Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Propaganda’

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

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

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

Logic, Ms. Trice: try it sometime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank God!

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

No comment necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ones that survive the treatment, that is.

Read Full Post »

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

You probably know the basic facts.

It happened Saturday night.

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

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

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

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

Quelle surprise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless of course the races are reversed.

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

This oughta be good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

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

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

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the victims of Black thugs in Chicago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And speaking of victim blaming:

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

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

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

Returning to Kern’s article:

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

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

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

A couple of Black savages.

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

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

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

We’ll deal with those clowns later.

Read Full Post »

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

The problem is Black people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please enjoy.

No, scratch that. Please get mad as hell.

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

“Blacks Mobs and the Second Law of Race and Crime” (part 1) is our (slowly) ongoing series documenting the uniquely Black phenomenon of flash mob violence, where hundreds or even thousands of “teens” or “youths” or “kids” (the mainstream media’s code for “Black felons”), coordinated by social media, assemble without warning in a public place to riot, loot, assault random bystanders, and generally trash as much of the city as possible.

Never heard of them? Well, you just proved one of the Three Laws of Race and Crime.

  1. First Law: There is no bias against Black people in the justice system.
  2. Second Law: The news media are biased in favor of Black people.
  3. Third Law: Black people are more criminal than White people.

So far we’ve seen, in detail, how (dishonestly) the media covered Black flash mob violence in 2009 and up to April 2010. By then, the mobs had spread from their apparent point of origin in downtown Philadelphia to several other American cities. I’m going fast forward through the rest of 2010. Watch — if you like — as Philly gets hit again, the mobs spread to other cities and other countries, and the racially motivated violence escalates while the media desperately skew the story in favor of the ghetto Blacks responsible.

Independence Day

From ABC Action News: “‘Unruly crowd’ forms after 4th of July celebration” (with videos). (Yes, the same ABC Action News whose coverage of the March 3 Center City flash mob not only omitted the perpetrators’ race, but also blurred their faces.)

Independence Day celebrations got out of hand late last night when an unruly crowd converged on Center City. … As the crowds cleared for the night, a chaotic scene erupted on South Broad Street, near City Hall. Viewer video, obtained exclusively by Action News, shows an unruly crowd of young people flooded into the streets. Police rushed to the scene.

Jay Ingersoll captured the home video. Jay explains to Action News, “We left the fireworks probably not even five minutes into [the show]… and we left and we walked down Chestnut Street. And we got to 15th and Chestnut and we heard ‘Flash mob, flash mob, flash mob!'”

He said he saw fights breaking out, people getting punched as police moved in to try and make arrests.

By now it should go without saying that the “young people” in the video are Black. But don’t worry! This wasn’t a violent Black flash mob.

It was just a violent Black regular mob.

Police insist this latest incident was not a flash mob. According to the definition police associate with a flash mob, it is a pre-organized event spread by young people using social networking sites, agreeing to meet some place and cause trouble. Whereas Sunday night’s mob seemed to be “a spontaneous eruption of unruly behavior” from people who were leaving the July 4th festivities. Police say, so far there no indications that last night’s events were preplanned in any way.

Flash mobs are something that police and prosecutors have worked very hard to crack down on. There were a couple of them along Market Street during the school year.

The flash mobs in question occurred in Center City on February 17 and March 3. Not mentioned is the flash mob March 20 on South Street, nor the random rampages in 2009: May on South Street, June on South Street, and December in Center City (“along Market Street”) — and that’s just Philadelphia — nor the fact that all the rioters appear to have been African-American.

Saturday Night Fun

Stu Bykofsky’s opinion piece, “How can we, why must we, deal with savages among us?,” mentions yet another flash mob in Philadelphia. Good luck finding coverage.

LAST WEEKEND I was at a conference of the National Society of Newspaper Columnists, and on Sunday afternoon one of them asked me about the “riot that closed South Street.” I knew nothing about it, but later learned that whatever it was — maybe a flash mob — it wasn’t a riot. There were “minor injuries” and 15 arrests. Just Saturday night fun?

… When I say savages, what do I mean? Behavior falling somewhere between felony and “Jersey Shore.”

Like the mob mentality that grips some Philadelphians. There was the South Street “event” last weekend, following the post-fireworks July Fourth beatdown of a few random people in the shadow of City Hall, and the spring flash-mob rampage on South Street.

He missed a few. See above.

Anti-social behavior stems “from the collective mindset of the community, neighborhood, family or social groups,” psychotherapist Pamela Garber told me, and it is not owned by any race or income level.

Thank God there was a psychotherapist on hand to assure us that anti-social behavior (which in this case is code for “Black people rioting, looting, and attacking whites and Asians”) stems from a “collective mindset,” which of course has nothing to do with race or income level — you racist/classist, you — albeit a collective mindset only ghetto Black people seem to share.

When I lived in South Philly, savages uprooted newly planted saplings in the oasis of Marconi Park, smashed beer bottles on every walkway, shot out park lights and wrecked a tot lot within a week of its opening. … Now, savages litter the city, slash car tires, abuse animals, bully other kids and destroy public property for fun.

What percentage of the “savages” are Black? 90 percent? 99 percent? 100 percent? Just curious.

What creates the urban, anti-social savage? The easy — and correct — answer is bad parenting, but there’s more to it than that because many people survive bad parenting to become good people.

“One factor involved is a sort of disinhibition that I seem to discern in our culture,” says Temple University psychologist Frank Farley. “What I mean is a weakening of impulse control that we’re more willing to express ourselves, less willing to inhibit that expression in a wide range of contexts.”

Explain why White people aren’t similarly “disinhibited,” Professor (notwithstanding those crazy Canadians and their hockey obsession). Slavery?

Read Full Post »

By now, you are probably aware of evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa’s latest thought-crime, “Why Black Women Are Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women” (May 15, since retitled and deleted).

The reaction to Kanazawa’s research has been generally idiotic. Consider the Daily Mail’s pathetic coverage in “‘Black women are less attractive than others’: Controversial LSE psychologist sparks backlash with his ‘scientific’ findings” (May 19). (Note the obligatory scare quotes around “scientific.”) The caption to the second photograph is representative.

According to Satoshi Kanazawal [sic], ‘science’ would suggest Naomi Campbell [who is Black] is less attractive than fellow supermodel Elle Macpherson [who is White].

If the error isn’t obvious, here it is in another context: “According to ‘science’ that claims the average man is taller than the average woman, that man” — pointing to a short man — “is taller than that woman” — pointing to a tall woman.

It is not the first time that Dr Kanazawa, 48, a lecturer within the department of management at the LSE, has been accused of peddling racist theories.

In 2006 he published a paper suggesting the poor health of some sub-Saharan Africans is the result of low IQ, not poverty.

Professor Paul Gilroy, a sociology lecturer at the LSE, said: ‘Kanazawa’s persistent provocations raise the issue of whether he can do his job effectively in a multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution.

‘If he announces that he thinks sub-Saharan Africans are less intelligent than other people, what happens when they arrive in his classroom?’

Answer: they fail, because they’re just affirmative-action admissions.

The innately inferior intelligence of sub-Saharan Africans (as a group), and Blacks in general, is a scientific fact and should not be controversial; see my flyer on the subject of race differences in intelligence in America. Yet the sociologist Paul Gilroy wants Kanazawa fired, and his research suppressed, in the name of diversity and multiculturalism. It’s James Watson all over again.

OkCupid

The inferior attractiveness of Black women should not be a controversial finding either. I suspect many readers have personally noticed the VERY OBVIOUS phenomena of racial preferences in dating. For example, White men are preferable to Black men, who are preferable to Asian men (on average), and White and Asian women are much preferable to Black women. Still, we should be able to do better than anecdotal evidence.

We, after all, are not the sort of people who cry “racism” every time a Black man gets pulled over by the cops.

The dating website OkCupid has published a study, “How Your Race Affects The Messages You Get” (October 5, 2009) on the racial dating preferences of over a million users. This is particularly good data for two reasons.

First, these aren’t college student volunteers sitting in a lab, ranking photographs for some professor. They’re real people trying to start real relationships (or at least get real laid). After all, attractiveness is more than just a pretty face (e.g., mine).

Second, online dating minimizes several factors not directly related to attraction, which would otherwise favor same-race relationships. On the Internet, it doesn’t matter if you’re Asian and live uptown with your all-Asian friends who frown on mixed-race relationships, while the person you find most attractive is Indian and lives downtown, and the two of you would never ordinarily meet. That can’t stop you from messaging her, can it?

Nevertheless, it turns out that Black men are 13 percentage points more likely to respond to Asian women than one would expect if race were not a factor, while Asian women are 10 points less likely than expected to respond to Black men. White men disfavor Black women by 10 points. Indian women disfavor Indian men by 9 points. But White women respond to White men at exactly the expected rate.

The overall findings are not surprising, provided you know more than a few people of other races.

  • “Black women write back the most.”
  • “White men get more responses.”
  • “White women prefer white men to the exclusion of everyone else — and Asian and Hispanic women prefer them even more exclusively.”
  • “Men don’t write black women back.”
  • “White guys respond less overall.”

The article concludes:

It’s surely not just OkCupid users that are like this. In fact, [any] dating site (and indeed any collection of people) would likely exhibit messaging biases similar to what I’ve written up. Any dating site probably has these biases. According to our internal metrics, at least, OkCupid’s users are better-educated, younger, and far more progressive than the norm, so I can imagine that many sites would actually have worse race stats.

Note that racial preferences, which we all have (no exceptions), are to be considered bad — at least, they are when they disfavor certain minorities. I can only speculate that “better” race stats would show that people ignore race when choosing a partner, which would be dangerous and stupid; or that people actually prefer those Designated Victim Groups, e.g. choosing Black men over those awful, nasty Whites, which would be even more dangerous and stupid.

Objective Beauty

Four points:

  1. Evolution favors reproductive fitness.
  2. Human reproduction is accomplished through sex.
  3. Sex is driven by sexual attraction. That is, attraction is the proximate cause of sex. (“Why did you sleep with her?” “Because she was hot.”) The ultimate cause is evolution. (“Why did you find her hot?” “Because I evolved that way.”) Radical pseudoscientists like Hank Campbell don’t understand the difference, which is why they reject Kanazawa’s findings.
  4. Sexual attraction is the basis for beauty.

As a result of 1–4, we have evolved a universal ideal of beauty, like not being fat. Someone who prefers fat people for sex is abnormal, just like someone who prefers infants for sex, or inanimate objects; or someone who prefers to wash his hands until they bleed, ten times a day.

Certain characteristically White traits, including skin tone and hair texture, appear to be part of the universal ideal of beauty. I invite the skeptic to consider this fat Black chick.

Obligatory Hot White Girl

You can’t seriously be disappointed by the lack of pictures of hot white girls in this post. You’re on the Internet, for crying out loud. Exert yourself.

Alright, fine. In honor of Norway, here is a hot Norwegian girl.

She is indeed a hot Norwegian girl.

In retrospect, that was a really good idea.

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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: