Posts Tagged ‘World’

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

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.


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
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?


[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 »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article concludes:

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

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

Objective Beauty

Four points:

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

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

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

Obligatory Hot White Girl

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

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

She is indeed a hot Norwegian girl.

In retrospect, that was a really good idea.

Read Full Post »

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?)


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 »

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 »

Colorlines is a great bastion of liberal lunacy, including but not limited to race denialism, anti-white bias, and illegal-immigrant advocacy (see “Your ideas are stupid and so are you (part 3)”). Since we’ve been talking about black flash mob violence in Philadelphia lately, I thought it would be fun to show you their take on the matter. It’s five sentences long, and it’s going to take me the rest of this post to break down everything that’s wrong with it.

For your consideration: “4 Campaigns Holding Big Media Accountable for How It Treats Us”. The third campaign is called “Philly Students Fight Back.”

Fight back? That’s odd. I didn’t realize the aggressor could do that.

1. “Sensationalized”

Black and brown youth in Philadelphia have gotten an especially bad wrap [sic] in recent years, thanks in part to often sensationalized media coverage of “flash mobs.”

The word “especially” implies that black and brown youth in Philadelphia have always gotten a bad rap; that is, that the news media are biased against black people. It’s one of those liberal talking points that everyone is supposed to accept unquestioningly. It couldn’t be more wrong.

It’s my Second Law of Race and Crime: the news media are biased in favor of black people. The coverage of flash mobs in Philadelphia is a spectacular example. Far from sensationalizing it, the media have been downplaying their increasing size, frequency, and severity of violence, and almost universally censoring the fact that the rioters are always black. In fact, just by putting the words “black and brown youth” and “flash mobs” in the same article (let alone the same sentence), Colorlines is giving the race angle more coverage than ABC, NBC, AOL, The New York Times, the New York Daily News, the Philadelphia Daily News, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Digital Journal… put together.

2. “The scourge of this country”

Maybe I’m not being fair to Colorlines. Sure, they didn’t bother to present any evidence of anti-black media bias, but maybe it’s out there somewhere. Let’s track it down.

Armstrong Williams is a conservative black commentator, and author of “The Media’s Bias Against Black Men in America”. He claims that certain “negative statistics” are being used to “consistently cast black men as the scourge of this country.” He accepts that they are “not altogether erroneous,” i.e. true. However, he says,

a statistic cannot give balance or provide a larger context to the story. The statistics often do not cover the remarkable advancement many American black men have made in the last half century, nor do they report on the collapse of many white men in the same era.

It is not clear why newspapers should be covering the advances of American black men (or the supposed collapse of many white men) in the last fifty or a hundred years. History textbooks? Yes. Encyclopedias? Sure. But newspapers?

What I really want to discuss are his statistics, which are supposed to prove the collapse of white men in America. Actually, there are only two sets of statistics: the race of young adult cocaine users, and the race of serial killers.

According to the federal Centers for Disease Control, a white adolescent male is four times more likely than his African-American classmate to be a regular cocaine user. Whites are 66 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds, and yet they are 70 percent of drug users in that age group. Blacks are 13.5 percent of persons in that age group and only 13 percent of young adult drug users…

And Hispanics adolescent males are twice as likely as whites to be regular cocaine users — fascinating stuff. Unfortunately, according to the Office of Applied Studies (OAS) of the US Department of Health and Human Services, blacks “significantly underreport” cocaine use, which has “important implications [for] racial/ethnic comparisons.”

A 2009 report by the Office of Applied Studies (OAS) of the US Department of Health and Human Services puts the overall rate of illicit drug use (all drugs, all ages, both sexes) at 10.1 percent for blacks and 8.2 percent for whites (.pdf). Did Mr. Williams just browse through combinations of drug and age group until he found a pair (cocaine and 18-25) that favored black men over white men? I don’t know. What are these statistics supposed to prove about media bias? I don’t know that either.

On the topic of serial killers, Mr. Williams has this to say:

Approximately 9 out of 10 serial killers are white males between the ages of 20 and 35. Yet we never hear these statistics repeated over and over again in the mainstream press, making these crimes synonymous with one particular race as is the case with blacks.

His statistic is wrong. According to research by the Society for Police and Criminal Psychology and Radford University, “[a]fter controlling for demographic changes across decades, the race of serial killers seems to mirror that of the United States.” Blacks make up 20.4 percent of serial killers (.pdf). (It’s also deceptive to use the number of serial killers per race instead of the rate by race. There are, after all, many more white people than black people.)

This is all a red herring anyway. Serial killers, of any race, are responsible for a negligible percentage of violence in the United States. Ghetto blacks, on the other hand… You see, statistically speaking, the crimes that are “synonymous” with blacks include robbery, assault, rape, and murder. This is especially the case with interracial crime: blacks target whites. (Blacks are over 100 times more likely to rob whites than vice versa, and almost 60 times more likely to commit any kind of violent crime against them.) The media try their best to avoid it, as we’ve seen, but you can’t always cover up the color of crime.

Media bias against blacks? I remain unconvinced. Try to find the evidence yourself. You may want to compare it to this series, or to Ian Jobling’s “Liberal Media Bias and the Myth of White Racism”.

3. “Public dancing”

Let’s get back to Colorlines and look at the second sentence.

The mobs, known for being spontaneous and sometimes confusing displays of public dancing, were widely reported as being violent and, sometimes, deadly.

… Wait, what?

First, it is a fact that the mobs were violent. This is indisputable. Second, it was never reported (let alone widely reported) that the mobs were deadly (i.e., killed someone). (See parts one and two of “Black Mobs and the Second Law of Race and Crime.”)

Third — ah, this is quite clever of them. Flash mobs are overwhelmingly non-violent and often involve dancing. But the campaign isn’t complaining that those flash mobs get “sensationalized media coverage,” which in turn gives “[b]lack and brown youth in Philadelphia… an especially bad [rap].” Between “public dancing” and “widely reported as being violent,” the subject changes from flash mobs in general (public dancing) to black flash mobs (vandalism, robbery and assault).

Colorlines is lying to you.

4. Crackdown

And they’re going to keep lying to you.

Lawmakers in the city have since cracked down on the city’s youngest and most vulnerable residents, imposing city-wide curfews that, if broken, can lead to [hefty] fines.

So now that they’ve tricked you into thinking the black kids were just dancing, which confused those lame white people so much they called the police, Colorlines brings city-wide curfews and hefty fines into the narrative. I thought Footloose was better. Oh, this was supposed to be non-fiction, wasn’t it?

The curfew was already in place well before the riots. The police just announced that they were going “step up enforcement,” and “tighten it if there is another incident” (The New York Times). Now why would they do that? Maybe it had something to do with the violent flash mobs, which tend to happen at night, and are mostly made up of teenagers.

Technically, the city’s youngest and most vulnerable residents are infants, toddlers, and the like, who are unlikely to be affected by a nighttime curfew. The residents in question are teenagers — all teenagers, regardless of race. See, the blacks started a bunch of riots, so white kids have to go home early. Thus, “vulnerable” acts as a code word for “criminal, but black, so it must be society’s fault somehow.”

5. Okay, here’s the plan

Philly-based Media Mobilizing Project has helped counter the negative attention. They’ve documented how young people and students with the Campaign for Non-Violent Schools is calling for non-violence, more jobs, and better access to quality education.

That’s a good plan, you young people and students. First, shout out “don’t be violent!” Wait, I thought the mobs were just dancing, and the violence was a lie told by the media to make us hate black people. Why do we need to call for non-violence? Or does this have nothing to do with the flash mobs?

Next, demand that the government create more jobs out of thin air. More jobs will certainly keep these teenagers off the streets at night… somehow. Except we already decided the teenagers weren’t the problem. How are new jobs going to reduce media bias? I’m starting to think this Campaign for Non-Violent Schools isn’t addressing the problem of flash mobs at all. Why are they in the Colorlines article?

Finally, call for better access to quality education, the idea being that white society will not permit ghetto black teenagers to get a quality education. The sad truth is that a lot of them — specifically, the kind of blacks, and the kind of teenagers, who like to form violent flash mobs — will not permit anyone to give them a quality education (source). They don’t seem to want more jobs, either. And they certainly don’t seem susceptible to the “please mister, don’t rob, rape and/or murder anyone” approach to crime prevention. If I had to give a parsimonious explanation for the behavior of this subset of ghetto black teenagers, I would suggest that they do what they do because they want to do it. They want to do drugs, sleep around, collect welfare checks, and riot in the streets. Call it a “lifestyle choice,” if you like.

If someone has another theory, I’d love to hear it.

Read Full Post »

Our ongoing series “Blacks Mobs and the Second Law of Race and Crime” (part 1, part 2) documents the uniquely African-American phenomenon of flash mob violence, where hundreds or even thousands of “teens” or “youths” (code for “black felons”), coordinated by social media, assemble without warning in a public place to riot, loot, assault random bystanders, and generally trash as much of the city as possible.

“Come to South Street,” they say. “Bring baseball bats,” they Tweet. “Black boys” and “burn the city,” they chant. They also really seem to enjoy beating up white people. Never heard of them? You just proved the Second Law of Race and Crime: the news media are biased in favor of black people.

1. Introducing Unamusement Park’s patented Dominant Race Reversal Ray (DRRR) (patent pending)

If you don’t believe me, imagine this story with the races reversed. Go on, indulge me with a Thoughtful Analysis of Racial Discombobulation — a TARDis, if you will. (It’s blacker on the inside.) After all, this is what “anti-racists” keep telling me I should do: imagine what discrimination feels like from a different perspective; put myself in a black person’s shoes, and try to — hey, these are my shoes.

Anyway, we don’t need to imagine it, because we have the DRRR. Fire away!

Yes, of course I put the DRRR in space. Duh.

Okay, what did we get?

  1. Hundreds of white teenagers, organizing themselves on the Internet, assemble in the commercial district of a major American city. They promptly start a riot — running through traffic, vandalizing and robbing stores, knocking down bystanders… all that stuff.
  2. This mob seems to target black people for brutal beatings. They might even openly declare this “Beat a Nigger Night.” There are reliable reports that white teens beat a black bicyclist until he had a seizure, then laughed at him; or that they ambushed a young black woman and, still laughing, punched her face apart.
  3. Events like these occur four times in two months in one city.
  4. Everyone agrees: this has nothing to do with race. These white kids just need more extracurricular activities to keep them occupied.
  5. The news media are not particularly interested in covering the story, and they consistently omit the races of the rioters and their victims (as in not one mention).
  6. When The New York Times puts a picture of actual white rioters next to a story about the latest, biggest, and most violent white riot, it is seen as a sign of racial stereotyping.

Is this black-white reversal plausible? Sure… in the magical fantasy world of the race denialists, where a vast anti-black conspiracy permeates every level of society, from the common man — which is to say the right-wing white-trash black-hating redneck (sometimes called “the taxpayer,” but only by the kind of racist scum who oppose the free money for all black people forever model of the welfare state) — all the way to the highest levels of government.

Presumably this does not include the President. Or any state government with a (witness-tampering, perjuring) black governor. Or any city government with a (criminally insane or grossly incompetent and corrupt) black mayor.

2. April 2010

By April, someone in Philadelphia was finally willing to report what we all know to be true. Someone was finally willing to describe this photograph:

These teens certainly defy description.

And he got away with it, because he’s black. Hey, I’m not complaining. Sidney Harris Jr.’s article “Who’s to blame for bad flash-mob apples?” (April 2; philly.com) truly is the best five paragraphs of mainstream media race reporting you’ll read all year.

WHEN YOU look at the flash mob, you realize it’s the black teens doing all of this. (I’m a black person myself.) The white kids aren’t doing this, they’re busy playing sports, or after-school activities. It’s terrible how our community has to always have bad apples, rotten to the core.

But I don’t think police and the city should hold parents accountable for what these kids do. These kids are hardheaded, rude and ignorant. If you lock up the parents, how are they going to pay their bills?

Outstanding. All that’s missing is a scientific (HBD) explanation of why their community has to always have bad apples — but now I’m just being greedy.

Everybody is sick of the mobs, and what happens if this activity goes to other cities in New York and New Jersey? You could have copycats.

Unfortunately, we already had them. We just didn’t know it yet.

3. The April 10 Kansas City Plaza flash mob

I’m sure by now you’re bored with black riots in Philadelphia. Well, you’re in luck, because by April they had spread to other cities! (Did I say “you’re in luck”? I meant “you’re totally fucked.”)

The scene of the crime: the Country Club Plaza in Kansas City.

“What’s going on at the Country Club Plaza?” Asked Kansas City Business Journal on the Monday after the riot. Excellent question.

The Kansas City Police Department said that between 750 and 1,000 youngsters [sic] descended on Kansas City’s heralded and austere shopping and entertainment district on Saturday night.

By the end of the night, police were using pepper spray to diffuse various problems being caused on the Plaza.

Among those:

  • One guy was punched in the face hard enough to break his jaw.
  • A woman on a prom date was shoved into a fountain.
  • There was a report of a strong-arm robbery.
  • There were reports of property damage and some businesses closing down early because of the problems.

… [I]t’s perhaps not surprising that some are calling it nothing less than a riot. … It certainly wasn’t a surprise to me.

It’s become an increasingly common sight on the Plaza to see groups of youngsters [sic] who clearly are not old enough to be frequenting the nightlife establishments.

The article denies this was a flash mob, citing Captain Rich Lockhart of the KCPD, but that story didn’t last. (Aside: I wish my name were Captain Rich Lockhart.) According to The Kansas City Star (“KCPD: Plaza crowds were planned”):

The gathering of rowdy teens [sic] on the Country Club Plaza Saturday evening was planned and not a random event, Kansas City police said this morning.

Students [sic] from different high schools throughout the area had been using Twitter and Facebook to plan an “unruly gathering” last week, said Officer Darin Snapp, a police spokesman.

4. “Youths”

Let’s play a game. Watch this April 10 KMBC report on the Plaza mob (“Plaza Brawls Caught On Camera: Witnesses Describe Hundreds Of Teens Involved In Unrest”), and count the number of times they mention race. At the same time, count the number of non-black people who appear in the amateur video footage of the riot.

If you can’t count higher than zero, that’s okay. You won’t have to.

KMBC, in “Flash-Mob Event May Have Led To Plaza Melee: Police Estimated 700 To 900 Youths On Plaza Saturday Night” (April 2), also managed to find two new victims, while missing all the other ones.

Kansas City Police Chief Jim Corwin said Saturday’s gathering was posted on Facebook. Police estimate that between 700 and 900 youths [sic], some as young as 11, were involved in the Plaza disturbance.

… Two people were attacked — a man and woman. The woman said her purse was taken and someone tried to pull a ring right off her finger.

The accompanying video footage of flash mobs (also available on YouTube) is interesting. Four are shown:

  1. a peaceful, virtually all-white flash mob in Seattle; they performed songs from the TV show Glee
  2. a peaceful, apparently all-white flash mob in Washington, DC; they had a snowball fight, until a black cop freaked out and started waving his gun around
  3. the violent, all-black flash mob from the Country Club Plaza; they rioted
  4. a peaceful, apparently all-white flash mob; they… did something weird

Of course, the reporters didn’t make the unmentionable connection here either. I’m starting to think the liberal fantasy of a metaphorically color-blind society isn’t a fantasy or a metaphor. They simply do not see race when it fails to support their politics; that is, when it fails to flatter minorities.

5. You know that thing you’re ignoring? Stop ignoring it.

This time, it fell to the intrepid Yael T. Abouhalkah to state the obvious. (Despite the name, he has no protective coloring.) In “Don’t Ignore Racial Aspect of Plaza Mobs” (April 13; Kansas City Star, via American Renaissance), he wrote:

The out-of-control teens who terrorized parts of the Country Club Plaza Saturday night were mostly black youths.

Stating it that factually disturbs some people, who would rather use euphemisms such as “urban” youth or some such words. [No kidding.] …

The kids who showed up Saturday night came from schools that included — but were not limited to — Raytown and Westport highs, according to police. Both schools have high populations of black students. …

Why are the black kids going to the Plaza?

I certainly don’t have all the answers, but one obvious reason: That’s where the crowd of mostly white adults hangs out.

And the youth know their presence will be disturbing to people who aren’t used to seeing so many black kids in one place.

How refreshing. All that’s missing is the unmentionable reason why many black kids in one place would be disturbing (not merely surprising) to white adults: because they have experience with black kids.

6. Wherefore Plaza riots?

This was not the first disturbance in the Plaza, according to Tony’s Kansas City. The problem started at least a week earlier. And it was still going on in September of that year.

But why should anyone care? It’s probably just white racists… somehow. In his September post “ONE LAST COUNTRY CLUB PLAZA FLASH MOB OR JUST SCARED WHITE PEOPLE?!?!,” Tony theorizes that “[w]hite people panic whenever minority youth congregate.” He knows what’s been going on in the Plaza since at least early April, but he can’t believe it doesn’t somehow involve white racists.

Race realist commenters debunk his knee-jerk anti-white sentiment, and are promptly dismissed as white supremacists by right-thinking left-wing drones. So it goes.

A post at BlogKC — “Teens [sic] migrate from Westport [which is 31 percent black] to the Country Club Plaza” — is amusing because it offers an almost unbelievably simplistic race-denying explanation for the continuing problem of black dysfunction: “[a] lack of options for teens to safely hang out and socialize leads to them congregating unsupervised.”

It is promptly torn apart by the commenters. “Are you really that stupid?” Asks “Tupac.” (Short and to the point.)

I picked up a couple of remarks on Unamusement Park’s “chimp-out” tracker, as well: “We have the right to peacefully enjoy our evening without threats and interference from these animals,” suggests “ProfessorZ” (no relation). “Kevin” agrees: “You’re just a big bunch of ANIMALS now!”

But even the most pathetic race-denying explanation for black dysfunction is better than denying the dysfunction exists at all. “To me it seems like the only thing these kids did wrong was to be young and African American on the Plaza,” writes commenter “Julia.”

The worst race denialists are truly beyond parody.

Read Full Post »

On February 16, 2010, a violent flash mob of about 150 teenagers descended on the Center City commercial area of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. They robbed stores, vandalized property, fought amongst themselves, and attacked bystanders at random. According to the available evidence, the mob was 100 percent African-American.

Try finding that in a newspaper, though.

No, the racial makeup of this small-scale riot wasn’t worth reporting — or rather, it was well worth not reporting. Even the handful of online news outlets that mentioned race at all would only admit that most of the teenagers were black, and that was only so they could excuse them of their criminal misbehavior, citing racist store owners and police. (White, of course.)

Ten teenagers have since been convicted of rioting, a felony. An article at philly.com, “Flash mob teens face the music at Family Court” (March 23), also makes no mention of race, but between this picture of a rioting suspect’s parents…

The parents of a suspected February rioter.

… and the reference on page 2 to a 15-year-old Simon Gratz High School student with a 2-month-old son, I think we can safely say these aren’t Asian kids.

I suppose we’re lucky to even hear about this. Similar attacks in May, June, and December of 2009 got even less coverage. What little information is available about the May and June flash mobs (including this video) suggests they were 100 percent African-American, too. (The strongest evidence of all is the fact that no one will report the race of the rioters.)

By the end of March, though, not even* the mainstream media would be able to ignore the reality of black flash mob violence in Philadelphia.

*I’m disgusted I had to write that: the problem was so bad, not even the mainstream media — y’know, the people who are supposed to keep us informed? — not even they could pretend it doesn’t exist.

1. The March 3 Center City flash mob

From ABC Action News: “16 charged in violent Center City flash mob” (March 4, 2010). The article not only omit the races (or rather race) of the perpetrators, it also blurs their faces in the video.

The blurs are black.

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office announced Thursday that 16 people will be charged with felony rioting after a violent flash mob incident in Center City on Wednesday. …

Police say, at around 4:30 p.m., a mob of about 50 to 100 people suddenly converged in the 1400 block of Chestnut Street when a fistfight broke out, and then the crowd began running towards 11th and Market and the Gallery.

… Police say the group was on a rampage, dodging in and out of traffic and causing all sorts of havoc. Fortunately, city and SEPTA transit police have had a beefed up presence in the area since last month’s flash mob incident and were able to move in quickly before the teens could move into the Gallery where they were believed to be headed.

Second verse, same as the first: big black mob, no mention of race. I include this example of lower-class black dysfunction for the sake of completeness, and as a prelude to the main event. See below.

2. The March 20 South Street flash mob

From The New York Times (March 24, 2010): “Mobs Are Born as Word Grows by Text Message.”

It started innocently enough seven years ago as an act of performance art… [But] these so-called flash mobs have taken a more aggressive and raucous turn here [in Philadelphia] as hundreds of teenagers [sic] have been converging downtown for a ritual that is part bullying, part running of the bulls: sprinting down the block, the teenagers sometimes pause to brawl with one another, assault pedestrians or vandalize property.

The police responded immediately, cracking down on violent flash mobs by — um, announcing plans to “step up enforcement of a curfew already on the books, and to tighten it if there is another incident.” Another incident? You mean a fifth black riot in two months?

In the past year, at least four of the flash mobs have broken out in the city, including one on Saturday [March 20] in which roving teenagers broke into fights, several onlookers were injured and at least three people were arrested.

Here’s a picture of the Saturday night riot.

Fill in the blank: "thousands of _____ teenagers."

“It was like a tsunami of kids,” said Seth Kaufman, 20, a pizza deliveryman at Olympia II Pizza & Restaurant on South Street. He lifted his shirt to show gashes along his back and arm. He also had bruises on his forehead he said were from kicks and punches he suffered while trying to keep a rowdy crowd from entering the shop, where a fight was already under way.

“By the time you could hear them yelling, they were flooding the streets and the stores and the sidewalks,” Mr. Kaufman said.

The flash mobs have raised questions about race and class.

What questions would those be? “Why do poor black people insist on ruining America in every conceivable way?” Or perhaps: “If all the white people moved out of Philadelphia, which they probably should, how long until the city succumbs to barbarism, like our very own backyard Liberia?”

The next three sentences deserve a Pulitzer Prize. No, really. That’s how bad race reporting is, these days.

Most of the teenagers who have taken part in them are black and from poor neighborhoods. Most of the areas hit have been predominantly white business districts.

In the flash mob on Saturday, groups of teenagers were chanting “black boys” and “burn the city,” bystanders said.

Not to worry, though. Race is definitely not a factor:

Mayor Nutter, who is black, rejected the notion that race or the city cut in services was a factor.

“I don’t think people should be finding excuses for inappropriate behavior,” Mr. Nutter said. “There is no racial component to stupid behavior…”

Unfortunately, there are racial components to both stupidity and criminality. That’s why Unamusement Park will never feature a series about violent white flash mobs: because they don’t exist.

3. Why do we even have newspapers anymore?

If you want the truth about black flash mobs, you need to turn to the Internet. No, I don’t mean me, although when I finish this series, it should serve as a guide to black flash mob violence in 2010.

As early as March 21 (the day after the South Street riot), A Race Against Time had the real story, complete with links, photos (of black people, obviously), and even — gasp — races.

Thousands of black teenagers swarmed a South Philadelphia neighborhood Saturday night… Several white workers were attacked…

A similar “flash mob” took place on the same street last May, in which black teenagers looted a convenience store, carjacked and crashed a taxi cab, and pulled white motorists from their vehicles and assaulted them. In addition to the two South Philly incidents, mobs of black teenagers have attacked pedestrians in the Center City neighborhood three times in the last three months.

Police say the black teenagers are using social networking sites to coordinate their mayhem. The flash mob last May was organized via the website OurSpace, which is “an online social location that provides African Americans a superior way to connect with others whom share similar experiences and perspectives.”

Hey, where's the fire? Oh, I see. You just started it.

In the comments: “These thugs are like a bunch of out of control animals, and many whites turn on their own race to stand up for them.” Sounds like a fair comparison to me.

BucksRight has honest coverage, too. You can tell just from the title: “Racist, Violent Flash Mobs Paralyze Philadelphia.”

On the other hand, here are some more mainstream news outlets that decided the race angle wasn’t worth reporting.

  1. From philly.com: “Police struggle with ‘flash mob’ on South Street” (March 21).

    Philadelphia police said a “flash mob” with thousands of teenagers and young adults [sic] swarmed South Street last night causing businesses to close early and bringing law enforcement from across the city to control the crowd.

    Thousands of people, apparently all (or nearly all) the same race, yet no mention of that race in the article. I think it’s fair to say this qualifies as a cover-up.

  2. From AOL News: “Texting Spurs Sometimes Violent Flash Mobs” (March 25).

    Last week, the fourth mob of the year broke out in Philadelphia, with unruly teenagers [sic] fighting and injuring several onlookers while chanting “burn the city.”

    “Burn the city,” and? Something about “black boys,” right?

  3. From Mashable: “Violent Flash Mobs Becoming a Problem in Philly” (March 28).

    Flash mobs are usually associated with randomized fun (or pantlessness), but in Philly, they’re basically akin to randomized violence.

    Because they’re made up of what kind of people?

4. The face of white victimhood

The very best you’ll find in the mainstream media is “Another Flash Mob Rocks South Street” (March 22) from the Philadelphia Daily News, which features a timeline of the riot, as well as a full account of Seth Kaufman’s beating. (He’s the pizza deliveryman from section 2.) The article is no longer available online, but American Renaissance has a copy.

Inspired by Twitter messages to “come to South Street,” police say hundreds — business owners say thousands — of young teens [sic] stampeded down South Street in waves, jumping on top of cars, knocking over pedestrians and fighting and cursing.

… Saturday’s was the sixth flash mob to hit the city since last May: three on South Street; two in the Gallery, including one that spread to Macy’s; and one along Market Street East that spread to the area near City Hall.

… One youth [sic] was overheard on his cell phone saying: “Bring baseball bats to South Street.”

There is also a list of people injured. (More victims, including a police officer, surfaced later.) One of them in particular stands out.

About 11 p.m. a 27-year-old woman was walking on South near 15th when a large group of male and female juveniles [sic] ganged up on her, kicking and punching her until she fell to the ground, where they continued to kick her in the face and head. [Sound familiar?] She was taken to Hahnemann University Hospital, where she was treated for bruises, abrasions and a large laceration on her upper lip. She has since been released. No arrests were made.

The 27-year-old woman is Anna Taylor — photo here.

Anna Taylor: white. Gee, who could have guessed?

The Philadelphia Inquirer has the whole story, in their article “Flash Mob Victim’s Untold Story” (via American Renaissance). Here is the worst of it:

Taylor’s mother, Peggy, a Germantown social worker, said her daughter needed so many stitches inside and outside her mouth at Hahnemann University Hospital after the assault that “we just couldn’t count them.”

Just kidding. Here is the worst of it:

The blow that Taylor absorbed was so powerful that she lost a front tooth and its root, and the roots of nearby teeth still may die, her dentist told her. The punch also split her upper lip so severely that much of it was hanging from her face and she was unable to speak, Taylor said.

Kidding again!

[T]he young man [sic] who hit Taylor was laughing as he punched her and said, “Bam, there’s another one,” according to Taylor. “It was frightening.”

Question: what kind of “young man” would laugh and taunt his (white, female) victim while bashing her face in with his fist?

Taylor’s attacker was described by Philadelphia Police Lt. Frank Vanore as an 18-year-old black male.

As the French say, quelle surprise*.

This leads to my next question: how many times do ghetto black people have to do exactly this sort of thing, and much worse, before we’re allowed to say “hey, this is what ghetto black people do. It’s what they always do, whenever large numbers of them are allowed to congregate without strict supervision. They will never stop doing these things. They will not learn, and they cannot be tamed. We should really just stay the hell away from them. Give them a little corner of the country to fuck up with their crime and violence and illegitimate kids and low IQs — our very own backyard Liberia — and let the rest of America try to repair the damage they’ve already done.”

*They also occasionally say: look out, minorities are burning down our city — except, y’know, in French.

5. The face of black fake victimhood

Raina Kelley is a fanatical black activist who plays the race card at every available opportunity and consigns anyone not sufficiently pro-black to the “lunatic fringe.” If it were up to me, I would ignore Ms. Kelley’s ruminations on race, for the same reason I would ignore a profoundly retarded woman’s ruminations on the smell of her own bowel movements. Sadly, I do not have that luxury.

The enemy.

Ms. Kelley decided to weigh in (not a fat joke) on the matter of violent black flash mobs, in a Newsweek article entitled “Did Black Kids Ruin Flash Mobs?” (why yes, yes they did) and subtitled “Hardly. How the media got the story wrong” (well, fuck).

(Similar stupidity may be found in a March 28 article at philly.com, “What’s behind ‘flash mobs’?” However, I refuse to subject myself to critiquing more than one black crime apologia.)

Let’s hear her out.

Is it just me or are flash mobs more dangerous when it’s black teenagers doing the mobbing?

It’s not you. Blacks are inherently more violent than whites, so white flash mobs (dancing, having pillow fights, pretending to be zombies) are less dangerous than black flash mobs (robbing, looting, viciously assaulting).

News of violent flash mobs in Philadelphia has now hit the front page of The New York Times, complete with a photo (on the second page of the Times story) of a group of black male teenagers ostensibly [sic] en route to run amok.

So, to recap:

  1. black male teenagers demonstrably run amok in a violent flash mob in Philadelphia, because that’s what black male teenagers like to do in their free time
  2. The New York Times reports this

The problem here, according to Ms. Kelley, is that the cover-up of black flash mob violence was incomplete. 90 percent suppression of the unflattering realities of black crime wasn’t enough. Only 100 percent suppression will do.

Here we go again. Just like freeway-shooting and looting, violent flash mobs will soon enter the modus operandi of scary young black men.

This is the point in the article where you’re supposed to share a hearty chuckle with Ms. Kelley over these “scary young black men.” Ho ho, scary young black men indeed. Why, only a Republican would think such a thing! That is why I wanted you to read about Anna Taylor first: so that you may now recall how the black man who punched her face apart was laughing as he did so.

Think of “Bam, there’s another one” as the punchline to Ms. Kelley’s hilarious joke.

I’m not looking to excuse their behavior, only to explain how ingrained racial stereotypes kick in to criminalize behavior by black youths that is tolerated in more diverse crowds.

Please remember what behavior we’re talking about here:

The blow that Taylor absorbed was so powerful that she lost a front tooth and its root, and the roots of nearby teeth still may die, her dentist told her. The punch also split her upper lip so severely that much of it was hanging from her face and she was unable to speak, Taylor said.

Of course Raina Kelley is looking to excuse their behavior. That’s the purpose of her article: to remind us that it’s not their fault — it’s never their fault. They’re just poor black teenagers! In fact, they’re the real victims here — victims of horrible white people! You’re just picking on them because they’re black!

Meanwhile, Anna Taylor’s face was so full of stitches, inside and outside, that her mother couldn’t count them all.

Time and time again, crimes committed by African-Americans have been presented as the first of a wave of race crimes, only for the phenomenon disappear without a trace.

Again, this was the sixth violent black flash mob in Philadelphia since May 2009 — and don’t worry, we’ll see plenty more before this series is through.

Or maybe that should read “start worrying.”

And where is the concerned hand-wringing over the future of flash mobs after tea-party protesters shouted racial epithets at congressmen?

Hoax. And not a flash mob. And non-violent. And probably not even against the law. Oh, but it was the Tea Party, and they’re racist, and boo hoo I’m another whiny black.

When a 2009 Valentine’s Day pillow-fight flash mob in San Francisco caused flooding of nearby businesses, wasted tens of thousands of gallons of water and cost the city nearly $20,000 to clean up, no one brought in the FBI to monitor social media and certainly no one thought to institute a curfew, as they are in Philly.

Where, indeed, is the uproar over a Valentine’s Day pillow-fight, that wasted tens of thousands of gallons of water? Let’s talk about that, and get over all this anti-black propaganda about how, at about 11 PM on March 20, Anna Taylor was walking on South Street when “a large group of [black people] ganged up on her, kicking and punching her until she fell to the ground, where they continued to kick her in the face and head” until… well, you can imagine the rest.

In fact, I recommend you do.

It is a wonder any of us get through our teen years without a stint in jail [says the black woman]. So it really isn’t shocking that flash mobs would appeal to these poor African-American teenagers in Philly — their neighborhoods are extremely violent, their schools are bad, and the Great Recession has cut what few after-school and employment programs they had by 93 percent.

No, it really isn’t shocking that poor, probably low-IQ blacks would participate in this kind of behavior. What kind of behavior, again? Ask the pizza deliveryman:

He lifted his shirt to show gashes along his back and arm. He also had bruises on his forehead he said were from kicks and punches he suffered while trying to keep a rowdy crowd from entering the shop, where a fight was already under way.

This is all rather tedious, I know, but Ms. Kelley isn’t done excusing black criminals yet.

The cycle is always “here’s the last brand of urban warfare,” and when that brand turns out not to exist, it’s only quietly noted while the impression that urban youths often attack white people without provocation remains.

Technically, the impression that remains, after reality intrudes on a white liberal’s fantasy world, is that the “niggers” you’ve heard so much about often attack white people without provocation.

In a column last year about a study confirming that 70 percent of people of all races harbored an unconscious preference for white people over black people

Good for them. Personally, my preference for white people over black people is fully conscious — and perfectly rational, too.

… I wrote: “We are a nation of people deeply influenced by the stereotypes endlessly perpetuated in our culture. …

Does she perhaps mean “perpetuated by black people, who just can’t seem stop themselves from behaving like animals“?

… So it is not difficult to believe that we have automated this stereotyping to the point where it happens not in our conscious mind but in its operating system.” The continued use of the “flash mobs used to be great until black kids ruined them with violence” narrative [read: observation] relies on those same automatic assumptions about young black people and will only further perpetuate the popular, but unfair [sic], racial stereotype of black men as sociopathic thugs. We’re here, we have no fear, get used to it.

You heard the woman. Sociopathic black thugs are here, they have no fear, and we’d better find a way to deal with them.

Quickly and permanently.

Read Full Post »

Ignorance and misinformation about race and crime run deep in our society. People who have never read an article on the subject will declare, with a conviction normally reserved for religious fundamentalists, that blacks are not more criminal than whites; that this is an illusion created by racially biased news media; and that any evidence to the contrary is a product of police or jury discrimination.

Over the next few days [I guess “weeks” would have been more accurate], I will debunk these myths in the form of three laws of race and crime.

Last month, Unamusement Park established the First Law of Race and Crime: there is no bias against blacks in the justice system. Over the next few days (I mean it, this time), we will look at violent black mobs in light of the Second Law: the news media are biased in favor of blacks.

1. 2010: Just another year in black-run America

From NBC Philadelphia (February 17, 2010): “Teen Mob Attack in Center City.”

One teen is hospitalized and more than a dozen others are in jail after a flash mob turned violent in Center City.

As many as 100 teens from three area high schools descended upon The Gallery at Market East Tuesday afternoon, police say. … Groups made their way up Market Street towards City Hall — some starting a large snowball fight on the building’s grounds while others began fighting on street corners, police said.

Along the way, the teens darted through traffic and knocked strangers to the ground, police said. One witness said the teens were randomly attacking people.

Teens who made their way into Macy’s at 13th and Market, damaged parts of the store and stole clothing, eyewitnesses said. …

Some of the teens attend Simon Gratz High School in North Philadelphia, authorities say. They are working to figure out the other schools involved.

One teen was kicked in the head during one of the brawls and taken to Jefferson University Hospital with head injuries.

… This is not the city’s first interaction with teen flash mobs. Thousands of teens descended on South Street in June 2009 — vandalizing property, beating pedestrians and even stealing a cab. [But good luck finding coverage.]

And that’s the whole story… or is it? I can’t shake this feeling that we’re missing something. Maybe it’s because of that picture at the top of the article.

Just another teen. No other adjectives occur to me.

Then there’s the video accompanying the article, which shows several other teens being arrested. All of them have something in common with the teen pictured above. Can you guess what it is?

Now what was that high school again? Right, Simon Gratz. Do we have a picture of the teens at Simon Gratz High School? Can we bring that up, please?

Some of the teens from Simon Gratz High School.

So… these 100 or so teens. (150, according to a later report). Were they all black? There’s no evidence to the contrary — no pictures of white teens being led away in handcuffs, no security camera footage of Asian high school students fighting on street corners or darting through traffic, no mention of mixed race teens or the mob’s diversity.

If they were all black, why didn’t that merit a line or two? Maybe right at the bottom.

2. “Race” is not in their vocabulary

Let’s look at how other news outlets handled the same story. The Daily News article “100 teens turn snowball fight into violent flash mob outside Philadelphia Macy’s store” doesn’t mention race at all.

Neither does ABC News, in “Police promise crackdown on violent ‘flash mobs’,” although that story features quotes from local high school students named “Shanay Harrell” and “Tearah Yuille.”

“Similar to the flash mobs near South Street last summer”, says an Eyewitness News reporter, over security camera footage of dozens of black teens looting and vandalizing a store — but again, no mention of race. Remember those mysterious teens from June 2009? Well, here they are.

Nope, no race angle here either.

3. Black people are involved? They must be the victims.

Someone else must have noticed this. Oh, here we go: the Digital Journal indulges me in “4th violent flash mob in Philadelphia provokes crackdown.” We’ll get to race in a moment.

There are two videos associated with the story. The first was removed by YouTube for violating its “policy prohibiting hate speech.” The second features race-baiting demagogue Jesse Jackson deflecting attention from black dysfunction, and clamoring for more reparations — I mean, uh, more art and music and “play acting” and tennis teams (well, obviously) in inner city high schools. Right. I’m sure that will work. Oh, and he wants to crack down on poverty and unemployment, not crime. (I’m not sure he knows what a crackdown is.)

The article itself raises some questions.

Maybe there is something in Philadelphia’s water, but teens [WHICH EFFING TEENS?] in the American city have been participating in random acts of rampage since last year. … Random rampages have spontaneously sprung up in Philadelphia in May, June and December 2009. [SO WHY ISN’T THIS HUGE NEWS?] Some of the rampages have been violent, with teens attacking both people and property. Back in June, the police connected the teen rampages to one particular high school, however police say students from three different high schools had been identified in this week’s mob event. [WOULD THESE PERCHANCE BE PREDOMINANTLY AFRICAN-AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOLS?]

Again, good luck finding media coverage of those random violent rampages in 2009. We already caught a glimpse of June’s black teen riot. I also managed to find out what happened in May. From philly.com: during a flash mob “convened by teens and young adults” (race unspecified) “through texting and online social messaging sites,” Thomas Fitzgerald, a 53-year-old bicyclist, “was set upon by eight young males, beaten, and left unconscious and in the middle of a violent seizure.”

At least they caught one of them:

[black, 21-year-old Stephen Lyde], of West Philadelphia, was the first of three people arrested in what police say was a rampage by more than 100 who blocked traffic, pounded on cars, stole merchandise, and assaulted several people.

… Erin Houdeshell said Lyde was one of five to seven men who stood around Fitzgerald while he had a seizure on the hood of a car.

“He said, ‘Yo, look at his head,'” Houdeshell testified, referring to Lyde watching Fitzgerald’s head twitch and bounce on the car’s hood. “He seemed kind of entertained by the situation.”

Sharon Frohlick testified that she saw a man grab the strap of Fitzgerald’s backpack and yank him from his bike.

Frohlick said the assailant threw Fitzgerald on the hood of a parked car and punched him in the face. Seven or eight others joined in, punching and kicking him as he slid to the ground while other spectators cheered.

Hurray! He’s having a seizure! Sound familiar? More coverage may be found at philly.com.

Returning to the Digital Journal article, here is the only mention of race.

One opinion piece attributes the rampages to economic and social discrimination, saying that most of the kids who participate in these rampages are African American students who believe they have been racially targeted by store owners and police in Center City.

Wait, what? Are they really taking that angle? Sure, they’re all black — but that’s only because they’re fighting back against white racist store owners and police. Who comes up with this stuff? Seriously. Find me that opinion piece — aha.

4. Progressive, tough, liberal, and retarded

From OpEdNews.com (“Progressive — Tough — Liberal”): “Philly Rampage Shows Social Media’s Potential: Youthful Rage, Instead of Ineffectual, Could be Potent.”

My expectations couldn’t be lower.

The author, Dave Lindorff, begins his piece with some very creative imagery: city leaders and businessmen “wringing their hands ” and calling for “tough action” (scare quotes his) against… why, just a bunch of “kids” — mere victims of the city’s “decrepit and failing” high schools!

“I’m not going to diminish the seriousness of the incident,” he writes, then proceeds to do just that. His main points are as follows:

  1. the Center City commercial area is so full of white racists that the mob attack was justified: “African-American kids feel blatant prejudice [by shop owners] downtown, which does much to explain the hostility that was apparent in the recent rampage”
  2. the police response was also racist: “[t]his is not, I suspect, how such things are handled by police in the suburbs, where parents of arrested minors, especially white minors, tend to get called immediately by police”
  3. these “kids” should use social media to organize marches, protests, and boycotts against the aforementioned racism
  4. they should also teach us old folks how to organize protests against the War in Afghanistan and in favor of Obamacare

Yes, that’s right. He takes the race angle so that he can warn America about the dangers of — no, not violent mobs of black teenagers assaulting random people in the streets of Philadelphia. Don’t be silly! About the dangers of racist store clerks at Macy’s, and the need for a police crackdown on suburban white minors shoplifting and driving drunk.

Fight the real enemy: shoplifting white kids!

“Willfully stupid” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Do kids in the suburbs get expelled from school if they get convicted [of] shoplifting, or if they get busted for drunk driving on the weekend? No. Of course not.

Do kids in the suburbs — no, scratch that, I’m not going to beat around the racial bush. Do white people form violent mobs, robbing stores and assaulting random people? No. Of course not.

5. Was it good for you?

The end of Mr. Lindorff’s article can best be described as radical erotica:

Imagine if these kids used the new media to bring a thousand teenagers to the Gallery to march on the sidewalks with signs demanding an end to racism in these stores. Imagine if they used social media to organize mass boycotts of stores known to target black students for harassment. Imagine if they used social media to organize protests against police bias and police brutality.

Imagine all the people, sharing all the world… These are the wet dreams of Dave Lindorff, author of such bilious books as “Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal” (the convicted Black Panther cop-killer) and “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office.”

Seriously? We haven't killed this piece of shit yet?

Safe in his Philly suburb, far away from the Magical Negroes he fetishizes, and their totally justifiable random acts of violence, Mr. Lindorff fantasizes about radicalizing a horde of angry African-American adolescents and harnessing their black rage — with this newfangled “Facebook” thing — to wipe out the hated CONservatives once and for all, so that the right-thinking anti-racists of the world can finally live together in perfect multicultural harmony (with only occasional epidemics of interracial rape, which of course can be attributed to the ongoing legacy of slavery).

Well, Mr. Lindorff, don’t forget to roll up your car windows when you roll through the “bad” part of town — you wouldn’t want to get carjacked by one of those lovable kids. And next time you indulge in one of your teenage black fantasies, remember to wipe up after you blow your load of white guilt all over the keyboard.

Read Full Post »

Welcome back to Hatred, Unamusement Park’s five-part documentary on the War on Hate. In part one, we observed how anti-racists react when John Derbyshire pokes them with a stick, by which I mean: tells them about intelligence research that insufficiently flatters black people. In part two, with decidedly bigger fish to fry, we tiptoed up to the railroad tracks of gender feminism and slapped both hands on the third rail of rape responsibility — which, I suppose, would fry a very big metaphorical fish.

Today, there will be no frying of fish. Today, we take that big fish… and we grill it with salsa verde! Ay, caramba!

This picture made me so hungry, I stopped writing and went to a Mexican restaurant. After my meal, I had them all deported.

It’s a genetic epic: an Hispanic panic! Are they ethnic or organic? That third rail was galvanic.

I’m manic.

1. Definition, or: Hispanics — what are they and how do they work?

What are Hispanics, anyway? (Or should I say Latinos? Latino-Hispanics?) Are they a race? An ethnic group? What’s the difference? I thought races were social constructs anyway. Does that make ethnic groups super-social constructs? AAAAAAAH IT’S SO CONFUSING.

Let’s get the basics out of the way. (This is still much further than “anti”-racists ever get.) The term “Hispanic” has many meanings, of varying degrees of uselessness, complicated by the fact that no one can decide what term to use.

For now I’ll work with the most official definition of all, officially introduced by the US government in the official 1970 Census. (Back then, the term was “Hispanic.” By 2000, it had been updated to “Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.” Someone must have complained.) Currently, according to the US Office of Management and Budget, the term (actually, they use “Hispanic or Latino,” but let’s not quibble) means “a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.”

By this definition, “Hispanic” is not a race. Not one little bit. (Someone should really explain that to Hispanic gangs, so they stop warring with black gangs.) According to the very official US Census, it is an ethnicity. It’s also the only ethnicity: you are either “Hispanic or Latino” or “Non-Hispanic or Latino.” (Self-identifying as both, a logical contradiction, is neither explicitly allowed nor prohibited.)

So what’s an ethnicity? According to Wikipedia:

a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. “…in general it is a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith.”

Other definitions are similar: “people of the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture” (Free Dictionary); people “sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like” (Dictionary.com); a classification “according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). But we know better than to think ethnicity is racial.

2. Heritage, or: Once upon a time in Mexico

Unfortunately, people “of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin” do not share a common language, a common culture, or a common religion — distinctive or otherwise. Anyone who thinks they do is more racist than I’ll ever be.

This image represents the extent of my knowledge of Mexican culture.

What, then, is this “heritage” they share? Surely not a genetic heritage! Although that’s usually what a “common ancestry or endogamy” implies… and it would be “highly biologically self-perpetuating”…

Other people, especially Hispanics, are confused too — frustrated, even. From Time magazine (March 29, 2010):

Many, if not most, Hispanics in the U.S. think of their ethnicity (also known as Latino) not just in cultural terms but in a racial context as well. It’s why more than 40% of Hispanics, when asked on the Census form in 2000 to register white or black as their race, wrote in “Other” — and they represented 95% of all the 15.3 million people in the U.S. who did so.

An even larger share of Hispanics, including my Venezuelan-American wife, is expected to report “Other,” “Hispanic” or “Latino” in the race section of the 2010 census forms being mailed to U.S. homes this month. What makes it all the more confusing if not frustrating to them is that Washington continues to insist on those forms that “Hispanic origins are not races.” If the Census Bureau lists Filipino and even Samoan as distinct races, Hispanics wonder why they — the product of half a millennium of New World miscegenation — aren’t considered a race too.

Miscegenation… that’s got something to do with races, right? Must not be important, then. We’ll leave it until later.

3. Race, or: (d) None of the above

The Washington Post (July 14, 2003) reports the same curious phenomenon.

Nearly 50 percent of Latinos who filed a Census report said they were white, according to the center’s report.

The 2.7 percent of Latinos who described themselves as black, most of them from the Caribbean, had lower incomes and higher rates of poverty than the other groups — despite having a higher level of education.

Among Latinos who described themselves as “some other race,” earnings and levels of poverty and unemployment fell between black and white members of their ethnic group. About 47 percent of Latinos said on Census forms that they are “some other race,” according to the report.

“The point of the report,” said John R. Logan, the report’s lead researcher, “is that if we take seriously the way people talk about their race, and the reality of their lives, we find that there are real distinctions between white and black Latinos and Hispanics who say they are some other race.” …

In the average metropolitan neighborhood where white Hispanics live, there are hardly any residents who are black Hispanic, the study found. The same is true in neighborhoods populated by Hispanics who say they are neither white nor black.

Fascinating. Apparently, “if we take seriously the way people talk about their race, and the reality of their lives” (but who would want to do that?), “we find that there are real distinctions between white and black Latinos and Hispanics who say they are some other race.”

Ask Hispanics about their race, and you get one of three answers, almost 100 percent of the time: white, black, or other. I wonder… what should we name this other race of Hispanics?

4. Culture, or: Nobody expects an Hispanic inquisition

Frankly, “Hispanic” does not seem to be a particularly useful or natural way to categorize people. After all, a black child of black parents, born in Puerto Rico but raised in Philadelphia, is Hispanic by definition. So are

  • a half-white, half-Asian child living in Mexico and immersed in Mexican culture,
  • anyone — anyone at all — who partakes of any part of Puerto Rican or Cuban or Brazilian or Spanish culture, and is inclined to label themselves “Hispanic,”
  • the more than 11,000 migrants kidnapped by Mexican gangs during one six-month period in 2010, including the 72 massacred last August,
  • the Mexicans crossing into the United States to kidnap Americans for ransom, gun them down, or rape them by the hundreds of thousands — or just waiting until Spring Break, and
  • the entire population of Spain.

It’s not just who we include, it’s why we include them. If we insist on making “Hispanic” about culture, then we’ve mashed together the cultures, past and present, of Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, South America, Central America, and Spain; from soccer to bullfighting, from Rioplatense baroque architecture to ethnic cleansing. (Gang culture is culture too, you know.)

How is this a useful classification? Under this definition, what is the point of knowing whether or not someone is Hispanic? They could be talking about human sacrifice or invading England. It’s very confusing.

According to my browser history, "confused Hispanic doctor" is one of my most popular searches, right up there with "gratuitous French girl," "lazy black mugger," and "aroused Finnish rodeo clown."

Drop culture from the definition and it makes a little more sense: “a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish… origin, regardless of race.” Now at least we’re talking about people with a real biological ancestral link to a real geographical location. (Geography isn’t racist, right? Oh good.) There’s still something out of place, though… and I can’t quite —

5. SPAIN, or: The rain in Spain stays mainly on Hispanics

Spain? I wasn’t expecting a sort of — oh, I already used that joke.

Personally, I had never heard of the Spanish being Hispanic until now. Certainly a lot of people studying Hispanics prefer to differentiate between them and the Spanish — probably because the whole subject is confusing as hell (see above).

Queen Isabella II: quite clearly Hispanic.

There are about 25 million Spanish Americans, but that includes anyone “[t]racing their ancestry in Spain, including White Latin Americans of Spanish ancestry.” So it seems “Spanish American” means something like “white and Hispanic.” Of the 25 million “Spanish Americans,” only 350,000 are actually Spaniards; the rest are “White Hispanic or [White] Latino of Spanish ancestry.”

In America, then, we would be modifying the definition of “Hispanic” by less than two percent if we omitted the Spanish, reserving “Hispanic” for people of Latin American descent. (Of course, the change would be even tinier in Latin America.) Then our definition would at least match the Merriam-Webster’s definition of “Latino”: “a native or inhabitant of Latin America,” or “a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States.”

Now why would we want to omit the Spanish? Read on, sir or madam. Read on.

6. Miscegenation, or: “White girls, they’re pretty funny, sometimes they drive me mad./Black girls just wanna get fucked all night, I just don’t have that much jam”

(I considered calling it “Black Holes And Miscegenations” after my fourth favorite Muse album, but that’s just crass.)

What were those Hispanics complaining about in Time magazine, again? Someone ate their delicious tacos? No, that wasn’t it at all.

Hispanics wonder why they — the product of half a millennium of New World miscegenation — aren’t considered a race too.

Miscegenation means people of different races having children together. When you look at traits with strong genetic components in interracial (or mixed-race) children, you often find that the kids lie somewhere in between their parents. Skin color is one obvious example — look at Barack Obama (half white, half black). Intelligence is another (see Appendix A).

What does this have to do with Hispanics? That depends on which Hispanics we’re talking about. Who’s “the product of half a millennium of New World miscegenation”? Obviously not the Spanish Hispanics. Not the white or black or (almost nonexistent) Asian Hispanics, either. It’s those “none of the above” types who can’t figure out what race they are, but suspect it has something to do with Latin America.

The impeccably anti-racist Evergreen State College, in its celebration of National Hispanic Heritage Month, affirms that

[“Hispanic”] is not a racial identification. Hispanic is more of a regional identification like saying “North American.” What is a Hispanic? Hispanics come in all sizes and shapes. There are Jewish, Arab, Asian, Indian, Black and White Hispanics as well as brown.

I assume one of them is Jewish, one of them is Arab, one of them is Indian, and one of them is plain ol' brown?

Anyway, here is the relevant part:

What most Americans perceive as brown is actually a mix of Indian [i.e., Native (Central or South) American] and White. When Spanish explorers settled the Americas, they did not bring families with them like the English settlers did when they arrived in the U.S. The Spanish explorers were mostly soldiers and priests, etc. As a result, the soldiers intermarried with the Indian women they found in the countries they explored [quite a euphemism, that]. The result was a new racial identity known as mestizos. In time, mestizos became the middle class and the largest population.

White? Native American? Those sound suspiciously like races. A mix of the two? That sounds suspiciously sort of like a race.

7. Genetics, or: We meet again, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza — but this time, it’s personal

As I pointed out in section 2 of “‘Scientific racism’ is actually valid science (part 2),” race exists, and it is genetic. The brown Hispanic sort-of race is not an exception. (Neither are the white European sort-of subraces — see Appendix B.) The following genetic map of the Americas is from Cavalli-Sforza’s unabridged History and Geography of Human Genes (1994). Now imagine mixing some white people into the middle bit and the part at the bottom. Boom, there’s your new race.

Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of the Americas.

Scientists are working away on the genetic makeup of Hispanics. Harry Ostrer, professor of Pediatrics, Pathology and Medicine and director of the Human Genetics Program at NYU Langone Medical Center, has co-authored a 2010 paper, “Genome-wide patterns of population structure and admixture among Hispanic/Latino populations”, in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America).

Hispanic/Latino populations possess a complex genetic structure that reflects recent admixture among and potentially ancient substructure within Native American, European, and West African source populations. …

Comparing autosomal, X and Y chromosome, and mtDNA variation, we find evidence of a significant sex bias in admixture proportions consistent with disproportionate contribution of European male and Native American female ancestry to present-day populations. …

Finally, using the locus-specific ancestry inference method LAMP, we reconstruct fine-scale chromosomal patterns of admixture. We document moderate power to differentiate among potential subcontinental source populations within the Native American, European, and African segments of the admixed Hispanic/Latino genomes.

Indeed, there is a lot of genetic variation in Latin America. A few centuries ago, some people were kind of obsessed with it.

From PNAS again (be careful with that acronym), “Admixture dynamics in Hispanics: A shift in the nuclear genetic ancestry of a South American population isolate” is a 2006 paper by the extremely racist and discriminatory anti-Hispanic scientists Gabriel Bedoya, Patricia Montoya, Jenny García, Ivan Soto, Stephane Bourgeois, Luis Carvajal, Damian Labuda, Victor Alvarez, Jorge Ospina, Philip W. Hedrick, and Andrés Ruiz-Linares, and edited by every race denialist’s favorite geneticist, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (who secretly thinks they’re all nuts — sssshhhh, it’s a big racist conspiracy!).

Although it is well established that Hispanics generally have a mixed Native American, African, and European ancestry [I thought it had something to do with Spanish culture?], the dynamics of admixture at the foundation of Hispanic populations is heterogeneous and poorly documented. Genetic analyses are potentially very informative for probing the early demographic history of these populations. [Genetic histories? Clearly, this is KKK propaganda.] Here we evaluate the genetic structure and admixture dynamics of a province in northwest Colombia (Antioquia), which prior analyses indicate was founded mostly by Spanish men and native women.

Fascinating stuff. Too bad for them a bunch of internet geniuses already decided that race isn’t genetic. Time to give it up, Bedoya and Montoya.

8. The Hispanic race, or: “Lucky that I love a foreign man for/The lucky fact of your existence”

The 47 percent of American Hispanics who don’t believe they belong to any race known to man aren’t crazy. They aren’t extraterrestrials, either. There is definitely some kind of race here somewhere.

We could call it brown, but we’re going to confuse the Egyptians and the Indians (from India). We could call it mestizo, but that’s about mixing races. Sure, that’s how it all started, but given that the Aztecs and Conquistadors aren’t kicking around Mexico City anymore, isn’t it time we came up with a more accurate name for this relatively stable group of people, with their common ancestry and their endogamy and their highly biologically self-perpetuating nature? Besides, mestizo already means a bunch of different things to different people.

Let’s try something crazy: let’s call this race “Hispanic.” We’ll call people from Latin American countries… um… “Latin Americans.” And we’ll just forget about culture for now, because it’s very complicated and subjective and it’s not genetic, either. Put race and nationality together, and you’ve got

  • white Latin Americans, including white Latin American immigrants to the USA, whose kids would be white Americans (see below),
  • black Latin Americans (ditto),
  • Hispanic Latin Americans — you know, the ones you can tell are “Hispanic” just by looking at them,
  • white Americans,
  • black Americans,
  • Hispanic Americans — you know, the 47 percent of “Hispanic” Americans who get confused when you ask them what race they are,

and so on.

Now, is this a useful way to classify people? Well, it’s based on genetic histories. Not on how strongly a person identifies herself with Latin American or Spanish culture. Not on having some ancestor from some country once colonized by Spain — oh, except for those Spanish colonies in Africa and the East Indies, to which the Spanish also brought their culture, especially their religion.

My crazy definition is socioculturally useful, too. Basically, it gives us a way to describe those brown-skinned people who live in Mexico and Cuba and Brazil and America and other places, and all seem to have something in common — no, not a common language or culture or religion. It’s something passed down from parents to children, generation after generation. Something based on a common ancestry. Something that makes this subset of “Hispanics” particularly highly biologically self-perpetuating.

9. Hispanic: It’s a race now. Sort of.

Try to make sense of our world with any other definition of “Hispanic.” I dare you.

  • From the Wall Street Journal: “Univision Communications Inc. plans to launch at least two new Spanish-language cable channels in the U.S. in the next year, as an increasing number of competitors rush to cash in on the growth of the country’s Hispanic population. … it hopes to roll out the first new channel, built around soapy dramas called telenovelas… as early as this year’s third quarter. A new sports channel called Univision Deportes, focused on Mexican league soccer, is being readied for the first half of 2012.”

    Are they targeting Spaniards, or perhaps black Puerto Ricans?

  • From the Daily Caller: “Colorado, a state where Democrats have seen numerous victories in recent years, could be ready for a swing in 2012. … According to James Nava, writing at The Americano, the key to winning over Colorado’s Hispanic electorate is to ‘encourage family values, education and employment opportunities that will promote stability for Hispanic families and drastically reduce . . . child poverty.'”

    What does this have to do with Cuban culture?

  • From Texas GOP Vote: “The lawsuit brought on by the MALC [Mexican American Legislative Caucus] claims that the census numbers should not be used in Texas redistricting because they say the census underestimates the Hispanic population in south Texas.”

    Good for them! I’m glad to see the Mexican American Legislative Caucus is looking out for Hispanics like Alexis Bledel and other white Argentinian Americans.

  • From the same article: “2001 Houston Hispanic Entrepreneur of the Year award winner, Alan Vera, emphasizes the concept that a Hispanic can be represented by a non-Hispanic, a black can be represented by a non-black, a white can be represented by a non white. He urges the members to consider creating three to five districts based upon community interests and not skin color.”

    Being an Hispanic, Alan Vera should really brush up on his Hispanic facts! (Hispanofacts?) It has nothing to do with race or skin color.

  • The Pew Hispanic Center doesn’t get it either: “Latinos are less likely than whites to access the internet, have a home broadband connection or own a cell phone… Hispanics, on average, have lower levels of education and earn less than whites. Controlling for these factors, the differences in internet use, home broadband access and cell phone use between Hispanics and whites disappear. In other words, Hispanics and whites who have similar socioeconomic characteristics have similar usage patterns for these technologies.”

    Since we all know “Latino” is not a race, these sentences are meaningless.

  • The Pew Hispanic Center drops the ball again: “By their own reckoning, Latinos living in the United States do not have a national leader. When asked in an open-ended question to name the person they consider ‘the most important Latino leader in the country today,’ nearly two-thirds (64%) of Hispanic respondents said they did not know. An additional 10% said ‘no one.'”

    Excuse me, but the President and First Lady love Mexican food, which is a part of Mexican culture, which makes them both part Hispanic. (I estimate their Hispanicity at 7 percent, according to my Hispanometer.) So. There.

  • Check out all the smiling faces at the Hispanic College Fund and the Hispanic Scholarship Fund. It’s not like those kids generally have similar hair and skin, or anything.
  • Hispanic Magazine‘s list of Latino icons is great, but it should really make an effort to include more white and black people. Otherwise it’s discriminating against a majority of American Hispanics. (Not to mention 100 percent of Spanish Hispanics.)
  • Don’t even get me started on La Raza. Someone should remind these so-called Hispanics they’re not a race! Sheesh.

Hispanic: It’s a race now. Sort of. That seems to be what the brown “Hispanics” want anyway. Who am I or you to deny them it?

Appendix A: Interracial High-School [genetic inter]Action!

Consider, if you will, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, published in 1976 by Sandra Scarr and Richard A. Weinberg. They devised an experiment to see if the IQ gap between black and white children was genetic or environmental (i.e., caused by some combination of white racism and the lousy neighborhoods, schools, and homes of the poorer black children) or genetic. (They favored the environmental explanation.)

A number of upper-middle-class white parents in Minnesota with above-average IQs had adopted children of various races. There were adopted kids with two white parents (we’ll call those children “white”), two black parents (“black”), and one white and one black parent (“interracial”). When the researchers tested the adopted children’s IQs at age 7, the white children scored 112, on average; the interracial children, 109; and the black children, 97. That’s the same 15-point IQ gap between whites and blacks you observe today, with the interracial children scoring somewhere in the middle. Most of the adopted children were tested again at age 17. Their IQ scores, their GPAs, their class ranks, and their school aptitudes showed the same order: white > interracial > black. Correcting for the Flynn effect only makes the gaps larger, without changing the order. That’s exactly what we would expect if IQ depended more on genes than on shared (or family) environment.

It’s not the only transracial adoption study, of course. Dr. J. Philippe Rushton, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario and an expert on race and intelligence, put together a lot of different results in his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior.

This is what a hereditary trait looks like.

But surely we can find some way to blame the environment for this. Maybe the black children were treated differently at school, and that accounts for their lower scores? Well, in that case, an interracial child identified and raised as black should score like a black child (they experience similar discrimination), and not as an interracial child raised as interracial (they have similar genes). Luckily for us, some of the parents did mistakenly believe they were raising black children. Those children’s scores were not significantly different from the other interracial children. Even their own parents couldn’t tell they were half white all along, yet they performed like all the other half-white children.

It’s pretty convincing stuff, but because these findings aren’t flattering to black people, Rushton has been called a racist and a white supremacist, among other nasty (and obviously false) things.

He has also been called “an honest and capable researcher” (E.O. Wilson, father of sociobiology), “widely known and respected for the unusual combination of rigour and originality in his work” (Hans Eysenck, Rushton’s doctoral supervisor and the most cited living psychologist at the time of his death). In Rushton’s own words: “from an evolutionary point of view, superiority can only mean adaptive value — if it even means this. And we’ve got to realize that each of these populations [races] is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments.” That would make all races equally superior. Hurray!

Would these findings be controversial if we were discussing interracial pea plants? We can only speculate.

Are you racist against peas? Consult this helpful chart.

Appendix B: EuroTrip

Check out this Gene Expression article, “Genetic map of Europe; genes vary as a function of distance.” It’s talking about this 2008 paper in Nature (arguably the most prestigious science journal in the world). From the paper:

Despite low average levels of genetic differentiation among Europeans, we find a close correspondence between genetic and geographic distances; indeed, a geographical map of Europe arises naturally as an efficient two-dimensional summary of genetic variation in Europeans. The results emphasize that when mapping the genetic basis of a disease phenotype, spurious associations can arise if genetic structure is not properly accounted for. In addition, the results are relevant to the prospects of genetic ancestry testing; an individual’s DNA can be used to infer their geographic origin with surprising accuracy–often to within a few hundred kilometres.

Don’t believe me? This is what you get if you plot the genetic variation between people from different countries, represented by colors. The axes have nothing to do with geography; they represent only the two largest components of genetic variation. Yet it looks quite like a map of Europe…

Plotting the two biggest independent dimensions of genetic variation.

And this is what you get when you take the data on genetic variation and project it back onto a map of Europe. You can predict geographic origin very accurately.

Projecting European genetic variation onto a map of Europe.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: