eat tacos and burritos. (You know, Mexican food?)

Now ask yourself: does an America without hamburgers sound right to you? Hamburgers, here, stand for American culture and traditional values. Do you really want to have to drive to Canada just to eat a fuckin’ hamburger? That is, just to be around White people like you?

Vote Republican: it beats the alternative. Barely.

Race Differences in Intelligence: A Facebook Analysis

Not to be racist, but I’m starting to see that niggers don’t possess a single ounce of intellect

There are indeed race differences in intelligence that favor Whites and Asians over Blacks and Hispanics. For example, at least one in four American Blacks has an IQ below 75. (In 1959, the American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) set the IQ threshold for mental retardation at 85. Since half the African-American population fell below that threshold, they changed it to 70 after the Civil Rights Movement.) If we restrict our attention to so-called “niggers,” that fraction must jump, given the correlation between IQ and the many dysfunctions of ghetto Blacks, like crime, illegitimacy, and welfare dependency.

Here are two responses from so-called anti-racists.

…are you sure you’re not the one without a single once [sic] of intellect? Ouch! Get the aloe vera, ’cause you just got served.

I think that should be “you just got burned,” given the aloe vera reference.

Rather than taking a sledgehammer to this miscreants skull, perhaps I’d be better off challenging them to some hardcore Scrabble.

Apparently the standard punishment for questioning the intelligence of ghetto Blacks is a sledgehammer blow to the skull. I forgot again: who’s on what side of the War on Hate?

Shot or Lashed or Something

This one is actually an excellent summation of my position on Muslim immigration:

I’m no racist but if Muslims want to live by their laws shouldn’t they feck off back home?!!! If u didn’t want to live by our laws y bother coming the first place?! It’s not like we could go to [the Islamic world] and demand that our laws are enforced there could we? Wed be shot or lashed or summat!

  1. If Muslims want to live by Muslim laws, shouldn’t they stay in their home countries, instead of imposing their culture on us?
  2. If we tried to same thing, we would indeed be shot or lashed or something. Only Whites are expected to “diversify,” because our cultures and our nations are objectively superior — which of course is an excellent reason not to diversify by introducing immigrants from objectively inferior ones.

Here is one response.

THIS IS SO STUPID IT MADE MY HEAD HURT. [That might be a tumor.] Go fucking die you ignorant bitch!!, you shouldn’t be out in the world amongst intelligent [sic] people spreading your racist bigoted views.

I keep getting mixed up over who’s on what side here. I distinctly remember someone saying something like “these people do indeed deserve whatever harassment you’d like to throw at them!”

A Strange Place

Movies about Africa need to have European or American stars like Leonardo diCaprio and Jennifer Connely. We need familar faces because Africa is a strange place. You can call this racist, but I would not.

It’s an established pattern in films about Africa. You have Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner in the Snows Of Kilimanjaro, Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn in the African Queen [great movie], and Robert Redford and Meryl Streep in Out of Africa. Three classic and beautiful love stories.

I would mock, but I honestly don’t see what part of this could be considered racist. Here are two responses.

I officially hate people.

Well, as long as it’s not any particular kind of people, it’s okay.

Complete, blatant ignorance is regrettably prevalent in this world. We are aware of it, and we have the opportunity to overcome it, and for that I am thankful.

I guarantee you this commenter would classify “Black people are more criminal than White people” and “there are innate racial differences in intelligence” as examples of complete, blatant ignorance, without actually knowing anything about those subjects.

Racism: They Defined It, so It’s OK When They Do It

Commentary on the subject of American food and culture:

RACHEL: Tangent: There’s such a thing as “American food”? Unless you’re referring to the general American “impulse” to load everything in fat and sugar…

SIMONE LOVELACE: I believe you mean high fructose corn syrup…

Rebuttals by other commenters follow.

I found the following exchange amusing.

MANTIS TOBOGGAN, MD: If I say “I don’t like black tv comedy shows”, it does not make me racist — perhaps I just dont find much appeal in the type of humor they use…

Not so fast, Mantis!

KEELEY: THe problem with “I don’t like black comedy” is the same as the problem with “blac kpeople can’t drive” it’s making a blanket statement abotu a diverse group of people and their humor/driving ability.

Racist on both counts.

The debate rages on.

LETA: What if I said, “I don’t like British tv comedy shows”?

Because really, I can’t stand british humor at all. Mind, I like other British entertainment just fine… Does that make me a racist?

Analogy failure imminent. Activate analogy containment shields and evacuate the area.

ERIN: @Leta — British and Black are not comparable. British describes a nationality & a culture. Black does not. When Black is used to ASSUME those types of traits is exactly what makes “Black comedy” and other such phrases problematic characterizations.

In light of this and an earlier article at Sociological Images asking “Have ‘Blacks Made Progress’ or Have ‘White People Gotten Less Crazy’?,” it’s pretty clear that the word “racist,” if it means anything at all, means anyone who can be connected in any way to remarks that can be interpreted by a liberal as not flattering a designated racial victim group (and White people don’t count).

Glad we cleared that up.

Appendix: Discussion

I participated in the discussion (of the “I’m Not a Racist But…” article) only briefly, and with a minimum of patience for race-denialist ignorance and general silliness. I include the relevant comments here in case they get “moderated” into oblivion for insufficient pandering to minorities.

JILL: I think those comments are AMAAZZZZZZZIng and TRUE
why is truth racism
more black men committ crimes than white men
More asians are in car accidents than american caucasians
etc
etc
why is fact racist??
they are not
so sick of this BS

SISOU, a very confused Black woman: Blacks do not commit more crimes than Whites. evidence of arrest or prison population does not PROVE we are more criminal. In fact it proves the opposite of what you are saying… these comments are racist because they LEAD to racist actions. ie: thinking Blacks commit more crimes so targeting and racially profiling Blacks. Hence why White ARE 80% of Drug users but Blacks and Brown are arrested for drug crimes more than whites.

So stop BEING Racist and assuming things are facts ( because white people said so X group is in fact…) instead of evidence of racial bias ( most white people think so therefore act in ways to make said thing a reality)…

UNAMUSED: Hello there [Sisou]. You’re completely wrong.

1. Of course Blacks don’t commit more TOTAL crime than Whites. They make up 13% of the population! There’s simply no point giving the total crime figures unless you’re trying to hide Black dysfunction. ONLY RATES MATTER.

Example: would you rather live in a country with a million people and 1% are criminals (that’s 10,000), or a country with 10,000 people and half are criminals (that’s 5,000)? Total number or rates? Your choice.

2. Blacks commit crime at a much higher rate than Whites. I have explained exactly why in my flyer, here: https://unamusementpark.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/crime-flyer/

Now, before you say anything: I already know all the counterarguments, and I have already disproved them. So you might as well keep reading, because I don’t want to have to repeat myself.

The National Crime Victimization Survey annually asks up to 134,000 American victims (of all races, ages 12+) what crimes they were victims of, and who attacked them. Also, the police track crime reports from victims. Finally, the FBI tracks arrest records. At EVERY LEVEL, Blacks are committing almost every crime (and every violent crime) at MUCH HIGHER RATES than Whites. This shows that it is not police prejudice; the police are in fact going after the people who commit the crimes.

In fact, D’Alessio and Stolzenberg (2003) showed that White criminals are MORE likely to be arrested than Black criminals.

Why is it that Asians are arrested for every crime except gambling at LOWER rates than Whites? Gee, I guess there’s systemic racism against White people! Oh wait, it sounds incredibly stupid when I put it that way.

If Blacks were really victims of discrimination, we would expect the biggest crime gaps in crimes where the police have the most discretion in making arrests. In fact, the opposite holds: Blacks are LESS likely to be arrested for liquor law violations; equally likely for drunkenness; and only slightly more likely for vandalism. Is it really easier to railroad them for murder than graffiti? Pure silliness.

3. Since Blacks actually are much more likely to be criminals than Whites, it is perfectly rational to believe so, and racial profiling becomes not merely acceptable, but a moral necessity. It’s like being more concerned about a 20-year-old man robbing you, than an 80-year-old grandmother, or for that matter an 8-year-old child.

Blacks are more criminal than Whites: words to live by. Literally.

4. Whites make up a majority of drug users for three reason:
(a) They are a majority of the population.
(b) Blacks under-report drug use, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
(c) White drug use is primarily marijuana. They just aren’t that into crack cocaine.

So stop BEING ignorant and assuming race realists haven’t done their research.

Sisou apparently didn’t read my comment before replying, or at least she didn’t understand it. Nevertheless, I may have sparked some critical thinking in other commenters.

SISOU: d: then the majority of arrests for drugs charges should BE WHITES!!!!! but it is not.. proving again racism in criminal system.

I think it’s fair to say she missed the point entirely there.

… Let’s be clear you can post as many stats as you want. It does not change the fact that YOU CANT PROVE that Blacks are more criminal than WHITES.

Well, there you have it: data doesn’t matter when your theory hurts Black people’s feelings.

because you are selectively ignoring

a: people do falsely accuse Blacks and Latinos of crimes [Citation needed.]
b. Cops are more likely to use force on Blacks, [Citation needed.]
Blacks are more likely to receive harsher sentences. Including more likely to receive the death penalty showing once again the criminal system is flawed. [Citations needed.] Therefore, completely ignoring racism when talking about criminal stats is disingenuous.
Oh yay FBI stats cause the FBI and Blacks have gotten along so well. You can not assume that arrests = more criminal behavior. PERIOD!

I think that proves she didn’t read my comment.

c. you are selectively deciding what crimes are important. Are Blacks more likely to commit white collar crimes… Are Blacks more likely to go to other countries and commit genocide/holocausts, rape, spread disease, enslave, rape the land, destroy the environment, use women as breeders, etc than WHITES?

I don’t think so

See below.

Racial profiling DOESN’T WORK! How is a Cop stopping every Black person they see useful? How about getting accurate reports and finding actual people who committed the crime you are investigating.

That’s quite an impressive straw man you’ve constructed there. Where did you get all the straw?

And one more thing Mr. Race Realist

Yes, Ms. Black Apologist?

If Crime is inherent for Blacks, nothing to do with the history of racism than explain the likelihood of

A Biracial person committing a crime. Does half of body commit crimes while the other half shakes it’s head?

That might be the stupidest thing I’ve read at Sociological Images, and that’s saying a lot.

And since the majority of Black Americans are up to 30% percent White. is only part of us doomed to be criminal.

exactly how are you deciding who is White and who is Black and tell me how my Sun protecting skin = criminal behavior.

And that is the runner-up.

I commented once more. Yes, it’s mean. No, I don’t care.

UNAMUSED: 1. As I have tried to point out to you, Blacks under-report drug use. This is well known to the Department of Health and Human Services. In other words: you can’t get an accurate picture of drug use by asking junkies.

However, if you judge drug use by emergency room admissions for drug-related conditions, you see that Blacks are much more likely to use drugs (obviously — I mean, how can you even doubt this for a second?), which accounts for their over-representation in drug arrests.

Also (once again) White drug use is primarily marijuana. Whites are MUCH less likely to be involved in drug-related violent crime, such as robbery, assault, and murder.

In short, Black people do, in fact, use and deal drugs more than White people. OBVIOUSLY.

2. Let’s be clear that my stats have already proved my thesis: Blacks are more criminal than Whites. QED.

Now, you can certainly whine and cry about it, but you’ve already admitted you’ve lost.

Look, just because you’re Black doesn’t mean you have some special insight! Quite the opposite, in this case. Your bias here is obvious.

3. Now look at you trying to argue your case without any supporting evidence! You’re just speculating away. Show us the statistics on false accusations, and explain why victims would report the wrong race of a perpetrator to the US Census Bureau. Or did you think you just blame all Black dysfunction on White people and get away with it? Bigot.

Oooooh cops are more likely to use force on Blacks! How… irrelevant to the discussion. Also: citation needed.

Blacks are only “more likely to receive the death penalty” because… wait for it… Blacks are MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT CAPITAL MURDER! [See here and here.] If you want the State to stop killing Black people (God knows why), you should ask the Blacks to stop murdering so many people.

Look, I’ll explain it to you AGAIN: the arrest records match the police reports MATCH THE VICTIM REPORTS.

5. “Are Blacks more likely to go to other countries and commit genocide/holocausts, rape, spread disease, enslave, rape the land, destroy the environment, use women as breeders, etc than WHITES?”

Umm… yes. Obviously. Look at Africa. Genocide! Rape! Disease! Slavery (still)! The destruction of nature! Mistreating women! Good grief, did you even think that through before you wrote it?

OBVIOUSLY it’s Blacks. OBVIOUSLY.

[Note: I am aware that she said “go to other countries.” With that technicality, in this day and age, it’s still Blacks.]

6. “Racial profiling DOESN’T WORK! How is a Cop stopping every Black person they see useful? How about getting accurate reports and finding actual people who committed the crime you are investigating.”

You’re just prattling away with your little straw man arguments. You simply don’t know what racial profiling means.

Hint: no one is saying stop all Blacks, all men, or all young adults. It all fits into a profile. TRY to understand. PLEASE.

7. “If Crime is inherent for Blacks, nothing to do with the history of racism than explain the likelihood of A Biracial person committing a crime. Does half of body commit crimes while the other half shakes it’s head?”

Good grief. This is just… stupid. Can you say “straw man argument”?

We’re talking about rates. Likelihoods. Probabilities. You have a child’s understanding of the subject.

8. “exactly how are you deciding who is White and who is Black and tell me how my Sun protecting skin = criminal behavior.”

Well, here’s part of your problem: you don’t even know what race is!

You can determine someone’s self-identified race with 99.86 percent accuracy from genetic clusters. Thus, race is genetic. Simple as that.

Race isn’t just skin color. It’s skin, hair, blood, bones, disease resistance, intelligence, criminality… and most of all GENES, which play a huge role in ALL OF THE ABOVE.

