Nicholas Stix on the class difference in perception of racially motivated crime
Nicholas Stix has a long rant against double-standards in terms of racially motivated crime. I found some of it to be quite accurate.
Stix writes,
…racially motivated murders of whites by blacks have long been routine in America, while racial murders of blacks by whites have long been a rarity. And yet the media have for at least the past 20 years presented a parallel universe of bloodthirsty whites and heroic black victims. The rare white-on-black attack is always put on Page One and given saturation coverage by the TV news, while the daily black-on-white attacks are “disappeared”: Either not reported on at all, reported only by local newspapers, but “whited out” of local TV and national newspaper coverage, or reported without informing viewers of the respective races of the attackers and victim.
[...]
As an NYPD detective admitted to me in January, 1991, after I’d been singled out for attack on the subway by a spontaneously forming black and Hispanic gang, racial attacks on whites are a daily occurrence in New York, “but there are some things you can’t say” for political reasons.I quoted WNBC’s Tim Minton above as saying that the June 29 incident was “eerily similar” to one that occurred in Howard Beach in 1986. You will never hear Minton or any of his colleagues speak of a contemporary black-on-white racial attack as being “eerily similar” to one in the past…
Why don’t they? Well, part of this is economics and class. The reporters are more monolithically of a higher class today than those of yesteryear. Stix partially targets the rise of the prerequisite of Journalism graduate schools as raising a hurdle which preempts middle class journalistic voices.
In Vincent J. Cannato’s exhaustively researched political biography/history of a mayor and his city, The Ungovernable City: John Lindsay and His Struggle to Save New York, Cannato chronicles how for approximately ten years beginning in the mid-1960s, the city’s newspapers not only reported on the savage attacks of the city’s crime explosion, the majority of which were black-on-white and whose racial character fooled no one, but the newspapers—including the liberal New York Times—ran crime stories on the front page, day after day after day.
But those reporters and editors are all gone, replaced by a new generation of white journalists who are hostile to white crime victims and who are simultaneously fearful of, fascinated by, and patronizing towards New York’s overwhelmingly black and Hispanic violent criminals; and black and Hispanic journalists who feel a loyalty to minority criminals, and who have successfully pressured their editors to downplay or “disappear” most such crime.
When today’s journalists travel at night after work, it is not in the subway, but by taxicab or their own car. When they travel to cover stories, it is with news crews that double as bodyguards. The liberal journalists (J-school weeded out any conservatives) live either in luxury apartment buildings with 24-hour security, in neighborhoods where the police are acutely concerned for their safety, or in wealthy suburbs. And when they or their family or friends are crime victims, they go to the district attorney’s office accompanied by their famous attorneys, perhaps paying lip-service to the welfare of criminal as well as victim, and they get a measure of justice. But they feel contempt for the whites who cannot afford the taxicabs, the security guards, the wealthy suburbs, the fancy lawyers or the fancy justice, whites who feel no compassion whatsoever for the devils who attacked them, and who see no reason to feign such compassion. Rank has its privileges and its burdens.
While I don’t contest Stix’s unbalanced murder rates, my own experience is that expressions of racially motivated contempt are not restricted to any one group. In some small towns, there is white contempt for others not like them. But in New York, this is rarely the case. And anyway, contempt is a far, far cry from physical violence. And we are bombarded even with bogus allegations of white racially motivated crimes, and we do seem to strangely insist on denying there is plenty of anti-white crime. Tragically, this was essentially legislated with the Hate Crimes laws. These laws must be rescinded. All unprovoked crimes are particularly egregious. Unprovoked attacks should all be punished to the full extent of the law. There is no reason to legislate one person’s blood is sweeter than another because one is a member of a minority group and another is not.
The reason that many people have such problems with the race realists is not just that they are racist. The reason is that some of their gripes are legitimate; some of their concerns valid. This is partially what infuriates so many social-leftists. But to dismiss all of their concerns as “racist” does not really invalidate their concerns. It doesn’t solve the injustices. It only infuriates them further, because name-calling is offered instead of constructive discussion. Perhaps most unfair of all, even the left-wing race realists are all too often conflated with white nationalists and even white supremacists. This is puerile treatment.
One need not become a race realist to become a realist about factors driving race realism. The irony is that the legitimate concerns of some of the more moderate race realists like Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, Ian Jobling, and bloggers like Guy White, is that to a large degree, they are civil rights advocates for their constituency. Many often think of civil rights advocacy as a specifically left-wing movement for minorities. But the expansive appeal of civil rights movements, the reason they ultimately succeed, is that many of us believe that civil rights should indeed be universal. That means inclusive of white Christian men.
I personally hope that double standards and preferential treatments are legislatively repealed. However, it will take framing these issues in the civil rights language where they belong. And it means explaining why civil rights needs to be universal. The realists too often get carried away with their anger at the social-left, and do not seek alliances with the moderate-left, who could be their most powerful allies for change. I think this is a strategic mistake, one made because they don’t believe they can achieve what other civil rights movements have achieved, or are loathe to sincerely and publicly frame it in those terms.
It is often hard for a group to succeed in its civil rights struggle without sympathizers from an outside community. Sympathetic Christian whites in this country have proven absolutely outstanding in providing this for others, and obviously, Jews have been beneficiaries of this tendency.
To the extent that a movement is a white nationalist movement, one cannot expect the Jewish community to respond in a favorable or supportive manner. However, to the extent that it is a civil rights movement, I think we ought to respond in a supportive fashion.
We could be tremendously helpful if important swaths of our community take up their concerns as our own, including agitation to repeal affirmative action, hate crimes legislation, media bias, and yes, working for immigration reform, though admittedly, the latter one will be more difficult in terms of working with the moderate left. But at least, a public and often shrill embrace of open mass immigration could be weakened to some degree, allowing for other options.
As in all civil rights advocacy, this means bracing for and weathering the vicious and hateful name-calling that inevitably takes place in such struggles.
But we owe them and our own at least that much.
Update: Nicholas Stix responds, or rather, notes segments of this post that he finds “interesting,” and will perhaps address at a later time. Stix is apparently past deadline on numerous articles, and understandably, paid assignments must take priority.
19 comments
Hi David,
I appreciate your effort to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate pro-white writers, especially since you place me in the former category. You’re doing a great service by telling your readership that there are distinctions to be drawn, as most people do not know this.
However, I find your post confusing because the basic opposition between civil rights advocates and white nationalists is ill-defined.
You say I and some others are “civil rights” advocates. I find that a strange interpretation of my work. Most of my work has been devoted to documenting innate racial differences, “leukophobia,” or the fear and loathing of white people, and the harmful effects of diversity on American society. None of these are really civil rights issues. Sometimes I do talk about how political correctness limits freedom of speech–that may or may not be a civil rights issue, depending on context. I have also argued that people have an inherent right to racially discriminate. But these civil rights themes are minor ones in my writing. So could you explain to me why you interpret me this way?
Also, what is the difference between a “civil rights” advocate and a white nationalist? I find the latter term as ill-defined as the former. By the way, I have eschewed “white nationalist” in favor of “pro-white,” which is admittedly awkward jargon, because I think you can be in favor of preserving your own people and culture without being a nationalist and because I dislike the associations attaching to “white nationalist.”
Hi Ian,
You say I and some others are “civil rights” advocates. I find that a strange interpretation of my work. Most of my work has been devoted to documenting innate racial differences, “leukophobia,” or the fear and loathing of white people, and the harmful effects of diversity on American society. None of these are really civil rights issues.
Well, I am most sympathetic to repealing policies which rig the odds against whites, such as affirmative action and hate crimes legislation, and redirecting public school students to distant neighborhoods. If it were the reverse, we would absolutely consider these to be civil rights issues. How are they not here?
I would say other issues are at least civil rights related, even if not always exactly civil rights. If a (relatively) poor patient is treated by a doctor who is inferior because he or she was accepted to and pushed through medical school even though not as worthy as the white male applicants, well…what do you call that?
Also, what is the difference between a “civil rights” advocate and a white nationalist? I find the latter term as ill-defined as the former. By the way, I have eschewed “white nationalist” in favor of “pro-white,” which is admittedly awkward jargon, because I think you can be in favor of preserving your own people and culture without being a nationalist and because I dislike the associations attaching to “white nationalist.”
I think the basis of all indigenous civil rights movements are often racial, religious, nationalist, or tribal in one way or another. What is different for the left-wing race realists — the “pro-white” camp, as you put it, as opposed to the “white nationalist” camp is that you don’t seek to legislate discrimination against other groups of citizens. There are many other different characteristics. You and others like you eschew conspiracy theories, historical revisionism, anti-Intellectualism, and are willing refusal to acknowledge and grapple with data conflicting with what you believed until now. All of these are problematic elements (and there are plenty more) that exist in the hardline WN camps, but do not exist in the strictly race realist camps.
But ultimately, I think you will find a more sympathetic ear on those issues that are civil rights issues, or related. On issues such as immigration, well, that’s going to require a different strategy. But I think it’s doable as well, just not on civil rights grounds. There are other issues…we are an English speaking nation, and do not welcome those who come here and do not want to become a part of our culture or learn the language, or those who wish to impose their culture upon our country, or play victim. If particular groups are proving difficult to absorb, then there should be a moratorium on those countries, and perhaps a general moratorium. Additionally, there are serious environmental issues to consider.
In terms of white consciousness and such, well…you’re on your own on that one, Dr. Jobling. I got nothing, and don’t really believe it is in Jewish interests to be a part of that sort of thing. But it’s quite interesting that you want to include the Jews in your camp, particularly considering the wrath you have suffered by those to the right of you enraged by your stand. It was very courageous of you.
I would advise that you consider warming to Asian-American citizens a bit. I think they are your natural allies in many ways. Even Jared Taylor respects them, for crying out loud.
What about framing your issues more in the context of a defense of western civilization as opposed to one strictly about race? You seem to have already hinted that to some extent, but perhaps you could expound upon it further. It may be an easier defense than one strictly of race. Not sure…I am sure you have thought about this plenty. I guess you are focused on the idea that there are some inherent racial differences, and I understand that, but I guess I’m unclear of your goals. Is it specific policies, or is it white consciousness? The two don’t always go together so well.
and don’t really believe it is in Jewish interests to be a part of that sort of thing.
I can’t wait for the day when every White person runs everything through a similar filter, “Is it good for Whites?”
All of this is actually a function of racism towards minorities.
Liberals have for decades condescended to minorities because they really don’t see them as the same, they don’t see them as equal. Not even potentially. Hence their obsession with diversity instead of commonality, with what sets us apart instead of what we all have in common.
Had Dr. King lived, I do believe things would have been different, but had he lived, the left would have had to find a way to discredit him themselves or hope for it to be done by the right in order to replace him with people of their own choosing. He wasn’t under the left’s firm control and didn’t seem to care about anything but his own sense of right and wrong. That is, he didn’t genuflect reliably to the white left and all political people seek to conserve power to themselves.
Since his death, we’ve been locked into a system of patronage where most so-called black and other minority leaders are beholden ultimately white liberals. Even feminist leaders answer to and take their power from white male liberals. Overwhelmingly, the power comes from them.
If we can make pyramids and space shuttles and world wars, you’d think we could remake our society in some way by now but if we did ever get rid of racism, then those empowered by the fight against it would have no job. Hence, the so-called problem must be perpetuated so those empowered by it can remain so.
The common every day man and woman, white, black, brown, whatever are equally victims now. Welcome to the commonality that results from obsession and abuse of diversity.
DK, I’m a Jewish race realist, and I have to say, Jeronimus has a point. When liberal Jews refuse to make common cause with white nationalists and make them wrong for being concerned with white interests, they (Jewish liberals) are holding whites to a different standard than they hold Jews. That causes some resentment.
moderate-left [...] could be their most powerful allies for change
I just don’t see it happening. From where I sit, the moderate left looks like a big part of the problem. The journalists and editors who set these double standards are moderate left; the people who support affirmative action are moderate left; the people who passed the hate crimes laws are moderate left.
latte island, I am not talking about white who have nationalist or communal leanings just like members of other groups and communities, I am talking about White Nationalists whose entire platform is not one of a fair playing field, but one of domination, and one that always embrace conspiracy theories about Jews, such as your buddy from VNN. Now run back to your own site, lie about what I said, call me names, and be shocked and surprised when your (please be my friend!) Nazi non-buddies still don’t let you into their circles.
Lawful Neutral, there are different strains of moderate-Left. TNR is very different than the NY Times. You can isolate and find friend on the moderate-Left who are more reasonable on these issues. Referendums have helped a lot. They have demonstrated how whites across the board overwhelmingly reject preferences. Even people like Eric Alterman of The Nation (which is Left, not even moderate-Left) have taken note, and have embraced alternatives to race-based preferences.
DK, I’m only talking about having the same standards for all. I’m well aware of VNN and don’t want those people as friends. However, if someone from there says something sensible, I don’t see any harm in agreeing with it.
latte island , it wasn’t “sensible”. You can’t expect Jews to be supportive of a movement (specifically here, White Nationalists like VNN or Stormfront, but same with NOI or the Black Hebrews) that is inherently virulently hostile to them. That is an absurd demand. Drop it.
The reason “Many often think of civil rights advocacy as a specifically left-wing movement for minorities” is because it’s true. Isn’t it?
40 years of the ‘Great Society’ with its intended and unintended consequences has brought this culture, nation and people to the verge of collapse. Affirmative action, set asides, quotas, Hart-Cellar, Community Reinvestment, the embrace of minority crime, hate crime legislation; you name it, those of you on the left have been tireless in your efforts to bring our current reality into being. Now, when even the semblance of cohesion, unity, justice and civility is all but gone, you presume to suggest we (the race realists, racists, white Christians or whatever you “moderate” leftists choose to call the descendents of white Europeans) should seek alliances with the moderate-left who, you assure us, could be our most powerful allies?
But gee whiz Mr. Magnanimous leftist- it was YOU who brought this destruction about. Not me and mine. You.
You may believe in these moderate-leftist/radical-leftist definitions and “personally hope that double standards and preferential treatments are legislatively repealed” but it doesn’t change the destruction that the left (you) has inflicted upon this civilization. Sorry.
As for ”It is often hard for a group to succeed in its civil rights struggle without sympathizers from an outside community.”…No offense but you offering to help me in my struggle for civil rights is like a thief stabbing me in the back and offering to sell me my own blood.
I’m not speaking for anyone but myself here but no thanks. And given the fact that the left (you) is supporting the proponents of sharia law in their current “civil rights struggle”, I doubt you have the time or energy to take on my cause.
Besides, it’s too late now. The Obama candidacy is shining a light on the left. Even those who heretofore had been blissfully unaware of leftist machinations are noticing.
Finally, no offense but it was your arrogance and sympathy that got us where we are.
That being the case you can keep your sympathy Mr. magnanimous leftist.
We’ll get along with out it.
But gee whiz Mr. Magnanimous leftist- it was YOU who brought this destruction about. Not me and mine.
No. It wasn’t. My family and their plenty of other serious political factions within the Moderate Left factions did not support either the Great Society and especially not quotas nor affirmative action, nor excuses for crime.
That being the case you can keep your sympathy Mr. magnanimous leftist. We’ll get along with out it.
It depends what you mean, “get along.” But there are plenty of whites who resent being discriminated against who are not even part of the realist community, and who can be worked with and mobilized. The moderate Left will be able to do that better — not the toughs.
And given the fact that the left (you) is supporting the proponents of sharia law in their current “civil rights struggle”, I doubt you have the time or energy to take on my cause.
HAHAHAHA — you clearly have no idea what blog you are on.
http://kvetcher.net/category/immigration/
My family and their plenty of other serious political factions within the Moderate Left factions did not support either the Great Society and especially not quotas nor affirmative action, nor excuses for crime.
Okay, where are they? Why have they had no effect within their own ideological encampments? Non leftists have been speaking out against affirmative action and the rest for quite some time. Where are these moderate leftists?
here are plenty of whites who resent being discriminated against who are not even part of the realist community, and who can be worked with and mobilized. The moderate Left will be able to do that better — not the toughs.
The Minuteman Project was a mobilized grassroots effort. Don’t recall any “moderate leftists” getting involved with that organization. Matter of fact, I don’t recall anyone on the left referring to that group in any but the most virulent terms.
As for Islam, If you can give me the name of a “moderate Leftist” or a person of faith who hasn’t and doesn’t support CAIR, ISNA or a host of other Muslim activist groups in their never-ending efforts to install sharia law, I’m all ears.
In fact, if you are on the left, you and your fellow ideologues have been consistently on the side of policies and programs that are destroying this country. It’s what the left does.
Finally you mention that we should reach out to you so as to enlist your help in fighting the preferential treatment accorded various minorities, so my question is; why do we need to reach out to you? Doesn’t the injustice of the situation cry out for action? Isn’t that enough to spur you to act? What’s holding you back? Gotta get permission from the hugh committee or something?
have a nice day young fella
uh, that would be “permission from the high committee”
thanks
Okay, where are they? Why have they had no effect within their own ideological encampments? Non leftists have been speaking out against affirmative action and the rest for quite some time. Where are these moderate leftists?
See the DLC, a major Democratic faction, as well as the hawkish social-democrats. See changes in NYC under Ed Koch.
As for Islam, If you can give me the name of a “moderate Leftist” or a person of faith who hasn’t and doesn’t support CAIR, ISNA or a host of other Muslim activist groups in their never-ending efforts to install sharia law, I’m all ears.
Here’s a big nominally left Jewish organization for you on CAIR specifically — see how many “condemns” you spot: http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijIT.....c_frontend
“Doesn’t the injustice of the situation cry out for action? ”
It does. Referendums are one great approach. Who did that? Race Realists? No, Ward Connerly did that.
have a nice day young fella
Hey, I’m not demanding to work with anyone who doesn’t want me. I wrote my own piece on this here moderate-left Jew blog (with some paleo influence, to be sure). It was primarily for (mostly) moderate left and some right-wing Jews, not an invitation for other to come over and insult me and tell me why I am personally responsible for all that is wrong in the U.S. And anyway, if you are happy with how you and yours are successfully shaping this country, then why make any changes on anything? You got it all under control, right? You’re quite happy with how things are shaping up. You don’t need anyone’s help.
So smile more.
As one of them Jew-lib-minority types, I really can’t see this as plain old Fortress-on-the-Hill “they’re out to get us” talk couched in post-racialist rhetoric.
First of all, you can’t make a simple assertion as “hate crime laws favor minorities because colored-on-white crimes don’t count” without citing some damn evidence. Yes, the reverse garners national headlines due to the efforts of clowns like Sharpton, but when something happens in the inner city or the backwater country (where, like you said, the journalists “never enter”), how often are incidents involving parties of different colors (but of the SAME or similar economic status) reported as crime AT ALL, let alone as hate crimes? You try to cite a class angle in this, and while I agree that it’s definitely more of a class issue, where in your post did you qualify it as such, and how?
Then if we’re going to introduce the class issue, we get into the stickier issue of when a poor black/Hispanic gang attacks a wealthier person that only HAPPENS to be white. Or conversely, when a bunch of white fratboys kick around a homeless person of color just for being a damn hobo. To what extent is this a hate crime? Is it based more on class, or is there an element of race in it? What if, then, they were the same color? And in any of these cases, how will law enforcement, courts, and the “durned librul” media handle it?
I should also disclose that I am against the bogus “all crimes are hate crimes” argument. I think it’s significant whether a black man beat up a white man (or another black man, for that matter) because he slept with his wife, or if he was of a particular ethnicity/faith/whatever. Were it the latter, there’s often the increased risk of going on to attack other people in the same category, whereas in the former the risk is only extended to “other people who messed around with my woman.” And what of the person who beat someone “just cause they could”? Don’t they teach you that “motive is everything” in law school?
Fact of the matter is, it’s a damned complex picture we’ve drawn out here, and no amount of ersatz Colbertian color-blindness can change that. Those laws with racial tones are put in for very good reasons.
Also, as an Asian, I find it pretty offensive for self-proclaimed “racial realists” to try to find ideological allies with us. Though we have had economic prosperity potentially hindered by things like affirmative action (admittedly a troublesome policy), the fact of the matter is that we are still a minority in this country, with one foot culturally in our nations of origin, voluntarily or otherwise. This definitively marks us as “the other”, and thus we are subject to many of the same racial dynamics as, say, Hispanics, or black immigrants of African or Caribbean origin.
And PLEASE, everybody, STOP dancing on the grave or Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Don’t claim that he was “really a post-racialist” like you, when anyone and everyone who has done their homework on him know that he was a leftist through and through, who HEAVILY criticized the Vietnam War, advocated for the alleviation of poverty in this country, and called to attention the cross-cutting between class and race. (Making him, incidentally, a supporter of affirmative action.) For the sake of the King family, the people who knew him, and his supporters (except maybe Sharpton and Jackson, who still Don’t Get It), STOP co-opting him to fit your ideology.
You got it all under control, right? You’re quite happy with how things are shaping up. You don’t need anyone’s help.
Obviously not; as far as I can see, the race realist movement consists of a few dozen people angrily typing out their opinions on the web, most of whom (myself included) are either too chicken or too ashamed to use their real names. Of course you’re being sarcastic, so I guess you agree.
You can isolate and find friend on the moderate-Left who are more reasonable on these issues.
Probably, but confessing my heretical thoughts could ruin me if the moderate leftist I confessed to turned out to be less sympathetic than I’d hoped. In my actual experience (as opposed to paranoid fantasy), whenever I’ve talked to moderate leftist friends about even the mildest racial issues, it turns into a lecture about how deeply wrong, misguided, and evil I am, and how I must overcome my opinions and emulate the fine and righteous moderate leftist. Maybe this says more about my debating skills than anything else, but it’s still not fun.
Look at how fiercely you yourself responded to Latte Island. I haven’t read your archives, so I suspect that there’s some history here I’m not aware of, but what she said in this thread alone didn’t seem to warrant the rebuke. I’m sure you can understand why race realists would be wary and skeptical about an alliance with the moderate left.
Lawful Neutral, my sarcasm wasn’t towards you, but towards dT, who was quite condescending, and blamed me personally for the policies I am condemning and would like to see changed, and which most in my extended family have always wanted to see changed since they understood the implications of these policies first instituted in the Great Society.
Look at how fiercely you yourself responded to Latte Island.
Latte called me an idiot on Latte’s blog, and took a VNN person’s side, which I found annoying.
In my actual experience (as opposed to paranoid fantasy), whenever I’ve talked to moderate leftist friends about even the mildest racial issues, it turns into a lecture about how deeply wrong, misguided, and evil I am, and how I must overcome my opinions and emulate the fine and righteous moderate leftist.
I’ve had a different experience, although I am probably arguing about different, if related, issues. I have found many people tell me they are “uncomfortable” discussing these ideas, but at least by the time people are in their 30s, they are less inclined to flip out when you bring these issues up. Also, I think those of us from more modest backgrounds (and in NYC, more “modest backgrounds” often means still middle class) feel more compelled to address these issues, as we pay for these policies more than those from higher class backgrounds, as Nicholas Stix touched upon.
“B.BarNavi { 10.10.08 at 1:34 pm }
“And PLEASE, everybody, STOP dancing on the grave or Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Don’t claim that he was “really a post-racialist” like you, when anyone and everyone who has done their homework on him know that he was a leftist through and through, who HEAVILY criticized the Vietnam War, advocated for the alleviation of poverty in this country, and called to attention the cross-cutting between class and race. (Making him, incidentally, a supporter of affirmative action.) For the sake of the King family, the people who knew him, and his supporters (except maybe Sharpton and Jackson, who still Don’t Get It), STOP co-opting him to fit your ideology.”
I quoted your last paragraph, B. Bar Navi, because it was the only passage of your post that didn’t reek. Although, even there, I could give a damn about “the King family, the people who knew him, and his supporters.” Why would I care about a bunch of crooks?
Going back, we find:
“First of all, you can’t make a simple assertion as ‘hate crime laws favor minorities because colored-on-white crimes don’t count’ without citing some damn evidence. ”
Wowie Maui! Of course, you can. If you are seven years old, or just arrived from Mars, evidence may be necessary. But I don’t discuss grown-up stuff with seven-year-olds or argue with Martians.
“Then if we’re going to introduce the class issue, we get into the stickier issue of when a poor black/Hispanic gang attacks a wealthier person that only HAPPENS to be white.”
Well, I didn’t introduce the class issue in that context at all. (You did read the basis for this discussion before spouting off, right? Right?!) When racist blacks and Hispanics typically attack a white, the victim isn’t “wealthy” at all, or he wouldn’t have found himself in that situation, but in any event, there is no reason to ever assume that the victim “just happened” to be white.
“Or conversely, when a bunch of white fratboys kick around a homeless person of color just for being a damn hobo. To what extent is this a hate crime?…”
That’s odd. For while I’ve heard of several gang attacks on hobos, none was perpetrated by “a bunch of white fratboys.” The perps were typically black.
“Person of color”? Do you mean “black,” Mestizo, or Asian? Of course, “person of color” was until recently a switcheroo of “colored person,” but you pc opportunists are constantly playing word intimidation games within
word intimidation games, and last year a pc professional Asian like you insisted to me that an Asian was a “person of color,” just like a black. That’s funny, considering that 99 percent of blacks would not only deny that, but hate Asians’ guts. Then again, pc professional Asians like you, who seek to make common cause with the very non-Asians minorities who routinely victimize Asians, also despise Asians. So, I suppose there’s a sick sort of symmetry to your world, that is. Unlike you, however, I don’t hate Asians.
“Those laws with racial tones are put in for very good reasons.”
Hell, yeah, to dispossess and disenfranchise whites!
“Also, as an Asian, I find it pretty offensive for self-proclaimed ‘racial realists’ to try to find ideological allies with us.
Are you really offended, or just being a tease? If you’re really, truly, deeply offended, then I say, amen! But I don’t believe you. As a professional, pc Asian, you’re just going through the motions, faking taking offense, like faking an orgasm. “I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m … OFFENDED!!!”
“…the fact of the matter is that we are still a minority in this country… This definitively marks us as ‘the other’, and thus we are subject to many of the same racial dynamics as, say, Hispanics, or black immigrants of African or Caribbean origin.”
And what “racial dynamics” might they be? That was just a rhetorical question; I’m not at all interested in your talking point for that one. The more you talk, the more you lie.
Lawful Neutral-
“as far as I can see, the race realist movement consists of a few dozen people angrily typing out their opinions on the web, most of whom (myself included) are either too chicken or too ashamed to use their real names.”
This may be little more than a schoolyard argument here but I am neither a chicken nor ashamed of my statements or opinions.
In fact I provided a link to my website where my name is featured prominently on the archive page. If I’ve said anything that piques your, or anyone else’s interest you can follow the link. If not, what good is my name going to do you?
That said, my name is David Tatosian. I’m in Chicago. Who’re you? Here’s your chance to shed your feathers and shame.
Also, this business about race realists angrily typing out their opinions on the web pretty much describes the entire blogosphere doesn’t it? Perhaps the thing that sets the race realists apart from their bloviating blogoshpere fellows is the effect they have on those who actually DO take action.
I see nothing to be ashamed about there.
Have a nice day Mr. Neutral.
Leave a Comment