How brazen can the multi-cult be?

A friend, who wishes to remain anonymous, sent me this photo he took:

If it’s now a tradition to portray black males with white females, wouldn’t that mean that academia is “conservative?”

 

The Portland Mercury promoting the corporate agenda

There was a time, decades ago, when one could argue that images of black men with white women were considered shocking, controversial or even taboo. But those days are gone. As a matter of fact, such depictions have been a requirement, within corporate media, for quite some time. I was recently surprised when, upon visiting a local mall, I noticed that the wall-art showed only whites. I was so impressed that I even photographed it:

Other images at that mall give it the impression of being a white-friendly place to be. In fact, it’s a very pleasant mall to visit. I hope the yoofs don’t get wind of it and start tweeting day bruthas in da hood.

But back to that filthy rag called “The Mercury”. Here’s the cover art they featured in their latest issue:

As I stated in my previous post, a picture is worth a thousand words. For all the ink the Mercury spills over corporate privilege, all the griping they do over the status quo and however much they view themselves as opponents of propaganda, they epitomize big government/corporate propaganda. They’re sending out the same messages we find on television commercials, in government literature and in corporate advertizing.

The above image shows what they promote. Now scroll down to my previous post to see the results.

 

 

 

What are they REALLY trying to tell us?

I was perusing the current edition of Willamette Week, a local leftist rag that supplies a steady diet of blatant and subliminal propaganda to the gullible citizens of Portland. I found this tidbit:

I was reading it at work during break. So I handed it to a coworker and asked him, “what is this REALLY trying to tell us?” He smiled knowingly. Sometimes all you have to do is point to it and ask the obvious question. Nothing more needs to be said. The ad is ostensibly about Smallpox, but the powers that be used it to piggyback their own virus: The “negro-is-holier-than-thou” virus. I wish we could come up with a vaccine against that.

 

Who attacked Wilfred de Bruijn?

I happened to come across a Yahoo news piece concerning a gay couple that was beaten in Paris recently. Reading the article, one gets the impression that Wilfred de Bruijn was beaten by actual Frenchmen. There is no hint, in the article, that anybody but ethnic French – specifically French Catholics – are to blame. The article concludes with these words:

“We don’t want violence. We denounce this violence and these acts, we have nothing to do with (Catholic) fundamentalists or extremists,” she said.

Not so, for De Bruijn.

“It was not Frigide Barjot who was hitting my head, or the bishop of Avignon lurking in that street to attack us,” he said. “But they are responsible.”

But of course. It’s “Catholic extremists” who, it’s implied, committed the deed or were somehow responsible for it. When I saw this story I immediately suspected Muslims and sure enough, Opposing Views gives us more detail:

A graphic photo (below) of Wilfred de Bruijn, who claims he was assaulted in a Muslim part of Paris, has provoked shock and outrage.

It’s not much of a stretch to surmise that “in a Muslim part of Paris” means the attackers were, in fact, Muslim – or at least of Muslim background. It’s also not surprising that Yahoo blames not the mullahs but “Catholic extremists.”

I could sit here all day long and bash Muslims and white-hating organizations such as Yahoo, but this is not my purpose here. Rather I wanted to use this case to illustrate how the Left, though its policies, brings harm to those it professes to love – and then shamelessly uses this harm as an argument for more of its policies.

The European Left has been promoting massive Muslim/African immigration for decades. Now that those immigrants are attacking gays in the streets of Paris, it turns around and uses such incidents as propaganda to further its gay agenda. The Left pursues “gay rights” not so that gays may live in peace and undisturbed. Not at all! “Gay rights” is merely a vehicle to promote the effeminization of white men in general. If white men respect the gay lifestyle more, they’re more likely to become more effeminate (or so their thinking probably goes). Once they’re more effeminate, they’re less likely to oppose their replacement by sacred “people of color.”

The Left doesn’t want white men with guns. It wants white men dressed in pink and with flowers. White men who are pushovers. If I were gay, I’d be insulted that the Left uses my “rights” toward this end. I’d also make sure I own a gun. Gays have a lot more to fear from Muslims and their leftist enablers than from right-wing whites or “Catholic extremists.”

 

Is “growth” a good thing?

From a young age we are conditioned to assume that growth is a good thing. As we mature from childhood into adulthood, our parents measure our growth and celebrate every inch. Some parents even mark our height increments on a wall. A lot of growth is considered a good thing; we all want to be tall, but to be stunted is a defect. We like to watch our bank accounts grow, our careers grow, our families grow and our friendships grow.

As adults, when we hear the word “growth” we generally think of good things. Of course there are exceptions. We don’t like the growth of tumors (except on Ted Kennedy), the growth of our bellies (unless we’re pregnant), or the growth of our debt (unless we’re the federal government).

Is population growth a good thing? I would argue that, except in certain circumstances, it is not. For example, we’ve got more than enough people in the United States as it is.

In a March 15th front page article, Erin Middlewood writes in The Columbian:

Although Clark County’s growth slightly exceeded that experienced by the state as a whole, it’s a far cry from the suburban boom here in the 1990s.

Clark County added 5,172 residents in the year leading up to July 1, 2012. A little less than half of the county’s growth came from births outpacing deaths, with the other half from people moving into the county. About a third of the newcomers arrived from other countries.

Migration has historically fueled Clark County’s growth, but that changed during the Great Recession, said Scott Bailey, a state regional economist. The jobs market remains poor. And the county’s reputation as a pleasant bedroom community hasn’t overcome the aftershocks of the housing crash.

We are led to believe that “growth” (I.E. “more people”) is a good thing and the only reason we’re not seeing an even greater increase in population is that our economy is fairing poorly. If all were well, our population would be increasing in leaps and bounds.

Is this logical? At what point, if any, would the corporate media admit that we don’t need more people? If it reaches the point where we’re packed like sardines, with standing room only and fed by tubes from giant tanks suspended from above, would they still be claiming that “growth” is a good thing?

Back when the West still had nations, the citizens of those nations could enjoy their good fortune when fate smiled upon them. They would feel fortunate when their bounty belonged to them and foreign hordes were not infiltrating their lands to take it. When large numbers of foreigners did attempt to help themselves to a nation’s wealth, it was considered an act of war. But now the wealthy and powerful have no allegiance to a nation; their only loyalty is to themselves. They control the media. The media controls the votes. The votes control the government – and the government controls the laws. The ruling elite (some would call them the “one-percenters”) are perfectly happy to bring in as many peons as possible. Those peons will vote as they are told and the fact that our share of the pie gets ever smaller with each influx doesn’t bother them at all. After all, their share of the pie gets even bigger.

Please tell your family and friends to stop believing these corporate/media lies. Such “growth” doesn’t help us at all; it only helps them.

 

Django Unchained should be illegal

I have not seen Django Unchained; I refuse to support the movie industry with my hard-earned money. But I did read a review of it at American Renaissance. Some excerpts:

In a December 8 appearance on “Saturday Night Live,” the lead actor, Jamie Foxx, explained what the movie is about:

It’s good to be black. Black is the new white. In my new movie, I play a slave. How black is that? I have to wear chains. How whack is that? I get free. I save my wife, and I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that? And how black is that?”

The crowd erupted in laughter, whooping, and applause…

One reviewer, Richard Corliss of Time, mentions Django’s reply when Schultz ask him to be his partner: “Kill white folks and they pay you for it? What’s not to like?” Mr. Corliss calls this “a tantalizing question.” Let us imagine a movie by Mel Gibson, say, in which someone is offered money to assassinate leftwing media types. Would he still think “What’s not to like?” was a “a tantalizing question?” Or would he wail in print about the murderous hatreds of the American Right?…

… As Steve Sailor has noted, a black posted a comment about the movie:

While whites are busy getting offended on our behalf, they miss completely why we are going to see this film. It’s a black man killing white people in masses. I will pay to see that every time.

I’ve seen this film 3 times so far and am going again Saturday night. It’s an awesome movie.

“Awesome” is another way of saying “inspiring.”

Twitchy.com, which tracks twitter messages, found this sort of thing:

“After watching Django, all I wanna do is shoot white people.”

“Still hype off Django. I’m gonna kill some white people today.”

“Django got me wanting to kill white people!”

“Django made me wanna kill so many white people.”

Reading this review, I could not help but be reminded of another article at American Renaissance, about the movie Machete, where we read:

In Hollywood’s latest anti-White film, the hero is a blood-thirsty illegal alien of Latino ethnicity who slaughters white people with a myriad of weapons. White people are presented as the “bad guys.” Even the trailer of the film {snip} begins with the militant Latino telling the viewers that he has a “special message” for the people of Arizona, who valiantly stood up for Western Culture and state sovereignty vis-à-vis a recent law that prescribed penalties for those who aid in the invasion of our country.

Both movies should be illegal, and all those involved with their production should be prosecuted for inciting violence. A defense that the movies are “works of fiction” should be countered with the fact that they are actually thinly veiled messages that are relevant to contemporary America. The messages are: White people are evil and you are justified in killing them as cruelly as possible.

I realize that this form of incitement is a legal grey area, and I’m certain that there will be a comment or two explaining why there can be no prosecution in such cases. But how does our society view such works as The Turner Diaries? It has been described as having incited actual acts of terrorism and crime. You will not find it at your public library. In contrast, you probably will find Machete at your public library. No doubt, Django Unchained will also be available there in a couple of years. A description of The Turner Diaries, at Amazon, reads:

At 9:02 am on Wednesday April 19, 1995, two tons of explosives ripped apart the federal office building in Oklahoma City and the psyche of America. The worst case of domestic terrorism in our history, this explosion killed 169 men, women, and children. The author of this book has written, If [this book] had been available to the general public . . . the Oklahoma bombing would not have come as such a surprise. It has been considered by the Justice Department and other government agencies as the bible of right-wing militia groups, and the FBI believes it provided the blueprint for the Oklahoma City bombing. Barricade Books has published it so America can better understand the cause of racism and extremism.

In other words, it is for educational purposes only. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if ordering it online will get your name added to a government watch list. For sheer psychological impact, a novel cannot come close to the power of a professionally-made movie. If The Turner Diaries was responsible for hundreds of deaths, movies such as Django Unchained and Machete are responsible for thousands. These movies are far more harmful than novels such as The Turner Diaries for another reason: They add fuel to a fire that is already there. Even before the release of these movies, blacks and Mexicans had been murdering whites at unprecedented rates. They build on an anti-white establishment that already used the full force of public schools, the federal government, “higher education” and corporate America (in other words, anybody with power) to promote the idea that whites are evil and “people of color” are good. The movies serve as effective means of reinforcing the hatred of whites that is pounded into our skulls from cradle to grave.

The Turner Diaries is the equivalent of giving a normal, healthy, man a gun and telling him to shoot his neighbors. Django Unchained and Machete are the equivalent of giving the gun to a deranged man, who is already enraged at his neighbors, and telling him to shoot them. Which scenario is more dangerous? It’s true that some readers of The Turner Diaries are already deranged, angry, individuals. But they represent a miniscule number of people when compared to the seething masses of hateful, vengeful, blacks and Mexicans. White violence against blacks and Mexicans is a rare aberration. Black and Mexican violence against whites is a way of life. The last thing we need is to encourage it even more.

 

The most racially diverse high school in Washington

Somebody sent me this video about the most diverse high school in Washington. While the costs of racial diversity are obvious, I was curious to see if the video would live up to its promise of explaining its benefits. Toward the end, we are told the following:

It’s something that no other school in the state of Washington is able to experience. Students are learning things about other cultures and other ways of life that they would not have in an all white school, or a predominantly white school, outside of a textbook. And that’s just invaluable.

This is what I wrote back:

The costs of ethnic diversity are enormous. As for the benefit, it’s
spelled out, in this video, as learning about other cultures and ways
of life. We used to do this by traveling, reading books and pen-pals.
“Diversity” is something that is always with us – but there is an
extremely strong push for racial diversity above all else. Whites are
an extremely diverse group, coming from countries such as Slovenia,
South Africa or Venezuela. But the man implied that an all-white
school is, by definition, not diverse. I don’t believe this was a slip
of the tongue on his part.

I’d like to see a costs versus benefits analysis of racial diversity.
Not the kind of diversity that happens naturally, but the kind that is
being imposed upon us by design. The kind that costs a lot of money to
pursue. The kind that every large company and corporation in the U.S.
is required, by law, to pursue. The kind that brings frenzied howls of
protest if anybody dares question it.

It’s important to be understanding and tolerant toward others, but
let’s not forget that it was the “overwhelmingly white” America of the
1960s that gave birth to the god of diversity before whom we must all
now bow.

I wanted my response to be measured. This is why I didn’t bring up the fact that racial diversity is, for the most part, only imposed upon white countries. I didn’t mention the violence that comes, sooner or later, with said diversity.

 

Choctaw family devastated

Is the value of your tribe inversely proportional to its numbers? When whites are suffer misfortune, such as being victims of violent crime, the newspaper headlines never announce their race. Even when the victims are black, we don’t always read about “black victims”, unless the article is about something that is perceived to impact blacks disproportionately (which is almost everything). The Associated Press has guidelines* on when to mention race or ethnicity:

This isn’t to say race is always irrelevant. In racially motivated crimes, such as the murder of James Byrd, race is an important element of the story. The AP Stylebook update explains other instances when it’s relevant:

• “In biographical and announcement stories that involve significant, groundbreaking or historic events, such as being elected U.S. president, named to the U.S. Supreme Court or other notable occurrences.”

• “When reporting a demonstration or disturbance involving race or such issues as civil rights or slavery.”

On the face of it, the ethnicity of people dying in road accidents does not seem to meet the above criteria. And yet Jeff Amy, of the Associated Press, writes:

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) – The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians was dealing Sunday with the devastating loss of five young siblings and an adult killed when their SUV plunged into a rain-swollen creek.

Neshoba County Sheriff Tommy Waddell said the victims appear to have drowned after their Dodge Durango left a county road 20 miles southeast of Philadelphia just after midnight Saturday.

“It’s always sad to hear of the death of a tribal member, but today our tribe experienced a great tragedy with the loss of six beautiful Choctaw souls. I cannot begin to imagine what the friends, relatives and loved ones are feeling,” Tribal Chief Phyliss J. Anderson said in a statement.

Personally, I think the victims’ tribal affiliation is relevant to the story. After all, what is a tribe if not an extended family or clan? If the tribe has enough solidarity to mourn the loss of its members, then the victims’ tribal membership should be mentioned. If a van carrying Yeshiva students crashed and burned, the Jewish identity of the victims would probably be mentioned as well. We’ve seen this with tragedies involving the Amish, even though they’re not a tribe, but a religious group.

The same could be said about blacks. Many, if not most, blacks have enough tribal identity to mourn the deaths or other blacks. But, when it comes to tribal identity and reporting, what comes first, the chicken or the egg? It seems fairly obvious to me that the corporate media is largely responsible for promoting black tribal (racial) consciousness. At the same time, it strongly discourages white racial consciousness.

In the past, American whites did have a racial consciousness. This was considered normal, even though whites still constituted a healthy majority in the U.S. But leftist institutions, such as the corporate media, have intentionally whittled away at this consciousness and replaced it with shame and guilt.

When it comes to reporting white victims, the roles between actual news and reporting have been reversed. It’s the reporting, or lack thereof, that has brought about (at least in part) the current status quo. When corporate bigwigs manipulate the reality on the ground – and then point to that reality as justification for their policies – something is wrong. It’s true that the masses have always been told, by the wealthy and powerful, how to think. But things should be different today. After all, we now have the internet and the means to disseminate all sorts of alternative viewpoints.

Who am I kidding? The internet is a powerful tool but not much more useful, when it comes to educating the masses, than books are useful for educating monkeys.

*The AP guidebook is not available for free online. The above source is, incidentally, a great illustration of the anti-white media bias and ignorance regarding race.

 

Free speech versus “hate speech”

Thanks to Portland Realist for bringing my attention to an article in the Portland Tribune that masquerades as “news” when, in fact, it’s propaganda. When the corporate-controlled media accepts dogma as truth, it is bound to confuse the boundaries between “news” and “editorial.” At the very beginning of the article, accompanying a provocative photo, we read:

Defining hate speech may be more difficult than passing a law restricting it, yet most western democracies outside the U.S. have attempted to do both.

The unspoken, and underlying, assumption here is that there is a need to make a distinction between free speech and hate speech. In a bona fide news piece, the writer would present the case for making such a distinction (and for not making it), and then go about explaining how it might be done. But since no such argument is made (at least not at the beginning of the article), but rather it’s assumed, this falls into the realm of propaganda. In every country where hate speech laws are in effect, they are selectively enforced to the detriment of whites, males, Christians and heterosexuals. Rarely are they enforced against non-whites who speak hatefully against whites, or against Muslims who speak hatefully against Christians. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” It is evident that hate speech laws are merely tools of oppression to be used against select groups.

Korn treats us with yet more assumptions in the second paragraph of his article.

Blevins is TriMet’s director of marketing, the guy who deals with the ads. During the past two months, he has accepted – because TriMet attorneys said he had to – two controversial ads that Blevins recognizes aren’t hate speech but are moving in that direction.

One ad asked for public support for Israel and the defeat of jihad and “savages.” The other, which was pro-Palestinian, headlined “Palestinian Loss of Land.”

Why are they “moving in that direction” and who gets to determine when they cross the line into “hate speech”? It would appear that the first ad is objectionable because it attacks jihad and “savages”. If jihad is a call for war against infidels – and the Quran requires it – then wouldn’t the Quran be “hate speech”? How can objecting to a call for war be “hate speech”? Was it “hate speech” when people protested against the Vietnam war or the war on Iraq? Furthermore, is it not accurate to describe people who commit “honor killings” and acid attacks as “savages”? If the problem is the implication that all Muslims are savages, because they believe in jihad, then we should be asking ourselves honest questions about Islam and the definition of “savage.”

Here’s a proposal. Make it a requirement that anybody who wishes to reside in the U.S. must swear, and sign, that he disavows any sort of violent jihad. He would have to explicitly repudiate all passages, in the Quran and the Hadeeth, that call for war against infidels. If such a proposal were seriously suggested, there would be an outcry from the Muslim community. Of course, some would lie to gain residency, but it would keep some of the worst elements out.

I have more difficulty understanding why the pro-Palestinian ad is problematic. Had the ad decried the theft of land from native Americans, would it still be considered problematic? Apparently Korn (Jewish?) believes that a pro-Palestinian positions must be anti-Israel, and that anti-Israel = anti-Semitic.

Korn goes on…

In August, Ellis Bradley discovered that somebody overnight had spray-painted swastikas and racial slurs on his North Mississippi Avenue food cart and on the Sons of Haiti Masonic Lodge next door.

If Bradley’s food cart or the Masonic Temple had been in Canada, France, Germany or just about any other western democracy, the people who spray-painted their messages, if caught, might face punishments much harsher than they could get for mere vandalism.

Does Korn really think that the culprit, if caught, would not face charges of ethnic intimidation or worse? When a white person calls a black a nigger, he practically loses his rights in the eyes of the law. But, as mentioned, blacks can call whites “white boy”, “cracker” or “racist” with impunity.  Hate speech laws are ridiculously biased against whites in Canada, France and Germany. If Korn wants the U.S. to be like those countries, it must be because he shares their anti-white, anti-Christian, bias.

Not surprisingly, Bradly (who is black) favors the implementation of hate speech laws:

Bradley, a 41-year-old black man who grew up in Northeast Portland but lives in Vancouver, Wash., says he would favor a law against hate speech.

“I wish there was a law so when you do something like that, especially when I have my child with me, there would be some kind of sanction, someone I can call and say, ‘Hey, look, this is wrong.’ “

It’s obvious from the article that Korn also favors hate speech laws. I wonder if Korn and Bradley would support locking up rap artists for their hateful lyrics. Would they hold Islamic writings to the same standards as Christian preachers who condemn homosexuality from the pulpit? The Bible contains “hate speech” as well. Would Christianity and Judaism then be illegal? I don’t expect the average citizen, especially blacks ones, to comprehend the importance of freedom of speech. But a journalist, of all people, should know better.

The article is a fairly long one, and Korn makes it abundantly clear that hate speech laws are not intended to protect whites. He writes, for example:

Waldron would try to narrowly define hate speech in any legislation. Words that offend would not be enough, he says. They would have to attack fundamental dignity. And they couldn’t be simply hateful on a personal level, but would have to attack the dignity of an entire class of people such as blacks or gays.

“Such as” here clearly means “exclusive of whites or heterosexuals”. I would say “majority groups” – except that whites are a minority in many places, yet they are never given minority status. Neither Detroit nor South Africa recognizes whites as a protected minority. There are countless examples of anti-white speech, many of them from the pages of the Portland Tribune, that Korn could have cited. Yet he saw fit to ignore them completely and focus exclusively on white on non-white offenses.

To be sure, Korn does present the case against hate speech laws in his article – but only toward the end of the article, where most readers do not venture. As in the beginning of the article, the end also supports the enactment of hate speech laws:

Clackamas County attorney Ed Trompke, who is writing a book about the Oregon Constitution and characterizes himself as extremely liberal, says he’s coming around to the idea that maybe we should at attempt to address hate speech.

Trompke suggests legislation that would make public hate speech a low-level offense, like a traffic ticket. It could be a violation, Trompke says, not a criminal charge, but enough to let offenders know society doesn’t approve.

“There’s a very fine line between what is merely offensive and what is so offensive as to attack a person’s dignity as a human being,” Trompke says. “But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. We have to trust our judges to do the right thing. That’s what it comes down to.”…

The Portland Tribune is preparing the groundwork for the abolition of the First Amendment. It’s warming the public to the idea that hate speech legislation is a progressive idea whose time has come. Look for referenda in the near future to outlaw such speech. When they ultimately pass, bolstered by black, Hispanic and Asian voters, who will have the wherewithal to challenge them in court? Making them a “low-level offense” is a sneaky way to discourage people from challenging such laws in court. Stocking the courts with hyphenated Americans will assure that even if such cases make it to court, those laws will be found “constitutional.” At that point, the only means left to us to defend the First Amendment will be to exercise the Second Amendment.

 

“The Imaginary War Against White People”

Google “black victims of white crime” and this is what you get:

Clearly there’s not enough white-on-black violence to write about, and it’s not as if people aren’t looking.

A search for “Afro-American blog” yields over 92 million results. There is no lack of negro-centric/negrophilic online activity. The entire corporate-controlled media and government apparatus is heavily pro-black. You would think that, with the infinite resources they have, somebody would have come up with a video like this one, or like this one, or this one - without resorting to rehashing incidents that occurred over 50 years ago, before most of us were even born.

In “The imaginary war against white people” Harold Pollack dismisses claims of black mobs attacking whites because they come from “fringe groups”. What makes them “fringe groups”? They are considered “fringe groups” because they bring up black-on-white violence. This violence is well-documented, but we’re supposed to ignore it. Then he quotes John Derbyshire and dismisses him because he wrote a “racist essay”. Deeming him a “racist” is apparently enough to discredit anything he has to say. Pollack writes:

In fact, the high crime rate in minority communities has been the most obsessively-covered story in American urban life for at least forty years. If some politically-correct conspiracy has sought to obscure this issue, it has been an epic failure.

We’re still waiting for corporate/government media to cover the black-on-white aspect of black crime. So far, the only concern is for its black victims, while it is forbidden to bring up the fact that blacks go out of their way to victimize whites. It’s not even permitted to discuss “black crime”, only “black-on-black” crime. A google search for “black crime” yields 983,000 results – but a search for “black on black crime” yields 2,840,000 results. Many of those reports make the ridiculous claim that black-on-black crime is ignored. Obviously, it’s black-on-white crime that’s ignored. A search for “black on white crime” yields only 310,000 results. Many of those reports only mention it in order to ridicule the notion. The article in question is a case in point.

Pollack goes on to say:

Despite obsessive media attention at Fox News or wherever, lethal black-on-white crimes are rarer than you might believe. Crime rates are below those of ten years ago. They are way below the levels of twenty years ago. U.S. homicide rates are the lowest they’ve been since the early 1960s. I’m aware of no data to indicate that black-on-white crime is a specifically worsening problem. Coppins cites an FBI report listing 575 reported anti-white bias crimes in 2010. That’s a tiny number in a nation of 300 million people.

Pollack should read the latest reports. It turns out there has been an increase in violent crimes against whites, even according to the government’s biased statistics. Perhaps Pollack is unaware that the FBI is biased in its reporting of crimes against, and by, whites. One would think, since he reads “racist” opinions, that Pollack is aware of the way our government uses Hispanics in order to fudge white crime and make it appear there is less anti-white crime than there really is. One would think that Pollack would be aware that one cannot depend on FBI statistics to count anti-white bias crimes in the U.S. That only a very small percentage of anti-white bias crimes are recorded as such. Even a cursory reading of pro-white blogs and websites will turn up many such crimes where we are told “race was not a factor”, when it obviously was a factor.

Pollack continues:

In 2008, a graduate student and I examined Chicago medical examiner records for two hundred consecutive homicides involving teenage and young-adult victims. Only eleven of these 200 victims were non-Hispanic whites. I expected to find a few white students who were set upon and killed by robbers (say) at an ATM or a carjacking. I found no such cases. Such things do happen, but not very often in today’s urban America.

Out of those eleven, how many were murdered by blacks? We are not told. Out of all those non-whites, how many were murdered by whites? We are not told. But Pollack is quick to draw conclusions, based on his sampling of 200 Chicago homicides, about the rest of the country. If 189 gang-members are murdered by other gang-members, it makes the rest of us that much safer. But the murder of eleven non-Hispanic, law-abiding (if this was the case), whites, is a tragedy.

The rest of Pollack’s article is anecdotal but it’s worth noting the straw-man argument he sets up. According to him, people like Derbyshire believe that all blacks are evil killing machines laying in wait for their innocent white victims.

I know people who talk on their cell phones while driving. Some of them have done so for many years without incident. I’ve been known to do so myself. Yet according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

• In 2009, more than 5,400 people died in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver and about 448,000 people were injured.
• Among those killed or injured in these crashes, nearly 1,000 deaths and 24,000 injuries included cell phone use as the major distraction.

So we are advised, and even required, to avoid using our cell phones while driving. According to The Color of Crime:

• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to be wary around blacks. This is what most of us believe.

One comment on Pollack’s article, by Katja, reads:

For example, I’ve never gotten a good answer from the likes of John Derbyshire why they don’t also engage in gender-based profiling. After all, men are around ten times more likely (with minor variations by country) to be the perpetrators of violent crimes than women, right? So, should we shun and ghettoize the male half of the species? Obviously, the answer is “no”. As a reasonably smart woman, I know, for example, that I am safest from violent crime committed by men in the company of other men. That’s because the behavior of a criminal minority of a segment of the population is not a predictor for the behavior of the rest of that segment.

Since the website in question doesn’t appear to be accepting comments any longer, I’ll explain it here. Among young people (who are almost always the perpetrators of violent crime), a majority are men. It is simply not practical to “shun and ghettoize” males. You’d have to live as a hermit far from human habitation to do so. It is obviously not possible to put all men in ghettos or for women to shun them. But it is practical, and advisable, to keep blacks away from whites as much as possible. Saving white lives is just one, of several, reasons for this.

At least Katja recognizes that she should be wary of lone males. I’m sure she also takes their dress and speech patterns into consideration. I’m also certain that sometimes she is wary of groups of men; she can’t always assume that a group of men is safe to be around. Jared Taylor has pointed out that the difference in criminality between blacks and whites is just as great as between men and women. So perhaps Katja and I are in agreement. As for Pollack, I would encourage him to continue ignoring Derbyshire’s advise. Eventually the Pollack problem will solve itself.