ME AGAIN: By the way, Blacks are more likely to commit white-collar crimes too. (lulz nice example)

So add that to murder, rape, arson, assault (simple and aggravated), robbery, and for that matter vandalism. Gee Blacks are really on a roll…

And there you have it: WAAAHH.

Read Full Post »

The word “racism” is now meaningless in Norwegian as well, reports a reader via email from the land of snipers and black metal. (What do you mean, I don’t have a thorough understanding of Norwegian history and culture?)

Norway!

Below is his translation of an article, “Chaudhry accuses FrP of racism,” from the Aftenposten (“Evening Post”), Norway’s largest newspaper. Note that the “FrP” is Norway’s “Progress Party,” which values individual rights, a free-market economy, small government, restricted immigration, and law and order. Since its inception, the FrP has resided on the political fringe because of its stance on immigration, i.e. its failure to recognize the wonderful, unspecified benefits of filling your country with the kind of people who build the kind of countries those same people are desperate to escape from. Since 2005, however, as Europe has begun to realize (and pay) the true cost of “diversity,” the FrP has flourished as Norway’s second largest party (currently the most popular among secondary school students).

Member of Parliament Akhtar Chaudhry (Socialist Left Party) accuses the Progress Party of racism after Per-Willy Amundsen said that Muslims have the lowest workforce participation rate.

“This borders on racism,” said Chaudhry to Dagsavisen.

Akhtar Chaudhry is a Pakistani immigrant and 4th Vice President of the Norwegian parliament.

Sniff sniff. "I think I smell some non-Dhimmis around here..."

He is also a whiny little bitch who seeks to undermine Norwegian values (like the separation of Church and State, women’s rights, and not stoning homosexuals) by shutting down debate and suppressing dissent with accusations of discrimination.

Chaudhry is distressed and concerned, and draws parallels to the growth of National Socialism in 1930s Germany. Amundsen’s comment is not in good taste.

Note the appeals to emotion: “distressed and concerned,” “not in good taste” — as if Chaudhry’s (fake) sense of propriety and (fake) distress define the limits of free speech.

“It’s completely borderline. [Note that completely almost racist is still not racist.] If you switch out ‘Muslims’ for ‘Jews’ in the criticism, you understand the importance of what is being said,” says Chaudhry.

He’s absolutely right: if you switch our “Muslims” for “Jews” in the criticism, and see that the result is a false statement, you will understand the importance of addressing Muslim immigration.

He is referring to Amundsen’s comment yesterday that Muslim immigrants have the lowest workforce participation rate. Minister of Labor Hanne Bjurstrøm (Labor Party), and Geir Bekkevold, political immigration speaker for the Christian Democratic Party, distanced themselves from the statement.

Cowards. Traitors.

Hardly in keeping with the proud Norwegian tradition of badassery.

Here’s why Amundsen is right, and also why he’s on Unamusement Park’s List of Cool Norwegians (along with Max Manus, Roald Amundsen (no relation?), all the Vikings, and of course anyone who reads this blog):

Amundsen is standing his ground and insists that he’s not racist.

“I disagree entirely. I am referring to public statistics. It’s clear that the immigrants in Norway with the lowest workforce participation rate are from countries in the Muslim world,” says Amundsen.

Amundsen is backed by the Central Bureau of Statistics. According to CBS, immigrants from Somalia have a workforce participation rate of 31.9 percent. In other words, almost seven of ten Somalians are unemployed. The next lowest countries on the list are Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco, Turkey, Kosovo and Iran.

“The eight countries with the worst workforce participation rate are Muslim countries. That speaks for itself,” says Amundsen.

Remember: pattern recognition is racist.

Here is the actual ending of the article:

He also says that Islam’s view of women is a hindrance to their employment.

Here is my fantasy ending:

He also says: “Suck it, Chaudhry. If you and I had been born 70 years earlier, you’d be telling us how ‘distressed and concerned’ you are that I said Germans have the highest Holocaust participation rate. ‘It’s completely borderline! It’s not in good taste! Waaaaah!'”

At this point, Amundsen made an unprintably obscene gesture in the direction of Chaudhry’s seat in the Parliament Building, sang the national anthem with the voice of an angel and the raw power of a proud Norwegian muskox (bringing tears to this reporter’s eyes, and the eyes of every other true Norwegian within singing distance), performed a vigorous Norwegian folk dance, and declared the interview terminated.

Full disclosure: this reporter is now in love with Mr. Amundsen.

"And then he made us muck out his sheep. His proud Norwegian sheep."

News of Norway

From OzConservative to The Fourth Checkraise to Sofiastry (and also from Jewamongyou to Human Stupidity) to me to you: a video from Norwegian TV.

Norway is known for its news.

Yes, I follow the Norwegian news. Who doesn’t? (Google’s suggestion, based on my browser history: “Showing results for I hate all the Muslims and wish they would just go back to Johnny Arab land as soon as possible. Search instead for news of Norway.”)

FEMALE ANNOUNCER: In Oslo, all sexual assaults involving rape in the past year have been committed by males of non-Western background [meaning non-White]. This was the conclusion of a police report published today.

MALE ANNOUNCER: This means that in every single sexual assault in the last five years, where the rapist could be identified, he was a man of foreign origin [meaning non-White].

MALE REPORTER: The young girl we are about to meet was raped about two years ago. As she entered her apartment she was assaulted, and endured hours of threats, violence and rape by a [non-White] man unknown to her. She will be struggling with this experience for the rest of her life.

YOUNG GIRL: I have found it difficult to go out shopping on my own because I felt anxious. I was simply too afraid to go out the door, and had problems contacting and speaking to friends and family, and simply to live a normal life.

MALE REPORTER: In April, a few weeks ago four women were assaulted and raped on the same night [by non-White men]. None of the [non-White] perpetrators has yet been found.

Well, you can start with racial profiling. Call it “community policing” or something. Then round up all the young Muslim men for questioning.

Today Oslo police presented the total figures revealing how in the past year all sexual assault involving rape had been committed by men of non-Western background [meaning non-White].

FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: Many of the [non-White] perpetrators who commit these rapes on the edge of [White] society, often unemployed [i.e., too lazy to get a job; would rather live off White Norwegians’ tax dollars], arriving from traumatized countries [which, of course, excuses anything they do to their White oppressors — I mean, it’s not like it’s non-White people are the reason non-White countries are so “traumatized” (read: shitty).] In the past five years, it has often been asylum seekers.

“My country is mean to me! Waaaaah! Let me in to yours! I promise I won’t rape anyone! Waaaaah!”

MALE REPORTER: This girl was raped by a [non-White] man of Pakistani heritage. She is an ethnic Norwegian [i.e., White], as are almost all victims who are assaulted and then raped.

That sounds almost like discrimination.

YOUNG GIRL: He said that he had the right to do exactly as he wanted to a woman. [“Why?”] Because that is how it was in his religion. Women did not have rights or opinions. He was in charge.

Hey, who are we to judge?

Oh, right: we’re rational, moral human beings, whereas these people are objectively inferior savages. That’s who we are to judge.

FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: The way women are viewed [by non-Whites] is at least one of the questions we have to ask in order to understand the motive of the [non-White] perpetrators. …

The motive, incidentally, is sex. It’s just that they’re not decent-enough people to suppress their animal instincts.

… It should not stand on its own, as a stigma [meaning we should never incorporate race and religion into police work, no matter what the cost to real Norwegians], but it is an element we must have the courage to address.

Well, you could start by (a) calling them what they are (Muslims, non-Whites), and (b) not excusing them as “asylum seekers” from “traumatized countries.”

Your Mission, Should You Choose to Accept It

Here’s what I want you to do, you compassionate reactionaries: bring up this video in conversation. Real live conversation. Not on the Internet. You could wait until someone starts talking about Europe, or the Middle East, or immigration, or women (“speaking of which…”), or just start a conversation about it (“hey, did you know that…”).

"Hey kids, it's time to learn about Norwegian crime statistics!" "Sir, I'm going to have ask you to leave the playground."

After all, it’s just an interesting statistic you heard on the news. You don’t have to “defend” it. It’s not a political philosophy or a policy proposal — but see below.

Suppose you do bring it up, and someone says “so what?” Well, I tried having this conversation with myself, which is

  1. probably a sign of mental illness, and
  2. a good way to practice debating.

The following is a dialogue between a compassionate reactionary (CR) and a stupid, liberal, anti-white bigot (SLAWB), which I ranted to myself in real time, cleaned up, and annotated.

Warning: CR is compassionate, so he emphasizes the positive (crime prevention, women’s rights, preserving one’s culture), but of course he’s also a reactionary, so he probably goes much further than you’re comfortable with (outside the Internet). Consider him an upper bound on acceptable debate.

CR: Hey, so I saw this news report that says every rape in the capital of Norway in the last five years was by a non-White immigrant. Check it out.

SLAWB: So what?

CR: Excuse me? [I usually feign innocence (and confusion) after saying something provocative.]

SLAWB: What’s your point? We should just kick all the immigrants out of Norway?

CR: I didn’t make any suggestions for immigration policy. I just thought you’d like to known, ’cause you’re into, like, women’s rights and stuff. This is pretty much the number one way to identify rapists in Norway: they’re foreigners. Seems like women should be aware of that.

SLAWB: You can’t identify foreigners just by looking at them! How could you tell the difference between a Norwegian and a German?

CR: I wouldn’t be trying to tell the difference between a Norwegian and a German. [I try to shut down straw man arguments as quickly and directly as possible. “That’s not what we were talking about.”] If I were interested in avoiding rape, I would be trying to tell the difference between a Norwegian and a Turk. Or an Iranian. Or an Egyptian.

SLAWB: In other words, you want us to start using racial profiling to target Muslims!

CR: Oh, you’re saying all the rapists are Muslims? [If you deliberately avoid mentioning the problematic group you’re actually talking about, like Muslims in Europe or Blacks and Hispanics in the USA, it guarantees that your opponent will be the first to bring it up. Then it’s their idea, not yours, and you can just run with it:] Well, I guess that makes sense, considering what countries they come from.

Anyway, is this “racial profiling” anything like “sex profiling,” where you “target” men because they’re so much more likely to commit crime than women? Because that kind of profiling seems pretty reasonable: if one group of people is committing nearly all the crimes, then you should probably pay more attention to that group. Like men (sex profiling), young adults (age profiling), and Muslim immigrants (ethnic profiling). Or do you think we should be just as worried about an 80-year-old Norwegian grandmother committing rape, as we are about a 20-year-old Turkish man?

[Asking questions, even obviously rhetorical questions with only one sane answer, is weak: it gives your opponent the chance to answer you. That is why I never give anyone the chance to answer my rhetorical questions:] I don’t know about your idea of kicking them all out of the country, but maybe we could just deport the illegal immigrants and the ones with criminal records, then stop any new ones from coming in.

SLAWB: Most of those immigrants are poor refugees who just want to escape from injustice and lead a better life, the kind of life you were privileged enough to be born into.

CR: It seems to me that being poor and wanting a better life don’t excuse you from committing sexual assault. I’m no expert on fashion, but I always thought women kept their money in a purse, not in their vaginas. [I actually say stuff like this. Your mileage may vary.]

Anyway, it’s interesting you mentioned that they’re escaping from “injustice” in their home country: a country filled with people just like them. Same race, same ethnicity, same religion, same culture. People just like them are committing injustices against them. So they flee. They flee to a nice country like Norway, with nice people and a nice culture. And what’s the first thing they do there? Rape spree.

I mean, if they’re committing about 100% of the rapes, it stands to reason that the rate of sexual assault has gone up, like, infinity percent since they got there. Maybe the reason their home country is so bad is… it’s full of the same kind of people who are fleeing it and coming to Norway. Everyone wants a better life… especially the ones who don’t deserve it.

Based on this news report, it looks like these immigrants aren’t assimilating into the wonderful, privileged society of Norway. They’re not changing. They’re bringing their third-world problems with them. So as more and more of them pile into Norway, Norway is going to look more and more like a third-world country. Meanwhile, Afghanisatan and Pakistan are still going to be third-world countries, so rather than raising up the foreigners to our level, we’re letting them drag us down to theirs.

The Norwegians were leading a “better life” because they weren’t committing all these injustices against one another. Good for them. They’re entitled to keep living their privileged lives the way they’ve always lived them, with each other. They do have that right. Let the Muslim immigrants — especially the poor ones, the ones who get on welfare the moment they arrive, the ones who commit most of the crime — let them stay in their own country, with their own people, and fix it up so it’s as good as Norway. Don’t bring them to Norway, so they can drag it down until it’s as bad as… whatever. Syria, I guess.

SLAWB: [head explodes]

Try it yourself. Write a dialogue, or have a real one.

Imagine yourself as a proud Norwegian muskox, locking horns with an inferior Middle Eastern, er... goat.

For extra credit, re-read this post and identify all the signs of the Dark Triad in my writing. (That’s narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy: self-obsessed; deceitful and exploitative; and thrill-seeking and callous.)

Read Full Post »

It’s official: the word “racist” is meaningless. Whenever someone calls me it (and they do, quite frequently), I feel… nothing. Absolutely goddamn nothing. I think I am supposed to feel

  1. embarrassed — presumably for believing what every right-thinking American believed until the middle of the twentieth century,
  2. guilty — presumably for having a functioning brain and sense organs with which to observe and understand the world, and/or
  3. afraid — presumably of their terrifying tears, their spine-chilling scientific illiteracy, and their petrifying poor grasp of English.

It’s not working. I can only conclude that at last, my metamorphosis is complete: from soft, cuddly liberal caterpillar to barbed, venomous reactionary death-butterfly.

Butterflies: terrifying and deadly.

Aw dang, I should have been a reactionary death-dragonfly. That would have been so much cooler. Well, too late now. No way am I getting back in the Hate Cocoon. It’s all… sticky. We might as well move on.

Who is it that keeps calling me “racist” in lieu of learning some facts and formulating an argument? Liberals, of course! Fucking liberals! Source of all that sucks! To be precise, fucking white-hating, fucking immigration-loving, fucking minority-worshiping fucking liberals and their fucking cult of fucking multiculturalism.

Clearly I need to come up with a better name for them — not that I don’t enjoy saying “fuck” six or seven times in every sentence. (I do.) How about “NAM-Boosting, Liberal, and Anti-white,” or NAMBLA? Nah, that’s offensive. Even pederasts don’t deserve to be associated with these Stupid, Liberal, Anti-White Bigots. Hey, wait a minute…

SLAWBs

There are only two types of SLAWB: hopelessly stupid and hopelessly biased. You have to be one or both to believe the things SLAWBs believe:

  • diversity is a strength
  • race does not exist
  • the Western world desperately needs more immigrants
  • every culture is equally good (Western “culture” doesn’t count, as it comprises nothing more than football, processed cheese, and heterosexual white male privilege)
  • white racial identity is racist
  • non-white racial identity is wonderful
  • mentioning or alluding to minorities in an unflattering way is racist
  • refusal to feel guilty for being white is racist
  • refusal to hate all white people is racist
  • openly calling for the extermination of all white people is not racist
  • any white person accused of racism by anyone is a racist
  • anyone accusing a minority of racism is a racist — unless the accuser is a less racist minority (blacks < Muslims < Hispanics < American Indians << Asians << Jews), in which case the accused is the racist; or both are the same race (e.g. black vs. "Uncle Tom"), in which case whomever is least anti-white is the racist
  • science, statistics, and common sense are racist if they do not support any of the aforementioned beliefs
  • freedom of speech does not extend to questioning any of these beliefs (including this one), which is racist
  • a racist (by any of the above criteria) is the worst thing you can possibly be, and the use of violence to suppress his or her “hate thoughts” — and I do mean thoughts, not just speech — is a legitimate political strategy to be encouraged, if not mandated by law
  • etc.

Neither type of SLAWB can be reasoned with. The hopelessly stupid SLAWB cannot understand, and the hopelessly biased SLAWB will not understand, or he will understand but pretend he does not understand because it profits him (e.g., Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jesse Jackson’s crazy son…).

Since they cannot be reasoned with, it is about time I stopped trying.

I have stopped trying

I mean it. I am done arguing with these morons and charlatans.

So now that I have stopped trying, what am I going to do with all my free time?

Which way, white man?

Well, I have decided to quit being a racist, turn in my white robes and Nazi memorabilia to the nearest Diversity Kiosk, and settle into life in the United States of Post-Racial America, where “anti-fascism” means “fascism,” “anti-racist” means “anti-white,” “diversity” means more blacks and Hispanics, and whites are an endangered species. I am abandoning conservative “hatred” (i.e., common sense) and embracing liberal “love” (i.e., hatred). Unamusement Park will now be 100 percent dedicated to kitties.

I said KITTIES. Where did that squirrel come from?

No, not really. What I am actually doing now is directing my hate energy toward three things:

  1. bringing reactionism — compassionate or otherwise — to a wider audience (minus the SLAWBs, who will never learn)
  2. producing material to help you (yes, you) do the same
  3. joining, promoting, and contributing to organizations of like-minded individuals

To that end, I have created a new category of links (see sidebar) for organizations I keep my eye on and, wherever possible, join. I am a member of Youth for Western Civilization and American Third Position, and a subscriber to American Renaissance. (If the FBI wasn’t tracking my credit card before, it is now.) None of these organizations are affiliated with Unamusement Park, and I won’t claim I agree with every single one of their positions, but as they say, compromise is the mother of… good… stuff.

They don't look all that hateful to me.

You heard it here first: compromise is the mother of good stuff.

Read Full Post »

Believe it or not, the ever expanding “Blacks Mobs” series was originally intended to be a single post (maybe two) simply listing incidents of black flash mob violence. But my research turned up something much more disturbing (and therefore much more interesting): the nearly universal suppression of the “race angle,” i.e., the fact that the violent mobs seem to be 100 percent African-American.

So much for my “Black Mobs” series. I could hardly just list the articles without also exposing their race denialism. And there’s a lot of that to expose. So I blended ghetto black dysfunction (GBD) with liberal media bias (LMB), and somehow the result, “Black Mobs and the Second Law of Race and Crime” (part 1) is turning out to be much more critical toward blacks than a pure GBD article would have been.

It’s not really a mystery:

  • black people attacking white people: grrr, bad!
  • white people ignoring black people attacking white people: YOU F#@%*^$ IDIOT A*#%^!&@, LOOK WHAT THEY’RE DOING TO US etc.

(My condemnations of white delusions about black dysfunctions are nothing if not enthusiastic.)

Anyway, Unamusement Park has been unusually hard on black people these last few days — hardly in keeping with the (poorly defined) tenets of compassionate reactionism. I therefore resolve to sprinkle in some posts about black people I admire.

First and foremost is Thomas Sowell.

Who is Thomas Sowell?

Thomas Sowell is an economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author, and currently a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution (a public policy think tank and library) at Stanford University.

He's black, which is very important to liberals, because it means he can't be racist.

Dr. Sowell has written books opposing affirmative action, supporting inherent ethnic differences, and exposing how white liberals are destroying black culture, among many other things. His articles (2000-present) are archived at Townhall.com, and we’ll be looking at a few of them tonight. Some of his essays are collected in Ever Wonder Why? and Other Controversial Essays, available in .pdf format here. Part VII is all about racial issues.

Sowell’s Critics

Some people criticize Dr. Sowell. Some of them criticize his ideas about race. Some of them are black. This post is not about those people. But here’s a taste, anyway: Deborah Toler writing in The Public Eye (September 1993).

For most African Americans the notion of a Black conservative is an oxymoron. The overwhelming majority of us [blacks] reject conservative political positions because we understand in concrete, everyday, practical terms what conservative policies are and who conservatives are, and we know both are racist. Conservative policies are Republican vetoes of civil rights bills, opposition to affirmative action, and Willie Horton campaign ads. Conservatives are Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Jesse Helms, David Duke, and Pat Buchanan. Enough said.

Got that? If you oppose affirmative action (i.e., discrimination against whites and Asians for the benefit of undeserving blacks and Hispanics, motivated by the “race is only skin deep” myth), then you might as well veto civil rights. And Ronald Reagan (“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”) is no better than David Duke (“the Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder”).

Well, that’s not crazy at all.

I'm paraphrasing.

Some Articles by Dr. Sowell

“The Fallacy of ‘Fairness'” (part 1), from February 2010, is a four-part series on — well, you figure it out. “Race and Politics” (part 1), from April, is another good four-parter. “Race Card Fraud” (July 20) is a much needed defense of the Tea Party.

“Bean-Counters and Baloney” (August 13) is all about the fallacy that disparate impact implies disparate treatment.

Anyone who has watched football over the years has probably seen at least a hundred black players score touchdowns — and not one black player kick the extra point. Is this because of some twisted racist who doesn’t mind black players scoring touchdowns but hates to see them kicking the extra points?

At our leading engineering schools — M.I.T., CalTech, etc. — whites are under-represented and Asians over-represented. Is this anti-white racism or pro-Asian racism? Or are different groups just different?

Finally, Sowell’s two-part series “The Multicultural Cult” is particularly appropriate in light of “Black Mobs and the Second Law of Race and Crime.” From part 1 (October 19):

Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about “diversity,” without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.

In Germany, as in other countries in Europe, welcoming millions of foreign workers who insist on remaining foreign has created problems so obvious that only the intelligentsia could fail to see them. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.

Multiculturalists condemn people’s objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.

The actual direct experience of the people who complain about the consequences of these social experiments is often dismissed as mere biased “perceptions” or “stereotypes,” if not outright “racism.” But some of the strongest complaints have come from middle-class blacks who have fled ghetto life, only to have the government transplant ghetto life back into their midst.

These rioting "teens" certainly defy description.

From part 2 (October 20):

[T]oday, attempts to get black or Hispanic youngsters to speak the language of the society around them are decried by multiculturalists. And any attempt to get them to behave according to the cultural norms of the larger society is denounced as “cultural imperialism,” if not racism.

The multicultural dogma is that we are to “celebrate” all cultures, not change them. In other words, people who lag educationally or economically are to keep on doing what they have been doing — but somehow have better results in the future than in the past. And, if they don’t have better results in the future, it is society’s fault.

And that’s just from 2010.

Some Videos Featuring Dr. Sowell

First: “Thomas Sowell Dismantles Egalitarianism,” in which black people in the United States are found not to express concern, damn it.

Black people have never supported, for example, affirmative action, quotas — anything of that sort. Wherever polls have been taken of black opinion, on such matters of “should people be paid equally?”… black people have never taken the position that you [Frances Fox Piven, socialist, AA supporter] describe.

Second: “Thomas Sowell – Diversity,” in which the magic powers of diversity are disputed.

[“Diversity”] is a word that has become magic! What does it mean, if anything? Are you saying to me that all black people are alike, therefore you’ve got to mix and match by race [i.e., implement affirmative action]?

Third: “Playing the Race Card at Every Turn,” in which race-baiting demagogues are denounced.

[Blacks of my generation] knew there was going to be a barrier. We would just keep going over and through them, around them, and whatever. But now you’ve raised a whole generation of people who think it’s absolutely hopeless.

[“Who’s telling them that?”] Oh, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton — you can run through the whole list of them.

[“But it can’t all be just blacks.”] No, there are all sorts of whites who are saying the same thing, you know: that every statistical disparity is proof that there are these huge barriers out there.

Fourth: “Thomas Sowell – Welfare,” in which welfare is seen for what it is.

What the welfare system and other kinds of governmental programs are doing is paying people to fail: insofar as they fail, they receive the money. Insofar as they succeed, even to a moderate extent, the money is taken away.

This is even extended into the school systems, where they will give money to schools with low scores. Insofar as the school improves its education, the money is taken away, so that you are subsidizing people to fail in their own private lives, and become more dependent upon the handouts.

Fifth: “Liberal Animosity” (short and to the point), in which a phenomenon familiar to conservatives, reactionaries, and realists of all stripes, is remarked upon.

People who have the constrained vision [conservatives] understand that people will make mistakes, and so therefore when someone says something they disagree with, that to them is just one of the examples of it [i.e., making a mistake]. They see no need to question his sincerity or honesty or whatever.

But for those with the unconstrained vision [liberals], what they believe seems so obviously true, that if you’re standing in the way of it, either you must be incredibly stupid, utterly uninformed, or simply dishonest.

As I’ve pointed out on a number of occasions, the more you know about race, the more likely you are to be called “ignorant” by someone who doesn’t actually know anything about the subject, “biased” by someone who will not be swayed by any amount of evidence, and “hateful” by… well, probably the nastiest people you’ll ever encounter.

Our Very First “Hobie”

In conclusion, I am pleased to announce that Unamusement Park’s first annual Big Smelly Hobo Hug Award for Excellence in Being a Black Conservative, or BSHHAEBBC — also known as the Hobie — goes to… Thomas Sowell!

Big smelly hobo hugs!

Wheeee

Read Full Post »

The SlutWalk debate rages on, and everywhere I look, I see the same fundamental fallacy — or, to be blunt, the same fundamental stupidity — from gender feminists. For example, from the Trent Arthur, a front-runner in the Most Biased Reporting competition: “No means no, unless you’re a ‘slut,'” by Hazel Wheeler.

That was the message sent out on January 24, 2011, when the Toronto Police addressed community members at a safety forum at York University’s Osgoode Hall. The comment put forth by one of the officers, that women should “avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized,” has caused outrage throughout the Osgoode community and beyond, and has made national news headlines.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the police officer was actually pointing out that if you don’t dress in a manner designed to make men sexually aroused, it is less likely that you will attract the attention of a man whose arousal is greater than his respect for your rights plus his fear of the possible consequences of raping you (injury, prison, etc.).

I applaud this girl's choice of attire. However, it puts her at a higher risk of being sexually assaulted.

The fundamental stupidity is to misinterpret this as “if you are a slut, then you don’t have any rights, and your assailant should not suffer any consequences.” Where feminists get this idea is a mystery to me. Almost every man they’ve ever met wholeheartedly agrees that women have the rights they keep harping on about, and that rapists should be caught and punished — severely. (We also think they’re crazy for doubting us.)

But you should keep in mind that evil people do exist. You cannot reason with them. You cannot make them empathize. You can only try to avoid them.

Shark rape: As if we didn’t have enough to worry about

Think of them as sharks. You wouldn’t ask a shark to respect your right not to get eaten, would you? Don’t ask rapists to respect your right not to get raped. They don’t care. That’s what makes them rapists. Just stay away from them. Since feminists have proven to be childlike in their reading comprehension skills, I suppose I should emphasize that I wrote “rapists,” not “men in general.”

Dressing modestly probably helps avoid rape. It seems plausible. But it’s your choice. Nobody is trying to take away your right to dress like a slut or act like a slut or call yourself a big ol’ slut. No one has come remotely close to suggesting it. Feminists are all just being hysterical.

There are many myths surrounding sexual assault, one of them being that a woman’s clothing or behaviour may increase her chances of becoming a target.

Madness. Feminists expect us to believe that a woman’s behavior doesn’t increase her chance of becoming a target? So a young woman walking home alone, late at night, drunk, in a poor part of town, is just as likely to be raped as the same woman sitting at home with a couple of friends, at ten in the morning, in a rich neighborhood?

"Swimming increases your risk of being eaten by a shark? VIIIIIIICTIM BLAAAAAAAMING!"

Note: if your first instinct is to say “she could get raped too, here is an example of a woman who did everything right but got raped anyway,” then you don’t know the definition of “chance” or “likely.” Look them up. I’ll wait.

In a few words: she’s asking for it. This line of thinking, where a woman’s rape is at least partly her fault, has generally been widely discredited; the only person who is responsible for an assault is the perpetrator. Period.

Same fallacy. Same stupidity. No one said she’s asking for it — that’s a feminist delusion. They see sexism everywhere.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the actual line of thinking is: there are things you can do to make yourself safer. Fault and blame don’t enter into this thought. Again, almost every man you have ever met agrees that the perpetrator is responsible. They don’t like rapists any more than you do. They may not shriek about it all the time, but they do have girlfriends and wives and mothers and sisters and daughters and enough brain cells to make the necessary connections. On the other hand, the few exceptions to the male rule will not be convinced otherwise, by you or anyone else. Period.

Wheeler writes: “no one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault.” The good news is, no one is. The bad news (for feminism) is, they are equating attracting sexual assault with attracting sexual assault.

Rape is about sex

The implications of these ideas are that men are mindless, sex-crazed animals, and that rape is born from a desire to have sex. If I were a man, I would take serious offense to the former, and to address the latter: rape is not about sex, but rather power and control.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the actual implication is that men are not one-dimensional beings. There is a great deal of variety among men: in height, weight, intelligence, sex drive, and even moral scruples. Acknowledge this variety and understand which end of which spectrum you need to be worried about, instead of screaming at the opposite end about sluts.

Much more important is acknowledging that rape is about sex. This is perhaps the most obviously true statement we can make about rape. Stephen Pinker, for one, has thoroughly debunked the feminist power-and-control myth in his book The Blank Slate, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Consider date rape, for instance: “Most people agree that women have the right to say no at any point during sexual activity, and that if the man persists he is a rapist — but should we also believe that his motive has instantaneously changed from wanting sex to oppressing women?”

"I want to have sex with you, but if you say no, I will stop wanting sex, and start wanting to oppress all women everywhere... which, coincidentally, I will accomplish by having sex with you."

I will list some more of his (fairly obvious) reasons why rape is about sex, not power or control.

  1. Rapists “rarely inflict a serious or fatal injury, which would preclude conception and birth.” This is not consistent with the power-and-control theory.

    Note: if your first instinct is to say “rapists are violent, here is an example of a violent rapist,” then you don’t know what “rarely” means.

  2. Rapists are “overwhelmingly young men, the age of the most intense sexual competitiveness.” Also not consistent with the power-and-control theory.

    Note: if your first instinct is to say “old men commit rape too, here is one old rapist,” then you don’t know what “overwhelmingly” means.

  3. “Victims of rape are mostly in the peak reproductive years for women, between thirteen and thirty-five,” as if we needed to be told, “with a mean in most data sets of twenty-four. Though many rape victims are classified as children (under the age of sixteen), most of these are adolescents, with a median age of fourteen. The age distribution is very different from that of victims of other violent crimes, and is the opposite of what would happen if rape victims were picked for their physical vulnerability [younger or older] or by their likelihood of holding positions of power [older].”

    Note: if your first instinct is to say anything other than “I agree,” then you don’t know the meaning of “mostly,” “most,” “mean,” “median,” “distribution,” or “likelihood.”

  4. Although rape is found in all human societies, “[c]ountries with far more rigid [traditional] gender roles, such as Japan, have far lower rates of rape” than less patriarchal countries, including the United States of America. So much for the evils of patriarchy.

    Again: “rates.” Please consult your dictionary.

Feminist sanity

You don’t have to take my word for it, though. Let’s ask a feminist. An equity feminist, that is: Camille Paglia, to be precise. Twenty years ago she made exactly the same point I did yesterday. (A clear case of time-travel plagiarism — as if shark rape wasn’t bad enough.)

For a decade, feminists have drilled their disciples to say, “Rape is a crime of violence but not sex.” This sugar-coated Shirley Temple nonsense has exposed young women to disaster. Misled by feminism, they do not expect rape from the nice boys from good homes who sit next to them in class. …

These girls say, “Well, I should be able to get to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy’s room without anything happening.” And I say, “Oh, really? And when you drive your car to New York City, do you leave your keys on the hood?” My point is that if your car is stolen after you do something like that, yes, the police should pursue the thief and he should be punished. But at the same time, the police — and I — have the right to say to you, “You stupid idiot, what the hell were you thinking?”

You stupid idiots, what the hell are you thinking? Why are you doing this?

Why they are doing this, and what they are really doing

From the original article:

SlutWalk is not about hate, nor seeing the offending officer fired, but rather demanding accountability from the Toronto Police Force, since, in [SlutWalk co-founder Heather Jarvis’] view, “they allowed him to go out as a representative, so his actions speak to the lack of training in dealing with rape culture and these sorts of stereotypes.”

SlutWalk is about feminist lies and willful ignorance. It is only making Toronto less safe for women. Congratulations, Heather, you’ve taught the police not to be honest about rape risk factors. (Actually, they already knew that, but you’ve hammered the point home.) They know you will not abide reality, if reality says: “you may do as you please, but I will impose consequences on you.”

There is no cause for alarm. Feminists assure me, walking alone through this park at night cannot possibly increase your chances of being assaulted.

Bring it on home, Heather.

“This is something that people want and need. Yes, there is criticism, and there always will be, but hundreds of people are showing their support for this initiative, and I think that speaks strongly to something that people are sick and tired of and want to do something about.”

Sadly, they’re not doing anything to stop rape or to help rape victims. All they’re doing is suppressing information — information that might actually do some good — in order to advance their slut-positive, sex-worshiping, reality-denying, criminally irresponsible gender feminist ideology.

Read Full Post »

Apparently this SlutWalk phenomenon is much bigger than I initially thought — and much crazier, and much more harmful to women. You can read more in the Excalibur, in the Trent Arthur, at Sexlife Canada, and at thestar.com.

What will you find? Thousands of sluts (their word, not mine) united in condemning a man for saying something undeniably true out of a desire to protect them, and all committing the exact same fallacy: just because you want to be able to behave any way you like without consequences — in or out of your bedroom — doesn’t mean you can. You don’t have to like reality, but you do have to live in it.

Every time a feminist lies that rape is about power, not sex, and every time she meets useful information with victim-blaming hysteria, she is making the world a little less safe for women. This kind of feminism, gender feminism, is undoubtedly doing real harm to women — as opposed to hypothetical harm, like the notion that rape victims will only come forward if no one ever says out loud what we all know to be true; namely, that for any given crime, there is a list of optional behaviors that definitely increase your chances of becoming a victim of that crime.

Don’t worry, though. Thanks to that feminist, no rape victim will ever forget it wasn’t her fault she was assaulted as she walked home at 3 am, alone, drunk, and wearing her awesome new miniskirt. She knew exactly what she was doing. She was armed with the knowledge that rape isn’t about sex, so how could her revealing clothing have anything to do with it? It just doesn’t make sense. The man who attacked her was clearly seeking power and control over women. His only motivation was furthering the goals of the global patriarchal conspiracy (the same conspiracy that mysteriously failed to deny American and Canadian women the right to vote, go to school, etc.). Next week, he’ll probably rape an 80-year-old grandmother at lunch time.

Go ahead, the gender feminists will say. Do the same thing tomorrow night. Or don’t, it makes no difference. Even if you stay home with Granny, you’re just as likely to be the victim of sexual assault. After all, patriarchal control isn’t limited to any particular time of the day, or place in the city, or kind of woman.

And above all else, anyone who disagrees is victim blaming.

If you think you missed some of my sarcasm, please read my previous post and the comments on it, where I lay out my positions on the matters of rape, women’s rights, blame assignation, causal relationships in human behavior, sexy schoolgirl sluts, and vicious grizzly bears, among other things.

Read Full Post »

One of the peculiarities of our decadent age is the ongoing undeclared War on Hate. That it is a war waged against an emotion — often a useful and appropriate one — is not its most ludicrous feature. No, more ludicrous by far is that it is being waged by the most hateful and malicious elements of our society. They are the worst hypocrites in the world, and for failing to recognize their hypocrisy, they are also idiots. Here are some of these hypocritical idiots:

  • feminists (second and later waves), who hate men
  • anti-racists (“anti”-racists would be better), who hate whites (but include many of them)
  • liberals, who hate values (traditional or otherwise)
  • socialists in any guise (communists, Marxists, Democrats, etc.), who hate success
  • deviants of all shapes and sizes (e.g., some but not all atheists and some but not all gays/lesbians/bisexuals/other weird shit), who hate a society that rejects them

Hatred is a five-part documentary on their struggle.

Their stupid, useless, confused, evil struggle.

John Derbyshire Redux

I’ll start at the beginning — of this blog, that is, when I discussed John Derbyshire’s attempt to explain black cognitive inferiority at a panel discussion, organized by the Black Law Students Association of the University of Pennsylvania, on how to eliminate the persistent achievement gap between blacks and whites.

You can’t. Race differences in intelligence are largely genetic. Derbyshire knows this, so he pointed out that

  1. reproductively isolated populations diverge genetically over time (for example, Africans and Europeans),
  2. there are race differences in various traits (with an appeal to athletic ability, which favors blacks and is therefore much less embarrassing to liberals than mental ability, which favors whites), and
  3. everyone should just relax, because after all we don’t cry over individual differences, so why all the angst over these abstract, average, group differences?

The aftermath, according to Derbyshire:

This was followed by a sort of stunned silence, into which Madame Moderator interjected the remark that “Mr. Derbyshire is here as a private guest of Prof. Wax [of the law school], not at the invitation of the BLSA.” This was not true. …

Mingling for refreshments afterwards, I found the BLSA students a friendly bunch. The only rancor was from some older guy, either a mature student or an academic, who said that my ideas were “old” and my remarks “hurtful.” Apparently he thought that one or other, or both, of these observations invalidated the truth content of what I had said. Everyone else was either pleasant, or just ignored me.

Not bad at all. I mean, if you acted this way toward a black professor of some made-up bullshit subject like Africana Studies who was spouting some farcical white-hating social theory of black failure, you would be expelled/fired/sued/investigated by Congress/shot at dawn. But given that conservatives are not a designated victim group, and can therefore be freely discriminated against, it’s not a bad reaction at all.

On the other hand, we have this article, “John Derbyshire tells black law students they are inferior,” whose author Downeastdem, safely ensconced in the liberal fortress Daily Kos, is free to lob malice and rage at the conservative Derbyshire without fear of reprisal (i.e., embarrassing rebuttal of his stupid ideas).

The Daily Kos article is almost 100% lies, starting with the first sentence, which calls Derbyshire a “white supremacist,” and continuing with the second, which calls his remarks a “‘Racism 101’ lecture.” The following quote is singled out as particular abhorrent: “racial disparities in education and employment have their origin in biological differences between the human races.” Note that this is a true statement.

Now, there are three important points to consider.

1. This is not what racism sounds like

A “‘Racism 101’ lecture” by a “white supremacist” does not sound like that. It sounds more like this:

end of the [black] race

Im have wondered this, I have even meditaded about this so much suffering has been cause by this race of demons, they are as ungodly as they are ugly, for instance they ar responsible for most or ALL of the worlds evil…

There is no reason to let them keep on living they just hate and hate and hate, they know nothing but hate and hell, they need to go back to hell where they come from, those [black] babies need to burn in hell with their evil satanist parents. … they are guilty of massive crimes against humanity, they are the greatest perpetrators of evil EVER, they are the most evil force to have ever existed. The are murderous, callous and inhuman both in your words and deeds. Where EVER these people go, murder and depravity follow. I have never seen such casual bloodlust.

This is actually the work of black supremacist blogger BLACKPHANTOMX; I’ve simply replaced the original targets, whites, with blacks. (I won’t link his blog, because (1) it’s not worth reading and (2) I know it will infuriate him, as he does not understand the difference between quoting and plagiarizing.)

2. Anti-racists are stupid

Willfully, perhaps, but stupid nonetheless. Here is a particularly stupid quote from the aforementioned particularly stupid Daily Kos author Downeastdem:

Derbyshire then goes on to explain to the black students at one of the most prestigious law schools in the nation the scientific foundation of their inferior intellectual abilities…

Blacks have inferior intellectual abilities on average. The existence of black people smart enough to get into law school at the University of Pennsylvania does not contradict this fact. In fact, the theory of race differences in intelligence, with its infamous bell curves, requires that some black people be smarter than the average white person.

3. Anti-racists are hateful and malicious

Which I have previously mentioned, but I don’t mind repeating myself.

When Downeastdem writes that “Derbyshire was treated with far more civility… than he deserved” (emphasis mine), I wonder: just how little civility did he deserve, for daring to politely point out some uncomfortable truths?

What would constitute a sufficient level of incivility? Should the law students have stormed the stage, seized his microphone, and poured a jug of ice water over his head? Or just waited for him in the parking lot? How is the reader supposed to interpret that remark? If someone disagrees with you about race, they deserve to be treated badly. So much for “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Evelyn Beatrice Hall).

Contrast Derbyshire’s closing remarks:

Group differences are statistical truths. They exist in an abstract realm quite far removed from our everyday personal experience. They tell you nothing about the person you just met.

Group differences are, for example, one degree more abstract than individual differences. We all acknowledge individual differences all the time: she’s fat, he’s thin, she’s shy, he’s outgoing, she’s smart, he’s dumb. …

And yet — look! We don’t lose sleep over this. We don’t sink into rage and frustration at our own individual differences, or agitate for politicians to put balm on our psychic wounds. We accept our individual shortcomings with remarkable equanimity, playing the cards we’ve been dealt as best we can. That is the attitude of a healthy human being. To do otherwise would, most of us I’m sure would agree, be un-healthy. How much more unhealthy, then, to fret and rage and agitate about mere statistical abstractions?

Remind me: who’s on what side of the War on Hate?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: