That is the contention of one Wesley Lowery, who took us to task earlier for indulging ourselves in ‘racial generalizations.’ Let me rewind to the beginning…
This all started when I clicked into this blog’s back end (honestly where did your mind go reading that, you perv?) and noticed an incoming link from Wesley’s site. He was lambasting me and several other race realist blogs for assuming that the Kent State beat down was racially motivated. He said…
The list on blogs, online commenters and Facebook groups calling this an attack by two black thugs is disgusting. (Here are a few: Nation of Cowards, Underprivileged Journalism , Stuff Black People Don’t Like, Latest Blog, Why Blacks Suck) But with that said, I’m not dumb enough to think we live in a post-racial world. Bigots and racist idiots will always exist. They will always call for racial separation and discrimination every time a black man commits a crime against a white victim.
And in comments at his site he says…
I called your post “racist bigotry” because of statements like this:
“Black folks are too violent, too savage, and too angry due to endemic Black dysfunction and simmering resentment against successful whites to ever be a productive part of this nation in any meaningful way.”
And to be clear I stand by that statement and intend to show the hows and whys in a separate post. in this post I want to deal with more structural types of elements.
In the course of our exchange he simply assumed several things…
1.) That ‘Post-racial’ is a positive or desirable thing.
2.) That racial stereotypes are wrong.
3.) That segregation is wrong.
4.) That there is some sort of moral equivalency between blacks and whites in terms of violence.
5.) That there is some sort of ‘dialogue about race’ that needs to occur.
I could keep going but let’s use these as a jumping off point.
1.) That ‘post-racial’ is a positive or desirable thing?
I hear the plaintive cry for a ‘post-racial’ America all the time and looking at those calling for it I know that they are imagining a land flowing with Unicorns and Magical fruits. Well, what if ‘post-racial’ actually looks more like Bosnia or Rwanda? What if there is no such thing? What if race is such an endemic part of our fundamental make-up as human beings that the very idea of ‘post-racial’ should be treated as something disturbing or shocking? What if ‘Post-racial’ is code for genocide against white people? Or all races for that matter?
I call that the “Fucking Genocide” or the “Mocha Genocide,” simply stated its the idea that if everybody would just get busy with everybody else ultimately we would be reduced to one mocha colored race al a H.G. Wells Eloi in The Time Machine, and yes kiddies that really is a form of genocide.
Can you prove to me that this alleged ‘post-racial’ future is something I should desire? And if you think you can please show your work.
2.) That racial stereotypes are wrong
Here’s the problem with this, Wesley wants to invert the argument in good Liberal fashion and asks ‘How does blaming an entire race for the transgressions of some solve anything?’ The problem of course is that stereotypes far from being evil misrepresentations are vitally important to our health and survival. Some examples…
” Their fateful meeting at the high-rise Midtown condo complex–the prominent cancer researcher and the young man described by police as a two-bit criminal–was nothing but chance.
Eugenia “Jeanne” Calle, who had a condo on the Aqua building’s 20th floor, was walking her gray poodle.
Shamal Thompson, 22, fresh off a meal at a nearby Checkers fast-food restaurant, wandered in under the pretense of shopping for condos in the luxury building that boasts private elevators, around-the-clock security and skyline-view homes that cost as much as $2.5 million.
Calle undoubtedly thought she was seizing on an opportunity to sell her condo. But it was Thompson, police say, who was looking for opportunity.
Would you like for me to escort him up?” the guard asked Calle, according to Meadows.
“No, it’ll be fine,” Calle responded. “I don’t want him to think that we don’t trust him.‘
And…
“Michael Tuohey was the veteran U.S. Air ticket agent at the Portland, Maine airport who checked in head terrorist Mohammed Atta and his companion Abdulaziz Alomari on the morning of September 11, 2001, on the first leg of their trip that ended with Atta piloting a hijacked jet into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. In 2005, Tuohey recounted:
“’I thought they looked like two Arab terrorists but then I berated myself for the stereotype and did nothing.’”
The truth of course is had either of these people taken the painfully sensible step of paying attention to racial stereotypes, which were true BTW, they and several thousand of our fellow citizens might be alive today. Because of course the problem with stereotypes isn’t that they’re not true but that they are ridiculously and reliably true, and we just can’t have that in this day and age can we old chap?
3.) That segregation is wrong
This is one of those that is actually kinda fun to write about because errybody says one thing and errybody is full of shit. The truth is white people prefer to live with white people and Black people prefer to live with Blacks and verily forever it has been and will be so. By way of example…
In Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, where 95 percent of the population is white, Rich Benjamin saw more Confederate flags than black people. Not that Benjamin was looking for suggestions of racism, but in his forthcoming book, Searching for Whitopia: An Improbable Journey to the Heart of White America (Hyperion, Oct. 6), he was trying to discover why some of the fastest-growing areas in America are also the most Caucasian. *snip*
Benjamin defines Whitopias as towns that are much whiter than the nation as a whole, which means they are more than 75 percent Caucasian. He looked at areas with a population growth of more than 6 percent since 2000, in which the growth was 90 percent white. Then he set out to Forsyth County, Ga., (98,000 people, 684 of them black), St. George, Utah, Coeur d’Alene and other vanilla outposts to find out why folks were moving there.
“There are forces that push people out [of cities and inner suburbs], like diversity and crumbling infrastructure and high home prices,” Benjamin says. “And there are pull factors, like more home for your dollar [in the whitopias], beautiful natural amenities and safety, and the perceived comfort that comes with homogeneity.”
So is this racist? The black author didn’t think so…
“I very much believe we do have structural racism in our communities, yet we don’t have racists. The good news is we don’t have interpersonal racism. But structural racism is harder to attack.”
Do understand that I define ’structural racism’ as: since they can’t find actual racism we have to make up some plausible sounding shit to keep fleecing whitey!
Even in big cities segregation is the reality…
The paths taken by Colin Lampark and Rosalyn Bates help illustrate why Chicago is the most racially segregated big city in America.
Both are young professionals with handsome earning potential. Both moved to the city a few years ago—Lampark, 28, to Lincoln Park; Bates, 31, to Bronzeville. And both chose neighborhoods reflecting their race, a practice common in Chicago.
Their personal stories, and many others, explain why blacks in Chicago are the most isolated racial group in the nation’s 20 largest cities, according to a Tribune analysis of 2008 population estimates. To truly integrate Chicago, 84 percent of the black or white population would need to change neighborhoods, the data show.
And of course in reality Blacks and whites are like ships passing in the night…
In the 1960s and ’70s, whites fled the city, with the black percentage of the population soaring to about 70 percent in the 1980s.
But between 2000 and 2006, Atlanta’s white population grew faster than that of any other U.S. city, according to the Brookings Institution. In 2000, Atlanta was 33 percent white and 61 percent black. In 2007, the numbers were 38 percent white and 57 percent black, according to U.S. Census data.
“Black voters have been moving further and further out of Atlanta, and whites who wanted to be closer to work have been moving in,” Mr. Bullock said, noting that the city has grown by 100,000 residents since 2000.
Now, are you ready for the double dose of delicious irony? Take a wild guess who are the biggest hypocrites of all when it comes to segregation? If guessed those that whine the most about it you win a (non-racially motivated) mugging!
Among the media, academia and within planning circles, there’s a generally standing answer to the question of what cities are the best, the most progressive and best role models for small and mid-sized cities. The standard list includes Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, and Denver. In particular, Portland is held up as a paradigm, with its urban growth boundary, extensive transit system, excellent cycling culture, and a pro-density policy. These cities are frequently contrasted with those of the Rust Belt and South, which are found wanting, often even by locals, as “cool” urban places.
But look closely at these exemplars and a curious fact emerges. If you take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles you will find that the “progressive” cities aren’t red or blue, but another color entirely: white.
In fact, not one of these “progressive” cities even reaches the national average for African American percentage population in its core county. Perhaps not progressiveness but whiteness is the defining characteristic of the group. *snip*
This raises troubling questions about these cities. Why is it that progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans? Can you have a progressive city properly so-called with only a disproportionate handful of African Americans in it? In addition, why has no one called these cities on it?
As the college educated flock to these progressive El Dorados, many factors are cited as reasons: transit systems, density, bike lanes, walkable communities, robust art and cultural scenes. But another way to look at it is simply as White Flight writ large. Why move to the suburbs of your stodgy Midwest city to escape African Americans and get criticized for it when you can move to Portland and actually be praised as progressive, urban and hip? Many of the policies of Portland are not that dissimilar from those of upscale suburbs in their effects. Urban growth boundaries and other mechanisms raise land prices and render housing less affordable exactly the same as large lot zoning and building codes that mandate brick and other expensive materials do. They both contribute to reducing housing affordability for historically disadvantaged communities. Just like the most exclusive suburbs. *snip*
In fact, lack of ethnic diversity may have much to do with what allows these places to be “progressive”. It’s easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics. Minneapolis-St. Paul, of course, is notable in its Scandinavian heritage; Seattle and Portland received much of their initial migrants from the northern tier of America, which has always been heavily Germanic and Scandinavian.
In comparison to the great cities of the Rust Belt, the Northeast, California and Texas, these cities have relatively homogenous populations. Lack of diversity in culture makes it far easier to implement “progressive” policies that cater to populations with similar values; much the same can be seen in such celebrated urban model cultures in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Their relative wealth also leads to a natural adoption of the default strategy of the upscale suburb: the nicest stuff for the people with the most money. It is much more difficult when you have more racially and economically diverse populations with different needs, interests, and desires to reconcile.
I beg your pardon for running on at the cut & paste but I do enjoy that story, probably more than I ought to, because it gets at something deep and fundamental: race is real and it is probably, after gender, one of the biggest drivers of our behavior. As much as good ‘progressives’ natter on about the wonders and joys of “diversity” almost to a creampuff, as soon as they squeeze out little Obama voter to be #1 they make a mad scramble to the Whiteburbs. Gee Gomer, why would that be?
And of course black folks prefer racial separation every bit as much as whites as do Hispanics and Asians. The truth is that if you were to implement a segregation plan tomorrow not a whole hell of a lot would change, much to the disappointment of human nature ignoring “progressives” everywhere.
4.) That there is some sort of moral equivalency between blacks and whites in terms of violence.
No, of course there isn’t. Oh, I’m sure that ’structural racism’ along with a dearth of quality cappacino shops play their deadly role but, and this is important, black people, on average, are wildly more violent than any other race on the planet by a factor of approximately ten, which is a whole bunch. understand I’m not pulling this out of my butt, even though the gubmint is terrified to release these #’s, because they know whites and Asians can, ahem, do the math as it were. There are still sources that do that dirty job and expose what our feckless gubmint really doesn’t want you to know. That “diversity” is dangerous to your health.
5.) That there is some sort of ‘dialogue about race’ that needs to occur.
Let me tell you a story about a man named Putnam, poor sociologist barely kept his students awake, then one day while trying to prove diversity rocks, when out of the blue came the truth, diversity sucks, like cement shoes and movie stars! (with apologies to the Beverly Hillbillies theme)
The Putnam story is simply told, Bob Putnam was a reliably Liberal Sociology prof who set out to prove that, gosh darn it, diversity really was swell. The problem came when he began to sift the data and found that…
The core message of the research was that, ‘in the presence of diversity, we hunker down’, he said. ‘We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.’
Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, ‘the most diverse human habitation in human history’, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where ‘diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic‘.
Of course being a reliable Liberal he then took the heroic step of burying the study for five years as he desperately tried to find some way, any way, to spin his findings as good news, it didn’t work. How bad is diversity?
Ethnic diversity causes a lot of problems. It reduces interpersonal trust, civic engagement, and charitable giving. It causes us to disengage from society, like turtles shrinking into their shells, reducing our overall quality of life. The more diversity we experience in our lives, the less happy we are. — Professor George Putnam
So tell me again why segregation would be a bad thing? Truth is it sounds like a pretty sane alternative to the ceaseless and savage violence that is being perpetrated against white folk.
So here’s the thing about Wesley’s sober, serious, ‘dialogue about race’ that’s going to happen any day now, any day now, just around the corner, seriously, I mean it this time…
Actually, it already happened a long time ago, its over and done with. the truth is Americans of every race never bought into the airy-fairy racial denying nonsense that Wesley believes in, never, ever. This is borne out by things like White flight, or the fact that after at least thirty years of racial propaganda and PC indoctrination interracial marriage’s still only account for 2.4% of all marriages.
Is that because the United States is so deliciously racist? I say no, I think its because race is a terribly real thing and people get that in their gut. Most can’t articulate it, and in this age would do well not to, yet for all the thousands of images and messages they’ve seen, certainly since I was a child in the early seventies, and all the happy PC talk, Americans basically don’t racially mix in any meaningful way.
So to wrap up: does NOC retard real dialogue on race? Only if you believe that their is meaningful dialogue to be had on the subject, I certainly don’t. Am I unfair to “smear” all Blacks when only some commit crimes? Well, seeing as 30% or so of Black men will be in prison I don’t think its as if there is a tiny Black criminal pop with a high recidivism rate. Levels of crime are simply higher and there’s really nothing left in the cupboard to try to change that.
The real question is this: What exactly can Wesley point to that he feels is a hopeful statistic on the subject of race? What story or detail has he learned of in the recent past that’s made him say “gosh golly, maybe there is hope after all?” Because in a nutshell the position of this blog is that there is no such thing as racial rapprochement, never has been and never will be.
Here is the fundamental difference between Wesley’s worldview and mine, it seems to me for Wesley every attack by a Black person is a separate event and no larger picture is to be drawn from these events. Whereas to me the endless drip — drip — drip of racial violence bespeaks an ongoing genocide against whites in every white nation on the planet. And that is a pretty deep chasm to try and bridge, I hope that I’ve at the very least shown some of the why of my thought process on these issues.
Great comments. The Putnam study may simply document how integration and civil rights including affirmative action together with replacement immigration have objectively made society for more worst and made people more desperate. The Anglo Celtic Declaration of Independence says we are a separate people entitled to a separate country and government of our own. That was true in reference to us v. the British. The others here now are even more different.
Another horrible black massacre in Arkansas of whites is being reported at Auster and Free Republic.
Its a terrible crime against Christopher Kernich who is dead. I had not realized that. I think you have written a very good response. Our dead and we are nothing sacred to this post reality society we live under. But reality keeps coming back and reminding us of its enduring truths. Those truths will kill us when we ignore them.
We can’t look to the establishment to tell the truth of our people being killed. We must tell the truth, the whole truth or no one else will. You are doing a great job in that sacred task.
[...] http://www.nationofcowards.us/?p=2747 [...]
Glad to see I got a guest appearance on your blog.
I’ll try to respond to some of your points but still keep it brief (after all…if your readers cared what I thought they’d be on my site not yours, right?)
For the most part, you got my assumptions right, but there were a few things you were a little off on.
1. In my opinion, the concept of a “post racial” world is one manufactured by the mainstream media. Race will always exist. People will always divide themselves based on physical and ethnic characteristics. To believe that we will ever live in a world that is “beyond race” is ignorant, and, in my opinion, detrimental any productive conversation about race.
2. “That racial stereotypes are wrong.”— Ok, you got me here, I think that stereotypes are wrong. I do not think that anyone is without them, and I acknowledge that every stereotype is based in some — albeit minuscule — truth. However, to operate solely on stereotypes in lei of personal interaction prevents a person from a true understanding of other people and of themselves.
3. “That segregation is wrong.” – Again, guilty as charged. Separate is not equal, and any type of racial segregation, voluntary or legislated, undermines the principles of equality this country was founded on.
4.) “That there is some sort of moral equivalency between blacks and whites in terms of violence.”— We keep finding ways to disagree. I believe in human morality that is entirely separate from race. Every man, woman and child has a God-given sense of morality that is in no way influenced by their race or nation of origin.
5.) That there is some sort of ‘dialogue about race’ that needs to occur.
-Finally, this is where I think you are contradicting your own mission and what seems to be the goal of this site. Blogs advocating segregation and white supremacy (which seems to be an accurate description of what you’re doing) are in fact facilitating this very conversation. You obviously believe there needs to be a conversation about race, or else you wouldn’t spend time talking (or in this case, blogging) about it.
Hope your commenters don’t tear me apart too badly, but I’m sure they will
As always, thanks for the discourse
Wes
Blacks killed 420692 people in the US from 1950 to 2000. Blacks ethnically cleansed whites from Detroit and substantial areas of the downtowns of many if not most major cities in the US. Desegregation and much of the civil rights movement were based on multiple false premises. The consequences of whites being ethnically cleansed and the dysfunction of integrated institutions shows that separation is the clear answer.
Black ethnic cleansing show its blacks that cause segregation. The behavior by young black males we are examining are classic tribal ethnic cleansing behaviors directed to force another group to leave by violence, shakedowns and intimidation. Civil Rights simply expanded this activity to the entire country.
Long before 1964, blacks were ethnically cleansing whites from choice urban areas and taking some of the best housing stock in the country away from whites by violence. Block busting and ethnic cleansing violence against whites by blacks started long before 1964. That is how they took many of the best houses in the country built by white craftsman in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Black violence under civil rights says whites either leave wherever blacks live to suit blacks or cause blacks to leave, there is no middle way. Civil rights said this doesn’t apply just to the South Side of Chicago but to the entire country. That is the choice the Civil Rights Movement presented us with.
Wherever whites build the best houses, blacks target those areas to force whites out and take those houses for blacks. This is also applied within institutions that allow blacks in and promote them by affirmative action. We see that with Eric Holder and Obama. This is the black shake down ethic in operation. We have seen it in DC. We are seeing it in Baltimore. There is no other behavior by blacks in power. This is why total separation is the only answer.
[...] from here was good enough to leave a detailed response to our earlier exchange in comments. I’ve had my say so now its your turn (please keep it civil, he’s been an [...]
Mr. Lowery stated:
2. “That racial stereotypes are wrong.”— Ok, you got me here, I think that stereotypes are wrong. I do not think that anyone is without them, and I acknowledge that every stereotype is based in some — albeit minuscule — truth. However, to operate solely on stereotypes in lei of personal interaction prevents a person from a true understanding of other people and of themselves.
When one race perpetrates murder at 10 times the rate of another rate, this is not a “minuscule” truth. The same applies for rape and any other violent crime. Has Mr. Lowery even read “The Color of Crime”? Please, Mr. Lowery, explain why you consider such stark differences to be “minuscule”?
Mr. Lowery wrote:
3. “That segregation is wrong.” – Again, guilty as charged. Separate is not equal, and any type of racial segregation, voluntary or legislated, undermines the principles of equality this country was founded on.
This country was NOT founded upon racial integration. Every single founding father would have rose up in arms to prevent his children from attending school (much less marrying) with negroes. This country was NOT founded upon equality either. It was founded upon legal equality and equality of rights – amongst white people. Please explain, Mr. Lowery, how this nation could have been founded upon racial equality and yet, at the same time, accepted almost universally that the negro is inferior. Even Abraham Lincoln was clear about this. You can read about it here: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
Where there is equality, there can be no freedom. Where there is freedom, there can be no equality. Our founding fathers chose freedom.
Mr. Lowery wrote:
4.) “That there is some sort of moral equivalency between blacks and whites in terms of violence.”— We keep finding ways to disagree. I believe in human morality that is entirely separate from race. Every man, woman and child has a God-given sense of morality that is in no way influenced by their race or nation of origin.
Your belief is no more than wishful thinking. Would you say the same thing about gender? Do you actually believe there is no correlation between being male and being violent? If so, I must wonder, have you spent your life in a cave, insulated from the real world? I think we should clarify that there are many levels of human existence. Each facet of our beings has a say in how we behave. And yet, this does not negate our free will as individuals. As a man, I may be charged more for auto insurance than a female. Do I storm into the insurance company office and scream at them for discriminating against men? No. I understand that even though I, as an individual, may be a very safe driver, the insurance company must make general rules to remain profitable. In the same way, we must learn to recognize patterns in order to survive. Those patterns do not hold true 100% of the time, but they are valid nevertheless. Are leftists really stupid enough to not understand that I can be an individual, a member of my race, a member of my gender and a believer in my creed all at the same time? That each one of these things should be taken into account when assessing my character? It’s really not that complicated.
I put a comment on Wesley Lowery’s website that concerns the post he wrote directly.
Here, I’d just like to respond to this quote: “However, to operate solely on stereotypes in lei of personal interaction prevents a person from a true understanding of other people and of themselves.”
I completely agree! My fear and loathing of blacks (actually, young black males) has nothing whatever to do with the statistics which, in truth, make my eyes glaze over.
My fear and loathing of blacks has to do with the fact that I have been attacked by black males several times. I’ll spare you the details. These incidents seared my consciousness, and made me permanently afraid of them.
I will not get into an elevator with a black man. I cross the street at night to avoid black men. I avoid most interactions with them, they scare me so much.
My heart grieves for Chris Kernich, but if I could wind the clock back, I’d have told him: don’t mess with blacks. Hold your tongue and survive.
I am always polite to blacks in personal interaction, but Wes (if I may), whites like me are the most dangerous kind. Because behind their collective back I fear and loathe them.
I used to be liberal, by the way – a sincerely believing one.
Ok, Old Atlantic,
“Blacks killed 420,692 people in the US from 1950 to 2000. Blacks ethnically cleansed whites from Detroit and substantial areas of the downtowns of many if not most major cities in the US. Desegregation and much of the civil rights movement were based on multiple false premises. The consequences of whites being ethnically cleansed and the dysfunction of integrated institutions shows that separation is the clear answer.”
Using the same statistics as you, we conclude that Blacks committed 52.2 percent of murderers from 1976 to 2005. That still means that 47.8 percent of murders were committed by other races.
Take into account that poverty breeds crime, and that, thanks to centuries of institutionalized racism, blacks are much more likely to be living under the poverty line, these numbers shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.
Also, I don’t really like the loose usage of the word “ethnically cleansing” when used for places like Detroit. It’s just inaccurate. White Flight led to the racial demographic of Detroit, not ethnic cleansing.
Are you really arguing that in the 1960s blacks were living in the best houses in the country? That premise is absurd and factually inaccurate.
Rhayat1,
“When one race perpetrates murder at 10 times the rate of another rate, this is not a “minuscule” truth. The same applies for rape and any other violent crime. Has Mr. Lowery even read “The Color of Crime”? Please, Mr. Lowery, explain why you consider such stark differences to be “minuscule”?
-Honestly, I’ve never read “The Color of Crime,” although it doesn’t sound much like something I’d find credible. (I’m not big into documents that the Anti-Defamation League says promotes “genteel racism.”
Although, it looks like your numbers are a little off.
According to The U.S. Bureau of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm) murder rates by blacks is not really THAT much higher than murder rates by whites. (52 percent by committed by blacks, 46 percent committed by whites)
Also, the majority of murders from 1976 to 2005 were committed by offenders of the same race as their victims.
* 86% of white victims were killed by whites
* 94% of black victims were killed by blacks
As for equality, this country was founded on the basic principle that all men were created equal. You’re right, our founding fathers shared the same racist views of most people during those days.
“Where there is equality there can be no freedom”- Really? I find that comment quite interesting.
So whites are superior? Jim Crow laws were a good thing? Should we go back to public lynchings and slavery? Because that’s what it seems you’re arguing for.
Equality is “wishful thinking?” It’s sad that people in this country will still argue that ALL men are not created equal.
So Jay,
If tomorrow you were attacked by a white person (which was the case in 86 percent of all murders of whites between 1976 and 2005), would you forever be scared of white people?
My heart goes out to people like you, who fail to realize that you can’t condemn an entire race based on the heinous actions of some.
Furthermore, you perpetuate the society you fear. The more you tell young black men they are no more than thugs and criminals, the more they will believe you and the more they will carry out that reality.
“(52 percent by committed by blacks, 46 percent committed by whites”
Wesley,
This is a huge disproportion. If 52 percent of murders are committed by only 12% of the population, and 46 percent of murders are committed by 75% of the population, the disproportion is huge.
Putting it another way: a small minority of the population commits over 50% of murders.
If a white person attacks me tomorrow, I would consider that to be like being struck by lightning. It’s not likely to happen, and if it does, I’d consider it a one-off. That said, I’d be wary and frightened of a white person who resembled the man who attacked me. That’s the way the human mind works. If I were mugged by a Chinese guy, I’d be more way of Chinese guys – even if I knew that most of them are harmless. But the idea of being mugged by a Chinese guy is laughable. They don’t mug people.
“The more you tell young black men they are no more than thugs and criminals, the more they will believe you and the more they will carry out that reality.”
My heart goes out to people like you, who think that young black men are condemned to be thugs because whites like me, who have been their victims, fear them. They are thugs because they choose to be, not because my thoughts somehow magically compel them to attack people. Why do they attack people? Because it gives them the only power they’ll ever taste, being unable to think, master a trade, or themselves.
I can personally attest to the fact that East Flatbush Brooklyn was ethnically cleansed of whites by blacks and their horrible behavior. Members of my family were menaced on a daily basis until they had had enough and moved to Long Island.
I feel sorry for you Wesley. In your heart of hearts, I think you know what I am talking about and it makes you ashamed to be associated with this.
Thanks for your reply Mr. Lowery. Surely you know how I shall respond…
I wrote “the black murder RATE” Not the absolute number of murders by blacks. Blacks comprise about 13% of the U.S. population, so for them to commit 52% of the murders is wildly out of proportion to their numbers. Furthermore, since government statistic keepers consider Hispanics to be “white” when they are the bad guys but “Hispanic” when they are the victims, we should take into account that, in reality, whites commit far less than the 46% that they claim. I thought I’d just point that out, even though it is not directly pertinent to my points. Since we’re on the topic of government crime statistics, “The Color of Crime” is completely based off of those so, if you consider those statistics reliable, then you should also consider “The Color of Crime” reliable. As for the Anti-Defamation league – they are not reliable. Their judgment is based on ideology, not facts. So we’re back to our original question: how can you describe a murder RATE that is 10X higher than the white murder RATE to be “minuscule?
“Where there is equality there can be no freedom”- Really? I find that comment quite quite interesting.
Yes, it is an interesting comment – and quite true. I wish I could take credit for it but I got it from “Race and Reason”. One needn’t be a deep thinker or a professor to understand that, in nature, there is no equality. If there were equality, then evolution could never take place. As the father of several children, I can attest that each one has her own strengths and weaknesses. What a boring world this would be if we all had cookie-cutter children! Do you really, honestly, believe that somehow all human populations remained equal, in intellectual capacity, even though they diverged noticeably in many other characteristics? Such a proposition makes no sense. Why would they? Is nature politically correct? Given the huge difference in environment between the Arctic, temperate zones, the deserts and the tropics – it is counter intuitive to suppose that the human brain never adapted to each different environment as needed. It is counter intuitive AND it goes against scores of studies carried out over decades and observations made by diverse cultures over thousands of years. When we impose “equality” upon a diverse population, it necessitates a reduction in freedom. When we allow people their freedom, the result is always that some will rise to the top while others will sink to the bottom. This is always the case.
As for the principles upon which this country was founded. My objection to your statement stands. You implied that this country was founded upon the ideal of modern liberals. I objected that this was not the case. Do I recommend a return to slavery? No. But I do recommend that we return to official recognition of racial differences and incorporate them into policy. Turning a blind eye to them will destroy us, and it is destroying us.
Given the immense amount of propaganda we are subject to these days, I don’t blame you for clinging to your prejudices. But I ask you to be more open-minded and try to see things through the eyes of one who has not been tainted by dogma. To see things as they really are. It is not an easy task but it doesn’t mean that you must begin to hate anybody. It doesn’t mean that you must shun your old friends. Just that you recognize that your views have been heavily influenced by those with an agenda other than the Truth.
Here’s a post I left on Wes Lowery’s blog – of course he refused to show it. So much for free debate Wesley! Anyway, here it is:
Hi Wes, your naivete would be amusing except for the subject matter being discussed. Of course this is about race. Maybe the two black assholes would have killed Chris Kernich regardless of his color. Who know and who cares? It’s part of a bigger story that plays out thousands of times a year across our country. Blacks are dumber and more violent than any other racial group by a wide margin. You can ignore the truth but it is proven over and over again in crime statistics, intelligence scores, and your nightly newscasts. Let me ask you something — would you rather walk around for an hour in the “scariest” asian neighborhood in the country or in any given all-black ghetto. Say around 11pm. Personally, I’ll take my chances with Jackie Chan any day.
It might be in the moderation queue Mark, mine was for a bit.
Maybe. Your moderation queue is 2 minutes. It’s 3 hours and counting for Wes. Glad I’m not holding my breath.
True, but I’ve got my trusty laptop sitting next to me as I watch terrible 80’s movies on Netflix streaming!
It’s been great debating with you guys, and I’ve taken some of your points to heart. How hypocritical would it be for me to call for discourse and then shy away from debates such as these.
With that said, we will most likely always disagree at a fundamental level.
If you guys want to continue any of this dialogue, feel free to shoot me an email but, for the most part, I think I’m going to bow out of the comment debates.
The hatred so many of you have expressed really saddens me. Although some seem capable of true intellectual debate others have refused to keep this about discourse, and turned it quite personal.
You all continue to tell me how open minded you are, yet go on to berate me for disagreeing with you.
“I never want to deal with you again. You are a typical black person: excusing personal failure with fantasies of racism. In fact, you are a stinking black supremacist. Have a great life in blacktopia.”—Jay
I’m not going to give audience to comments like that. I’m just not.
And Mark, sorry for the delay on your comment, it’s up. Forgive me if I don’t respond to it though.
I’ll conclude by noting something that was said to me in this debate.
“But I ask you to be more open-minded and try to see things through the eyes of one who has not been tainted by dogma. To see things as they really are. It is not an easy task but it doesn’t mean that you must begin to hate anybody.”
-I hope you all heed your own words. While arguing that you are open-minded you have time and time again shown that you are not. You are hardened in your dogmatic hatred of a group of people, and seek any means to justify that hatred.
For asking that we respect the due process of two American citizens, and grant them the privelege of being considered innocent until proven guilty I was called a black supremacist. Really? Look back on the things I’ve written here, or on my only blog and find a single supremacist statement. I’ve engaged in civilized discourse and discussion, but unfortunately, many of you have proven incapable of that.
As one of your own said, seeing the truth doesn’t require hatred.
Hi Wes, you don’t have to respond to my comments and I appreciate you posting different views on your site. It is sad to see so many clueless whites in denial about racial realities but at least there is a discussion going on thanks to blogs like this one. Like the rest of the media, you ignore the difference between hating people and acknowledging the obvious differences between races. You seem like an okay guy, too bad you hang around fucktards like your murdering buddies.
Well… it’s been about a week since I posted this:
“Alright Mr. Lowery. Here I am on your site to continue our debate. This time, I will try to focus on only one point at a time.
For whatever reasons, blacks commit murder at about 10 times the white rate in the U.S. Please note, I am speaking about their RATE of murder. Not absolute numbers. In other words, a random black man on the street is about 10 times more likely to murder than would be an average white man on the street. You wrote (referring to the “stereotype” that blacks are more violent):
“…and I acknowledge that every stereotype is based in some — albeit minuscule — truth.”
So my question to you is simply this: How can you describe the vast difference in murder rates as being “minuscule”?”
…on Wes’ site. And then I made a followup post over there. Of course it’s not realistic to expect him to respond to every post – but he did invite us to continue the debate on his blog. This I have done and I’m still waiting for a response. Maybe he was preoccupied with Thanksgiving…
That might well be, keep us apprised if you would, I’m curious as well.
Well… it’s been a long time since my posts on his forum and – nothing. So it appears he has lost interest in this particular debate. Perhaps due to the fact that he realized he could not win it.
Thanks for the update, I think it became clear pretty quickly that Wes had some sacred cows on this issue and no particular desire to challenge them, for that matter I let it drop too because the debate just wasn’t going anywhere.
Hi there, I have just started up a site and in the middle of creating rather varied articles for it. Do you object if I blog something about this article? I will of course provide you and this post full credit.
Knock yourself out!