Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Traditional Values’

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 »

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 »

Commenter Kiwiguy recently confirmed the need for HBD and race realism blogs, citing a thread by Saffer on the optimistically named “Straight Dope” message board (“Fighting Ignorance Since 1973”).

I have fixed up the spelling, grammar, and punctuation, because it was awful; and Americanized the spelling, because it was distracting. You may of course follow my links to the source, if you prefer.

1. South Africa Sucks

Saffer writes in the original post:

Recently, a prominent South African politician has said that white people are criminals for stealing the land from black people, and that white-owned land will be expropriated with no compensation and given to black people. He said this alongside the president, who did nothing to deny it.

The majority of the voting population seems to be in favor of this short-sighted approach. Is South Africa destined to become Zimbabwe 2?

After right-thinking forum-goers accuse him of giving off a “racist odor” (I’ve found it smells like Black Forest cake), he hastens to clarify, lest the ongoing fight against ignorance turn against him (comment #11):

I do not believe for one second that any race is inferior to any other.

I do believe that apartheid was disgusting and evil.

I am inclined to believe that if South Africa was free much earlier on, it could be considered “first world” by now.

Kiwiguy notes that “without a nuanced understanding of [human biodiversity], this person can’t say groups aren’t inferior, but on the other hand they’re not going to have statistically similar outcomes either. So no, even if it was free earlier, it is unlikely it would be first world by now.” (I have various ideas of my own on the subject, of course.)

Straight Dope is corrupted by race denialism to the point that recognizing that Zimbabwe has gone to hell since they kicked out the white government, and failing to rally behind the expropriation of white-owned land, are said to give off the stink of racial hatred. I have neither the time nor the inclination to debunk a thread’s worth of errors, factual and logical. But I would like to address some tangentially-related multiculturalist sleight of hand.

2. Don’t Blame the Huts

Markxxx writes (comment #9):

“Africans also have the problem that they want new technology but they also want their old heritage. The two things are not always compatible. You can’t live in huts, worship your tribal ancestors, and have Internet, TV, modern medicine.”

This is… not quite right, or at least not nearly precise enough. Overall, the behavior of Africans is indeed incompatible with the maintenance, let alone the formation, of a civilized society, never mind a technologically advanced one. Some of the incompatible behavior can be considered part of their cultural heritage, some of it is merely human nature in a hostile environment, and some of it is African human nature (e.g., race differences in intelligence).

Strictly speaking, it’s not the huts’ fault (and, considering China and Korea, ancestor worship does not seem to be an obstacle at all). Living in a hut stands for all the horrible things about Africa that differentiate it from the civilized world.

Synecdoche, I suppose.

3. Exotic Dancing in Junior High

even sven replies (comment #27):

You gotta remember that these “exotic” spear dances (or whatever) are exactly the same as the square dancing your grandma made you learn in Junior High. A “bizarre ancestor worship ceremony” is exactly the same as an old-fashioned tent revival. My Cameroonian friend’s family photo albums looked straight out of National Geographic, but to them, they are just photos of grandma, grandpa and old Aunt Libby. That hut? It’s cozy and nostalgic like an old farmhouse or a log cabin.

This is one of those ideas that manages to be deeply wrong without saying anything false.

Nothing wrong with spear dances, no… Sure, ancestor worship is fine… Family photo albums, uh huh… Huts? Okay, why not. Just like camping, right?

Thus, with the focus firmly on Africa’s least offensive features, you’re left with the impression that the differences between African and Western culture are strictly superficial. We’re different, but equally good — or rather, we have no right to judge them as being good (“good”) or bad (“bad”).

This is reinforced in a later comment (#46). The emphasis is mine; I want to highlight how even sven diminishes Western culture.

We’ve got a few hundred years of painting Africa as primitive, savage and uncivilizable. Why stop now?

How is worshiping your ancestors somehow inherently incompatible with modernity, and worshiping a dead Jewish guy is not? Why is it that when we organize under linguistic, religious, geographic and familial ties we are creating the wonderful thing we call ‘a community’ but when Africans do that, it’s a backwards ‘tribe’?

So much for Christianity. Oh, and our communities have been safely sequestered in scare quotes so as not to hurt the feelings of African tribesmen.

How are traditional healers different than our own new-age BS?

Well, for one thing, most of us know it’s BS. Plus, it’s not the best form of medicine we could come up with.

Why are chiefs more backwards than any other royalty?

By all means, let us compare Liberian cannibal warlords to the Queen of England.

I’m not saying it’s all roses — it’s not. But half the “backwards” stuff people harp about only becomes “backwards” when you use the words we made up to describe African institutions rather than their familiar counterparts.

The “straight dope” here is nothing more than cultural relativism, pure and uncut, injected straight into the heart of darkness. No culture is better than any other — provided you’re as biased as possible against Western culture, while ignoring anything wrong with Africa. Saying that you’re not saying it’s all roses isn’t enough. Where are the thorns?

Yes, those were all excellent examples of African culture: photos of mom and pop and little Kwame, our cozy starter hut, Grandma’s shrunken head (okay, that’s South American culture), all that exotic dancing (er, not that kind). Well, here’s one more.

4. Beading

From CNN World: “Activist battles Kenyan tradition of rape ‘beading'” (May 11, 2011).

“Josephine” is 12 years old and several months pregnant.

She’s a member of the Samburu tribe, living in a small village in a remote part of Isiolo in Kenya’s Eastern Province. The pre-teen, whose identity is being protected, claims she had sex with a relative — a rape sanctioned by the Samburu, through a practice called “beading.”

In “beading,” a close family relative will approach a girl’s parents with red Samburu beads and place the necklace around the girl’s neck.

“Effectively he has booked her,” says Kulea, a member of the Samburu herself. “It is like a (temporary) engagement, and he can then have sex with her.” Girls are also “beaded” as an early marriage promise by non-relatives.

Some girls who are “beaded” are no more than 6 years old. …

Samburu culture dictates that girls be engaged to a relative, she says, and they are allowed to have sex with him. But “they are not allowed to get pregnant and there is no preventative measures,” she says. “At the end of the day, most girls get pregnant … and these (infants) end up dying or being killed or being given away.”

[T]aboo dictates the girls will never be able to marry if they keep their babies resulting from beading.

Philip Lemantile, the father of 14-year-old Nasuto, says beading is aimed at stopping promiscuity among young girls.

“This is our culture,” he says. “It is part of us. And we have been practicing it, and we accept that these girls should be beaded, and sometimes the girls just get pregnant.”

You see? It is their culture. It is part of them. They accept it. Why, that’s no different from taking your sweetheart to the sock hop! Except she’s twelve years old, she’s your cousin, and when you pin a corsage on her, you’re reserving the right to have sex with her, whether she wants to or not. I could list a hundred more examples of African culture, incomparable to anything in the last century of Western culture.

Obligatory disclaimer for the hopelessly biased: despite the fact that rape and incest occur in Western countries — more and more as we give up our traditional culture and open our borders to immigrants, legal and illegal — despite that, rape and incest are not part of Western culture. We know this because (a) we’ve made them illegal, (b) the police actually enforce those laws, and (c) we are overwhelmingly disgusted by that kind of behavior.

It is not our culture. It is not part of us. We do not accept it.

5. Heaven and Hell

What can a relativist say to this? They have no grounds for opposing practices like beading while celebrating spear dances and ancestor worship. Two of them are harmless? Tell that to the witch-burning child torturers. If it wasn’t for their services, Africa would be overrun with spell casters! And that’s much worse than a little AIDS pandemic. It is of course presumptuous to think the West is more “advanced,” just because we stopped burning witches in the 1700s. Maybe we got it all wrong.

As soon as you open the door to cultural relativism, right and wrong disappear — at least until reality catches up and kicks you in the teeth. That’s when you remember that hey, savagery and barbarism and all those other social constructions really do exist after all. By that time, though, the mob rules. I don’t think I’m being paranoid. I’d just rather not die young.

You can’t separate good from evil without a moral frame of reference. Trashing traditional values and community, over and over, while ignoring everything wrong with Africa, is not the way to make the Dark Continent a brighter place. The kind of place you’d want to live in, not just drop by to drop off some medicine and dig a couple of wells. Not the kind of place you’d do anything to walk away from.

6. I Ain’t Gonna Work on Grandma’s Hut No More

Modernity can exist without having to look exactly like American culture (as surely we’ve realized from East Asia.) Nostalgia is present in every culture — from country kitsch to Africans nostalgic about Grandma’s hut.

True, modernity can exist without having to look exactly like American culture. It could look like German culture, for instance, or Spanish, or Japanese. But by all accounts modernity and African culture are mutually exclusive: one can only rise while the other is slipping away. And by “African culture,” I don’t mean just the least horrible parts. I mean the whole of African culture, as practiced by Africans when they aren’t staring down the barrels of 9,000 guns, courtesy of the United Nations.

As Jared Taylor wrote in his excellent article on Hurricane Katrina, “Africa in Our Midst”:

Natural disasters usually bring out the best in people, who help neighbors and strangers alike. For blacks — at least the lower-class blacks of New Orleans — disaster was an excuse to loot, rob, rape and kill.

Our rulers and media executives will try to turn the story of Hurricane Katrina into yet another morality tale of downtrodden blacks and heartless whites, but pandering of this kind fools fewer and fewer people. Many whites will realize — some for the first time — that we have Africa in our midst, that utterly alien Africa of road-side corpses, cruelty, and anarchy that they thought could never wash up on these shores.

To be sure, the story of Hurricane Katrina does have a moral for anyone not deliberately blind. The races are different. Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears. And in a crisis, it disappears overnight.

You can keep arguing with the race realists, by which I mean you can keep saying we’re Nazis without ever addressing our arguments, but your denial of human nature — African human nature especially — is killing far more people than Hitler ever did.

PS No Holocaust denial.

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 »

Starlette McNeill of the Daily Race has stumbled across Unamusement Park’s secret hate laboratory in the course of her spiritual pilgrimage/intrepid sleuthing, just like in that Nancy Drew book. You know, Nancy Drew and the Secret of White Racial Consciousness?

Hypothetically speaking, would it be okay to say 'Nancy Drew is smoking hot and looks like she's up for anything'?

Fortunately, she — I mean Mrs. McNeill, not Miss Drew — hasn’t yet uncovered our secret bunker complex in Vermont. That, at least, is safe. For the moment.

1. Dialogue: FACILITATED

Regarding whiny black people, Mrs. McNeill writes

MRS. McNEILL: To describe this post as troubling is an understatement as it does nothing to further the discussion of your position however disagreeable it may be for me. I think that I am more disturbed at your handling of the matter and your redefining of its expression as “another whiny black.” Now, I’m not offended at the title because I don’t identify myself as either whiny or black. The comments that you approved for others to view are indicative of your goal. In my opinion, you would do more to facilitate constructive and meaningful dialogue if you were not so constrained in your vision by race.

I grant that this (“does nothing to further the discussion”) is a reasonable thing to say if you are unfamiliar with the ‘Park and its endless treatises on black people and their many idiosyncrasies. “Another whiny black” is, quite frankly, not much of a post, content-wise. Therefore I suggested more substantial material. “I don’t know what dialogue you think I’m trying to facilitate,” I further ventured, “but I’d settle for getting white people angry.” Followed by the irresistible: “Seriously? You don’t identify as black?” (She will accept “African-American.”)

Anyway, I thought her follow-up comment merited a post of its own.

MRS. McNEILL: Thanks for responding to my post and no, I don’t identify as a black person — seriously. I believe that a racialized life is an unexamined and unexperienced life. It is an identity given as I was told that I was black and I have a choice as to whether or not I want to accept it.

Aesthetically, I am not physically black so what does it mean when I am referred to as a black person? Black is a social condition not a human condition. Some books that have been very instrumental in strengthening my position include that of Race: The History of an Idea in America by Thomas Gossett, The Invention of the White Race by Theodore Allen and anything by David Roediger who said, “(Whiteness) is the empty and therefore terrifying attempt to build an identity based on what one isn’t and on whom one cannot hold back.” The reality of race has not been proven by any branch of science, philosophy or religion though employed by all to justify its oppressions and privileges. It is a cruel imagination in my opinion. To say that I live a raceless life is actually quite liberating. I stand in agreement with Albert Einstein who said once, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it” and DuBois who said that color is “the eternal world-wide mark of meanness.” You have to step outside of it in order to honestly critique it and reject it.

I should add that I do identify as an African American as black is not a country or a continent for that matter but a color.

This post is an open letter to Mrs. McNeill and anyone else who sympathizes with her ideas.

I will try to behave.

I have a bad track record of good behavior.

2. Like the police, I’m always telling black people to identify themselves (LOL jk)

If we’re going to have a productive dialogue, and not just play word games until one of us gets bored, then we need to establish some terminology. It doesn’t really matter what terms we use, as long as we both know what they refer to (language being defined by usage).

Yes, black is a color. No, Mrs. McNeill, you are not black in that sense. However, that is not what I mean by “black” in this context, and it is not what 99.9 percent of the English-speaking world means by it either. Forget the color black. It’s about as relevant to this conversation as the South Pole is to Polish people.

Human beings can be grouped into races (and subraces) according to ancestral geography. The black races are made up of people of recent Sub-Saharan African descent: those people whose ancestors, going back hundreds of generations and thousands of years, except possibly for the last few hundred years, were inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa. Obviously, there are also people who are 50 percent black, 90 percent black, 1 percent black, and so on, and the lines we draw to separate black from non- are necessarily blurry — but then so is the line between short and tall, yet height continues to exist.

There are five races of blacks (again, this is based on ancestral geography): the Khoid race (or Hottentot), the Sanid race (or Bushmen), the Central Congoid race, the Bambutid race (or Pygmies), and the Aethiopid race (hybridized with Caucasoids). In America, for well-known historical reasons, the majority of blacks belong to the Central Congoid race (“[g]eographic center and origin in the Congo river basin”). There’s just not a whole lot of Bushmen or Pygmies here.

It is important to remember that races are not defined by skin pigmentation, although in America dark skin is a convenient way to identify black people — hence the term “black”. (There’s not a whole lot of dark-skinned Australian Aborigines here either. Maybe they’re all hanging out with the Pygmies.)

The Central Congoid race has four subraces, two of which are particularly well known. West Africans (the Sudanid subrace) produce the world’s best sprinters. East Africans (the Kafrid or Bantid subrace), on the other hand, produce the best distance runners, but they don’t make good sprinters. According to Jon Entine’s book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, “no white, Asian or East African has broken ten seconds in the 100metres.”

How can this be? What does ancestral geography have to do with athletic ability? Well, the relevant equation here is:

geographical separation + time + evolution = genetic differences

That, at least, is what evolutionary biology teaches us to expect. Can we test this theory? In fact, this is what happens when you measure and plot three principal components of genetic variation (PC1, PC2, PC3) among black people:

Genetic variation in Africa. Source: "The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans."

If I had to choose just one conclusion to draw from that graph, “races don’t exist” wouldn’t be it. More on that later.

3. Positive ID

I think this addresses one part of Mrs. McNeill’s comment.

MRS. McNEILL: … I don’t identify as a black person… It is an identity given as I was told that I was black and I have a choice as to whether or not I want to accept it.

Aesthetically, I am not physically black so what does it mean when I am referred to as a black person? Black is a social condition not a human condition. …

I should add that I do identify as an African American as black is not a country or a continent for that matter but a color.

According to my definition (which happens to be a very popular one, as well as the only one that makes sense socially, genetically, and anthropologically), one cannot choose to be black or not, for exactly the same reason that one cannot choose one’s parents.

Americans are citizens of the United States of America; Africans come from Africa, or at least their ancestors do; African-Americans… well, you figure it out. But black is — okay, yes, a color, but also a way to describe ancient ancestry.

4. The reality of race

Now I’ll address the second part of Mrs. McNeill’s comment.

MRS. McNEILL: The reality of race has not been proven by any branch of science, philosophy or religion though employed by all to justify its oppressions and privileges. It is a cruel imagination in my opinion.

You’re in luck, because debunking the boldfaced statement is one of Unamusement Park’s specialties. I have written extensively on the subject:

  1. “Big Lies,” Big Lie #1 being that race doesn’t exist
  2. “The African Running Straw Man,” again, which addresses differences (genetic, athletic… er, peripatetic?) between black subraces
  3. “Income and IQ,” on race differences in intelligence
  4. “Your ideas are stupid and so are you (part 2),” rebutting a “rebuttal” of race differences in intelligence
  5. “‘Scientific racism’ is actually valid science” (part 1, part 2), on debunking race denialism — the (massive) part 2, in particular, has a lot of information about genetic race
  6. here are more and more and more posts debunking race denialism
  7. hey, I even wrote something about Hispanic people

Here are some of race realism’s greatest hits (race realism being the radical idea that races are real, as opposed to race denialism).

  1. An article in the American Journal of Human Genetics reports a 99.86 percent success rate in determining a person’s self-reported race (white, African-American, East Asian, or Hispanic) based solely on genetic clusters (i.e., patterns of DNA).
  2. According to Genome Biology, geneticists, medical doctors, and statisticians agree: medically speaking, race exists. That’s probably why acknowledging the reality of race can help doctors treat patients.
  3. Forensic anthropologists can determine a person’s race just from looking at his bones (CNN). Dr. George Gill can explain it better than I can.
  4. From the Department of Uncomfortable Truths: Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis.
  5. We already saw a plot of genetic variation among black people. Here’s one of genetic variation among all the races — I mean, the so-called, fake, imaginary, non-existent races, of course:

    Genetic variation worldwide. Source: "The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans."

  6. Here are a couple of genetic maps from famous geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s magnum opus, The History and Geography of Human Genes — again, this is just genes:

    Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of the world. (Clearly, races do not exist.)

    Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of Africa. (Remember those five races and those four subraces?)

So… that’s it. That’s my case. Race is real, and it’s genetic.

Which is why Asian people have Asian babies.

5. ABC and 123… and 4

Finally, I will address the third part of Mrs. McNeill’s comment.

I believe that a racialized life is an unexamined and unexperienced life. …

… Some books that have been very instrumental in strengthening my position include that of Race: The History of an Idea in America by Thomas Gossett, The Invention of the White Race by Theodore Allen and anything by David Roediger who said, “(Whiteness) is the empty and therefore terrifying attempt to build an identity based on what one isn’t and on whom one cannot hold back.” …

… To say that I live a raceless life is actually quite liberating. I stand in agreement with Albert Einstein who said once, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it” and DuBois who said that color is “the eternal world-wide mark of meanness.” You have to step outside of it in order to honestly critique it and reject it.

Certainly one can put too much emphasis on race. Unfortunately, our problem is that we do not put nearly enough emphasis on race. We do not acknowledge its reality, its significance.

Here are four statements which are (a) true, and not even scientifically controversial, (b) crucial to understanding the world we live in, but nevertheless (c) totally unacceptable in mainstream, contemporary American society, for purely political reasons (as opposed to scientific or moral or… whatever).

  1. Black people are less intelligent on average than white people.
  2. Black people commit more crime on average than white people.
  3. It’s better to live in a white-majority nation than a black-majority nation.
  4. Most racial discrimination in the USA today is directed against white people.

I’ve tried to explain this to bla— I mean, African-American people before, with various degrees of compassion, which was difficult, because I am CONSUMED BY HATRED GRRRRRRR

Anyway, this blog is essentially all about the four statements above, so I won’t even address them in this post (well, maybe the third statement — see below). Instead, I want to talk about this excellent example of a racial slur: “[whiteness] is the empty and therefore terrifying attempt to build an identity based on what one isn’t and on whom one cannot hold back” (David Roediger).

6. White pride

What can a proud Caucasian say to such nonsense? (“Screw you, David Roediger” leaps to mind.) I’m supposed to take this clown’s word for it that whiteness is an attempt (an empty and therefore terrifying one, at that) to build an identity based on what one isn’t and on whom one cannot hold back? Gee, and all this time I’ve been operating under the assumption that whiteness is the quality of belonging to the white race, and that the white race (or races — see Caucasoid races E through J) is made up of people of recent European descent: those people whose ancestors, going back hundreds of generations and thousands of years, except possibly for the last few hundred years, were inhabitants of Europe. And Russia. And bits of North Africa — okay, it’s complicated, but that doesn’t mean it’s hard to tell Poles from Pakistanis (that is, Nordish Caucasoid from Indic Caucasoid). So that’s what white people are.

White people! Remember us? We built Western civilization? Invented just about everything worth inventing? Discovered just about everything worth discovering? Modern medicine? Man on the moon? Milk, pasteurization of?

Fine, I guess East Asians are pretty smart too.

You must have noticed that our countries — white-majority nations — are the best places in the world to live. America, Britain, Canada, Denmark, even Estonia for crying out loud (most internet freedom in the world!), France, Germany — why on Earth did I think this list was necessary? I mean, sure, there are good things about, er… Afghanistan, Botswana, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, um… French Polynesia is quite nice (even if they do hate the Chinese)… Ghana?

These are all perfectly obvious facts about the white race. About the worst thing that can be said about them is that focusing too much on them demonstrates an irrational or even unhealthy interest in whiteness. After all, I didn’t build Western civilization. I didn’t put a man on the moon (as far as I know). At best, my ancestors did. So why the race obsession?

— a question, incidentally, which only white people ever have to answer. If they hope to avoid being publicly disgraced, that is.

Why do I take pride in white accomplishments? Why do I bother to identify as white? Because in a world of whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Eskimos, Indians, Arabs, Jews, Pygmies, and a slew of other races and ethnicities, life is very dangerous for the one group that doesn’t look out for its own interests. The one group, in fact, that generally doesn’t allow anyone to look out for its interests.

7. I hope you’re ready, ’cause here’s the really racist part

White racial consciousness is essentially the radical idea that whites are people too; that their opinions count, even their opinions about race; and that they should look out for their own interests. The interests of the white race, that is: their big extended family. You know, the way every other race looks out for itself? (Sorry OneSTDV, I’m still working on the whole white moral autonomy thing.)

“White supremacy,” however you define it, really doesn’t enter into it. Nor does it enter into this:

White nationalism, or white separatism if you prefer, is essentially the radical idea that white people would be better off (in any way you’d care to name — and no, “diverseness” doesn’t count) in a white-majority nation (I listed some above), with a system of immigration and naturalization (i.e., assimilation) designed to keep it that way.

Well… wouldn’t they? Be better off, that is. You know, like the Japanese in Japan, with their strict immigration policies? Or, hell, like the Mexicans in Mexico, with their strict immigration policies?

Consider Mexico. Look at the rate at which Mexicans are immigrating to California. Look at the slow but steady deterioration — destruction, really — of that once great state. Now look at the way Mexico already is. Well… what did you think would happen? California will turn into Mexico as soon as it is full of Mexicans. I am continually astonished that this is a controversial theory.

Consider a certain other continent — I’m not going to say which. Picture the following purely hypothetical scenario — better yet, don’t picture it, just read it. A fourteen-year-old boy, high on cocaine, forces a mother to watch as he decapitates her son with a machete. Next, he and dozen of his machete-wielding, cocaine-snorting chums will rape and murder her. In an adjacent country, maybe even an adjacent village, children are being tortured and killed for being “witches,” while albinos are being murdered and dismembered so that their body parts can be sold to “witches.” Oh yeah, and it’s the twenty-first goddamn century. Quick: what race are all these people?

Hint hint.

Follow-up question: how, exactly, is the evil legacy of colonialism, imperialism, and slavery causing this to happen? Or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this?

Here, have a shirt. Alllllll better.

Who cares about Africa, anyway? Seriously. Let’s bring it on home. What are the best places to live in America? Here are the top five.

  1. Eden Prairie, MN: 91% white, 5% Asian, 2% black.
  2. Ellicott City, MD: 78% white, 12% Asian, 7% black
  3. Newton, MA: 88% white, 8% Asian, 2% black
  4. Bellevue, WA: 74% white, 17% Asian, 2% black
  5. McKinney, TX: 78% white, 1% Asian, 7% black

And the worst, most dangerous, most drug- and crime-ridden cities?

  1. Cleveland, OH: 53% black, 36% non-Hispanic white
  2. Memphis, TN: 63% black, 30% non-Hispanic white
  3. Detroit, MI: 82% black, 12% white
  4. Flint, MI: 53% black, 41% white
  5. Miami, FL: 19% black, 70% Hispanic, only 12% non-Hispanic white

The list goes on. According to Hip-Hop Wired, of all places,

[o]ut of the top 10 list [of the most dangerous cities in America], African Americans are more than 50% of the population on 8 of the 10 cities listed.

Go on then. Tell me diversity’s been good for America. Tell me it’s been good for white people.

White nationalism: the best idea everybody’s ever hated.

Read Full Post »

In a comment on “The N-Word (part 3),” blogger and bubble-butt enthusiast Aaron J. asks:

is black child abuse a problem bordering on epidemic [in the Americas]? I’m new to this part of the world so I don’t know. In my native New Zealand there are huge problems with Maori (the indigenous group) child abuse. Stories like this are reported just all the fucking time so I want to figure out if it’s an underclass thing or a Maori thing.

See the appendix (section 4) for more on Maori crime.

1. Black child abuse

Well, it turns out black people are more likely to abuse their children than white people. And guess what, it’s not because white people working for Child Protective Services just hate all dark-skinned people so much, they don’t care if they beat and molest their kids! Because that was everyone’s first guess. From the Root:

Rates of reported child abuse are disproportionately high for black children, a fact that has long been linked to suspected racial bias by a largely white child-protection workforce. But a recently released study by Washington University researchers debunks that allegation, citing poverty as the main reason black children are twice as likely as white children to suffer abuse.

Fuck this country. Seriously. Black people beat the shit out of their children twice as much as white people do theirs, and what’s the default explanation? The go-to theory? White people are just a bunch of racists. They like it when blacks beat their kids. It should be unbelievable. Instead, it’s canonical.

Published in the March issue of the journal Pediatrics, the study, “Racial Bias in Child Protection? A Comparison of Competing Explanations Using National Data,” does note the importance of policing potential racial bias among teachers, doctors, nurses, law-enforcement officials, child-protective-services workers and other primary reporters of abuse.

Actually, Washington University researchers, you just proved it isn’t important to police “potential [meaning fake, imaginary, non-existent] racial bias among [evil, disgusting, white] teachers, doctors, nurses, law-enforcement officials, child-protective-services workers and other primary reporters of abuse.” See: “The problem is not that (child protective services) workers are racist” (lead author Brett Drake).

What’s important is to police black people abusing their children. Oh, wait. That would be racial profiling.

The rate of abuse among Latinos children was proportionately higher than that of whites but lower than that of blacks. Researchers attribute that difference to the “Hispanic paradox,” or what are believed to be that community’s comparatively stricter cultural mores against child abuse.

White > Hispanic > black. Where have we seen that order before? (Answer: Pretty much everywhere — IQ scores and crime rates being two obvious examples.) I wonder where East Asians place…

Don’t worry, I’m sure we can find some way to blame white racism for something.

Though unfamiliar with the study, Zena Oglesby, founder and executive director of the Los Angeles-based Institute for Black Parenting, told The Root that a major, lingering concern is the question of how race factors into court settlements of abuse cases. … “I’ve watched hundreds of white families show up with their relatives, and those relatives are given custody of abused children without their home ever being screened for safety or suitability,” he continued. “Too often, that [granting of temporary custody to relatives] never happens with black families who end up in court.”

Hurray! We set out to find white racism to explain away all of black people’s problems, and armed only with anecdotes and confirmation bias, we succeeded!

2. More black child abuse

We turn to another article on the same study at the Defenders Online (run by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund). A special Unamusement Park “fuck you” goes out to Sondra Jackson, Executive Director of the Washington, D.C.-based Black Administrators in Child Welfare, who said that

this study is yet another attempt to shift the discussion away from race and toward other causes like poverty. “People can use research to disprove stuff they don’t want to deal with,” she said.

No, you moron, people use research to disprove your paranoid fantasies about white racism, making your “Black Administrators in Child Welfare” organization unnecessary — not to mention your fanatical race loyalty that would embarrass the average Klansman.

Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR) offered critical comments about this and other studies, saying they are rife with fatal flaws in that they fail to take into account that child welfare decisions are affected by both class and racial biases, and they reinforce each other.

He goes on to say that black people are poor, and that makes them abuse their children, contradicting exactly nothing about the study.

Wexler asked: “Why do these distinguished researchers believe that the bias that still is part of every facet of American life somehow disappears at the child welfare agency door, or the office of a doctor or some other mandated reporter of child abuse?”

Because, racial paranoia notwithstanding, there is no such bias.

Stacey Patton is the author of the Defenders Online article and Senior Editor of the same NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Working away for the Advancement of Colored People, and only Colored People — clearly the right person to ask if you want an unbiased take on race issues. She writes:

The problem of racism is still deeply ingrained and systemic in all of our institutions.

Citation needed. (Hey, where was all that deeply ingrained and systemic institutional racism when America was electing a race-obsessed half-black socialist? For that matter, where was it when he was applying to Harvard Law School? Probably out burning crosses or something.)

Thus, the child welfare system does not exist in a vacuum, unaffected by the past and present treatment of black people. Similar racial disparities can be found in health, employment, education and criminal justice.

That’s because black people are less intelligent and more criminal than white people. Racial disparities: EXPLAINED.

As long as we continually try to fix people [You mean black people, right? Because white people don’t seem to need “fixing.”] rather than the institutional racism that burdens us all, the problems will persist and children will continue to be become hapless victims of the poverty of life and scores more will die.

Oh my gosh, people are dying from “institutional” (i.e., invisible) racism? Meanwhile, in the real world, a black man murders eight white people — clearly, white racism is to blame for that too.

3. White America: Your attention, please

That is what racial discrimination in America really looks like. You don’t need to unearth it in child abuse statistics, or imprisonment rates, or achievement gaps. It’s out there in the open for everyone to see. A black man murders innocent white people, and everyone agrees: they were asking for it, those racists.

Anti-black discrimination is insignificant, invisible, or as liberals like to say, “institutional,” but blacks won’t stop crying about it. Anti-white discrimination, on the other hand, is ubiquitous, blatant, shameless; indulged by the media, enforced by the courts, celebrated by mainstream blacks and whites alike; so commonplace you hardly notice it, whether it’s a stereotype or a racial slur or a random beating or a mass murder; but you’re expected to act like it’s a logical impossibility, as if a racist black might as well be a square circle.

Maybe you should start paying more attention. After all, this is your country; your culture; your civilization.

For the moment.

Vienna, 1530

4. Appendix: Maori crime

Maori make up just 14 percent of the population of New Zealand, but are responsible for over 65 percent of all crime (source: One News). Compare this to the similarly outrageous crime rates of black Americans, who make up just 13-14 percent of the population of the USA.

Maori criminality is partly genetic. From the New Zealand Herald (via American Renaissance):

A New Zealand researcher claims there is an over-representation of the “warrior” gene, which has been linked to aggressive behaviour, in Maori men.

Dr Rod Lea said the monoamine oxidase gene, carried by a large number of Maori, could be key to addressing health issues.

The genetic epidemiologist at the Institute of Environmental Science and Research in Wellington said the gene has been linked to aggressive behaviour as well as addictions to things such as tobacco.

… Australian Associated Press quoted him as saying: “It is controversial because it has implications suggesting links with criminality among Maori people. I think there is a link, it definitely predisposes people to be more likely to be criminals and engage in that type of behaviour as they grow older.

“There are lots of lifestyle, upbringing-related exposures that could be relevant here so, obviously, the gene won’t automatically make you a criminal. … We have to be clear that behavioural traits such as susceptibility to addiction, aggressive behaviour, risk taking, all those sort of things are extremely complex and they are due to numerous factors including non-genetic environmental factors like upbringing and other lifestyle factors. So there is an influence there, but it’s probably a minor one in the scheme of things.”

Very politic of him. Now let’s hear from the Maori. Why that should be necessary to understand the genetics of aggression is a bit of a mystery, but whatever.

Maori MP Hone Harawira said he had been hearing similar things for decades.

“I remember 30 or 40 years ago when I was a kid people said Maori had a natural inclination to play the guitar, that Maori had a natural inclination to play rugby, Maori were good on bulldozers etc…,” he said. “I’ve stopped listening to all that sort of carry on.”

In other words: science is racist and mean and I’m not listening to it, lalalalala… Hey, Hone Harawira: there’s a difference between the kids at school telling you Maori are good at rugby, versus a genetic epidemiologist identifying a gene associated with both the Maori and aggressive behavior.

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia dismissed the research as incredible.

She told The Press newspaper she had heard of Maori having a genetic pre-disposition towards alcoholism, but it was a big leap to include violent tendencies in that.

“I realise that violence is an issue to us, but there are very common factors as well with violence which are not really related to race,” she said.

Incredible! I’ll say. Again, she knows nothing about genetics or violent behavior, but she’s Maori, so we should all listen respectfully to her ignorant opinion.

Meanwhile, the police cannot acknowledge the realities of Maori crime (that would be racist), so their hands are tied. From One News:

“We’ve actually got some structure around where we can now pull Maori and the police together and how we can effectively work together,” [Inspector Wally Haumaha] says.

… Police now believe the key to changing that statistic could lie in a new plan allowing increased visitation rights with family members and then involving the wider Maori community in trying to turn offenders around.

This is beyond satire. Maori keep raping and murdering people, and the solution is (obviously) to give them more visitation rights. I absolutely agree, assuming by “visitation rights” they mean “chemical castration and death sentences, respectively.” (It should, but probably doesn’t, go without saying that this applies to all criminals, regardless of race.)

If 14 percent of the population is committing 65 percent of the crime, I’d say the “wider Maori community” is already involved, Inspector.

Maori respondents believed unanimously that the police viewed Maori as essentially criminals…

Gee, I wonder why.

Whether the new strategy will bring a drop in the crime rate should become clear in a year’s time when officers review its success.

So how’d that work out? One year later (from the New Zealand Press Association):

The high proportion of offending by Maori is rated “a significant concern” by the Ministry of Justice. It noted in its annual report today that though Maori form just 14.5 per cent of New Zealand’s population, half the prison population and 45 per cent of offenders serving community-based sentences identify themselves as Maori.

I guess they didn’t increase Maori visitation rights enough.

Read Full Post »

Today on Unamusement Park: the stunning conclusion to our three-part series on the word “nigger” (part one, part two).

Stereotype threat

The white people we’ve see calling blacks “niggers,” or comparing them to animals, represent the too-small segment of the white population that correctly perceives their existence threatened by people of a certain other race, occupying certain extremes of certain bell curves. They have simply observed the indisputable reality of racism in America today: whites are targeted for extreme violence by racially motivated black criminals who despise them because of the color of their skin.

What reaction is appropriate in the face of such savagery? Wild animal. Missing link. Sub-human primate. Consider them. Pretend you know nothing about American history, and consider them.

It is, in fact, possible to behave like a wild animal, a missing link (between ape and man), or a sub-human primate, just like it is possible to behave like an emu or a jar of strawberry jam. (Just ask a mime — not that you’ll get much of an answer.) The only questions we should be asking are

  1. have we or have we not seen behavior, by people who happen to be black, which warrants comparison to wild animals?
  2. should we or should we not care when other black people, who have nothing to do with it, complain about their feelings being hurt by such comparison?

Yes, we have, and no, we really shouldn’t.

Why are the comparisons offensive, anyway? Let’s spell it out: in the past, though not for the past few decades, black men in general have been stereotyped as “innately savage, animalistic, destructive, and criminal… a fiend, a sociopath, an anti-social menace… hideous, terrifying predators who target helpless victims, especially White women” (racism expert Dr. David Pilgrim).

But black people in general are no longer stereotyped that way. (Duh.) Even a hint of the stereotype is met with universal opprobrium, whether in 2009 or 2011. Yet the analogy persists in our culture, and it remains offensive to black people, because a disturbing number of black people can actually be fairly described as (check the dictionary) savage, animalistic, destructive, and criminal — terrifying predators who target helpless victims, especially white women. The proof is there for anyone willing to face it.

A racist poster! I'm outraged. By the way, black people commit more crime than white people, and they specifically target whites.

Niggers

Can there be any doubt what “nigger” means to those who use it seriously, out of anger, frustration, and yes, even hatred?

nigger noun

a violent black criminal, especially one who targets white people, especially a rapist

To a white man (yes, they’re people too, and their opinions count), who could possibly be a more deserving target of disparagement than these racist misogynists? And what better word for probably the most offensive form of life on Earth than “probably the most offensive word in English”?

Other black people who have nothing to do with it and get their feelings hurt are just collateral damage — figurative collateral damage, that is, unlike the literal victims of literal black violence. (If the word “nigger” is clear evidence of racial bigotry and hatred, what is the epidemic of black-on-white hate crimes clear evidence of? Super-thriving racial mega-bigotry and ultra-hatred?)

If language is defined by usage, then here are the niggers you’ve heard so much about — the wild animals, the sub-human primates: here and here and here and here and here and here.

Niggers.

Oh, do you think I hurt black people’s feelings when I used the N-word just now?

Do you think they want an apology?

Am I supposed to care?

Nigger, please.

Read Full Post »

Our series on the word “nigger” continues from where we left off, today joining forces with Hatred, our five-part documentary on the War on Hate (part 1, part 2, part 3), to tackle real live racism!

On the Internet.

‘Cause that’s about the only place you can find it.

Racism! (Pretty fucking badass racism, to be honest.)

“Nigger” in the near-absence of usage

The near-universal censorship of “nigger” — which to black people like abagond constitutes a “simple act of respect,” and which typifies the balance of racial power in America today — raises an interesting question: what, exactly, does “nigger” mean to non-black people today?

An overwhelming majority of them would never dream of mentioning it (as in “the word ‘nigger’ is offensive”), let alone using it (as in “you are a nigger”), although they can hear it used every day on television by black people. Those non-black people understand “nigger” to mean

  • whatever black people say it means, when they say it; and the worst thing in the world, if I say it, which I am not allowed to do, because it would hurt their feelings.

On the other hand, we have a minority of non-black people who continue to use the word to disparage black people. If anyone knows some alternative definition of “nigger” that would justify its extreme offensiveness to black people, it is them.

Unfortunately, they are extremely rare, for reasons which must now be obvious. Personally, I’ve never met one. They are hard to find even on the Internet. Stormfront, the infamous white-nationalist forum, disallows the word. The notorious website Chimpout is practically obsessed with it, but there it’s impossible to separate serious usage (i.e., hatred toward black people or some particular black persons) from shock humor.

The anti-Jewish white-nationalist website Vanguard News Network (VNN) uses “nigger” often, and seriously. Here is a representative selection.

  1. A commenter on this article about a black rapist uses “a pack of wild niggers” to describe the dozens of black and Hispanic criminals involved in the Central Park Jogger case:

    On the evening of April 19, 1989, a young woman, out for her run in New York’s Central Park, was bludgeoned, raped, sodomized and beaten so savagely that doctors despaired for her life and a horrified nation cried out in pain and outrage. [Source: MSNBC]

    Another commenter responds: “I doubt 1 in 1,000,000 white female victims of nigger crime would side with the nigger.” The word refers to black criminals, especially rapists with white victims.

  2. A commenter on this article about the media’s portrayal of white racists (in the first or second sense) uses it to describe President Obama, as follows: “[o]ne arrogant Nigger with too much power can easily set race relations back decades. We are seeing just that.”

    Another commenter complains: “Niggers get bail on ARMED robbery, but not a White man who spoke clearly about our ill’s.” Here, again, “nigger” refers to black criminals.

  3. A commenter on this article about interracial rape being almost exclusively black-on-white has this explanation:

    That’s because niggresses are among the ugliest females in the world… Besides that White males are not the animal missing link that the nigger is. … it’s pure [racial] hatred, get back at Whitey.

    It’s a fucking race war & we’re legally not [allowed] to do anything.

  4. The author of this article, “Do You Spend Like a Nigger?,” is referring to financially irresponsible blacks who prefer alcohol to books, quoting this article (by, for, and about blacks):

    Among our [i.e., African-Americans’] favorite purchases are cars and liquor. Blacks make up only 12% of the U.S. population, yet account for 30% of the country’s Scotch consumption. Detroit, which is 80% black, is the world’s No. 1 market for Cognac. …

    The only area where blacks seem to be cutting back on spending is books; total purchases have gone from a high of $356 million in 2000 to $303 million in 2002. This shortsighted behavior, motivated by a desire for instant gratification and social acceptance, comes at the expense of our future. …

    Certainly, higher rates of unemployment, income disparity and credit discrimination are financial impediments to the economic vitality of blacks, but so are our consumer tastes.

  5. You can find more posts under “nigger crime,” “nigger mentality,” and of course “niggers.”

Apparently, to this major Internet community of anti-Jewish white nationalists, “nigger” means

  • a violent black criminal, especially one who targets white people, especially a rapist; or
  • a black person who sets back race relations by refusing to address the issue of niggers in the previous sense; or
  • (occasionally) a financially irresponsible, hard-drinking, uneducated, lower-class black person,

this last definition clearly related to niggers in the first (violent black criminal) sense.

“Chimping out”

Running out of “nigger” references, I widened my search for racial slurs to include comparisons of black people to animals, especially lower apes (the premise of the website Chimpout, obviously). Lately, they have seen a spike in popularity, in certain corners of the Internet where they were once as rare as the word “nigger” still is.

In the comments on this video (H/T Roissy) of two black women beating a white (transgender) woman until she has a seizure, for instance, we find a representative animal analogy (from “SkullandBones”) — among other horror stories of unprovoked black-on-white violence (emphasis always mine):

Even their women are out of control sub-human primates with a reactionary ape brain based on raw emotion. Someone should study them.

After watching that video, it’s difficult to summon up much sympathy for whatever black people might have suffered hurt feelings from being compared to “sub-human primates.” Isn’t there something more important we should be talking about?

Ape analogies: as damaging to blacks' self esteem as repeated kicks are to a skull?

Mangan thinks there’s a trend here:

it’s becoming increasingly hard to ignore, even though the media is doing its utmost to keep the public ignorant, that these sorts of incidents are commonplace, at least on a national level. If whites were perpetrating these crimes against blacks, we’d never hear the end of it…

Meanwhile, from the hurt feelings files, “a bunch of people are quite exercised over an Orange County, CA, politician who sent an email with a photoshopped image of Obama as a chimpanzee” (ibid.).

In the comments: “I think the key is to reframe these encounters. Don’t think of blacks as people who happen to be angry. Think of them as wild animals. Just as you wouldn’t photograph a bear with a flash bulb, you don’t use the word ‘monkey’ around blacks in such a way that the black might think you are referring to it” (“Sabril”).

OneSTDV is on top of it, of course.

Look at the behavior above and try to temper your jadedness. The behavior is shockingly savage, animalistic, and carnal. The way they speak, the extreme lack of control, the violent outbursts. HBD blogs focus so much on blacks because their behavior best illustrates racial disparities. While one can surely find much to criticize about lower-class white proles (i.e. “white trash”), their behavior never devolves to this level of savagery.

In the comments: “What makes me the sickest in the video isn’t the attack of the G-ape on the white guy. It isn’t the attack of the she apes on the white girl. I have come to expect this behavior from these animals who are allowed to roam free in our society. What makes me the sickest is the bystanders” (“Lance Justice”).

Gucci Little Piggy, too:

There have been several criminal incidents at McDonald’s captured on film over the last few days. Two are unrelated to the massive job search that was widely advertised in the media, but the most disturbing involved a fight in the McDonald’s parking lot that ended in a group of people being run over by some animal who had some minor beef with somebody. SBPDL [Stuff Black People Don’t Like] has covered it well.

In the comments: “As for the video [at SBPDL] — savage is the only [way] I can describe it” (OneSTDV himself).

The links lead us to SBPDL:

Just a few days removed from the aborted attempt to hire 50,000 new employees nationwide, McDonald’s announced that inflation is about to hit their value meal, which helped drive up profits and the company’s stock price a few years ago.

Will these rising prices cause more violence? Yes.

In the comments: “These wild animals need to be hung in the town square for all wild blacks to see. I bet you crime rates go down” (“John McClane”). And “… blacks have a problem with ‘racism’ when whites look down on this kind of animalistic carrying-on??????? THAT’S the mystery to me… Again, how any ANY race on the globe not find such loud, violent, obnoxious Negro behavior sickening?” (Anonymous.)

Aside: SBPDL chose my graphic for their campaign to boycott McDonald’s. Sweet!

Black people really don't like this stuff.

A disturbing trend

Hoosier Nation has been on it since February at least (with links):

every day, untold millions of our children are foisted into a hostile environment. They know that breaking their silence will likely provoke charges of “racism” from their mentors and retaliation from their peers. Kids learn quickly, either from example or from painful first-hand experience, to shut up, blend in, and stop crying. With boys it’s typically physical harassment and with girls it’s typically sexual harassment, but the purpose and effect are the same: humiliation and domination.

… we who are explicit must stop hiding behind abstract talking points and statistical reports. We need to be reliable advocates for specific children. These kids are alone in the dark and we need to be there for them. Why not start with this 12 year old girl, Morgan, who was brutally assaulted by a pack of “refugees” a few days ago?

Jewamongyou, too (with links):

There have been many recent racial attacks, against whites, that have been posted to YouTube. Sagat linked to one a few days ago. Hoosier Nation also posted a few examples. A few have been featured, over the years, on Amren as well.

… There is no doubt that those we see on YouTube are merely the tip of the iceberg. Furthermore, I would venture to guess that the odds of justice being served in most of these attacks, are slim to none. Media coverage of such attacks is almost nonexistent. There are no large organizations, or political parties, to advocate for the victims. If we so much as complain about this state of affairs, we are labeled “racists” and “haters”. And people wonder why we are angry.

Now what do these crimes (and the lack of media coverage) have to do with the sudden popularity of ape analogies? And what does any of this have to do with the various definitions of “nigger”? “The N-Word” concludes tomorrow.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: