July 8, 2011

NYT: Not enough whites murdering blacks

My old college newspaper editor, David R. Dow, op-edizes in the New York Times:
Death Penalty, Still Racist and Arbitrary
Nationwide, blacks and whites are victims of homicide in roughly equal numbers, yet 80 percent of those executed had murdered white people.

Yes, but who perpetrates more homicides? And who gets executed more often? Those facts are the kind of news that's not fit to print, evidently.

The simplified model of how it really works is that white-dominated jurisdictions tend to be more conservative and more pro-death penalty, while black-dominated jurisdictions tend to be more liberal and less pro-death penalty. So, people who commit murders in white-dominated jurisdictions (a mix of white and black perps with mostly white victims) are more likely to get the death penalty than people who commit murders in black-dominated jurisdictions (overwhelmingly black perps with mostly black victims).
Since 1976, Texas has carried out 470 executions (well more than a third of the national total of 1,257). You can count on one hand the number of those executions that involved a white murderer and a black victim and you do not need to use your thumb, ring finger, index finger or pinkie.

Whereas, from watching television shows and reading the crime coverage in the New York Times, we know that whites murder blacks all the time, white lacrosse players rape black strippers all the time, 62-year-old white French presidential candidates are "forcing" 5'-10" black hookers to perform improbable acts, etc. 

(And don't forget all those hot white defendants like Casey Anthony.)

If more whites murdered more blacks, then more whites could be executed for murdering blacks, which would move us closer to racial equality, thus making the death penalty less racist. And that's the really important thing. 

84 comments:

Dennis Dale said...

Steve, just sell the hell out already and write a popular sociology book called "How it Really Works".
Each chapter could be "How X Really Works".

Anonymous said...

I think there is another factor.

Many black-on-black murders tend to be more 'understandable' than black-on-white murders.

If a black gangbanger kills another black gangbanger, it is murder but there may be extenuating circumstances, such as there was a history of mutual violence between the two gangs. Thus, the jury might find the murder somewhat understandable. It's 'business' than a truly heinous crime. It's like mafia killing mafia, part of the culture, part of the game. In many black-on-black crime, it's thug vs thug. So, even as the Jury might convict the murderer, it might not seen as a heinous crime involving thug killing a totally innocent person.

But many black-on-white murders are just downright heinous. Like the Knoxville massacre, for instance. In that case, it was just blacks attacking, raping, and murdering a perfectly innocent white strangers. It was not a crime of passion or reactive rage or revenge. It wasn't thug on thug but thug on innocent.

As for white-on-black murders, a good number of them may have been of a defensive or reactive nature. Suppose a black guy tried to steal your car, you told him to halt, he moved toward you, and you shot him cold. Or, supposesome black thug in the hood regularly beat you up and push you around as a 'punkass white boy'. You might just about had enough and taken the law into your own hands.
The jury might deem the killing a case of murder than self-defense, but even if the white guy is convicted, it will still be deemed a murder due to excessive reaction than utter vileness.

Not all murders are the same, and whether someone gets the death penalty depends largely on extenuating circumstances and the nature of the crime.

I'll willing to wager that female-on-male murders tend to be more 'understandable' than male-on-female murders too.
Surely, a girl who got tired of an abusive boyfriend and shot him to death is different than some male thug attacking an innocent woman, raping her, and strangling her.

I'll bet black-on-white violence tend to more heinous in nature than black-on-black violence(which is often thug vs thug) or white-on black-violence(which may have an element of self-defense or reactive rage against a troublesome black guy.)

When I used to lived in mixed race neighborhoods, there were times when I just wanted to shoot some of the thugs in the neighborhood, and of course, the majority were black. Had I done so in a few cases where blacks were acting crazy, it would have been murder but there still have been just enough justification to avoid the death penalty.

Anonymous said...

This much is true. There was a lot of white collar crime in Wall Street in the 2000s, but very few went to jail. I guess Jewish media and Jewish government aren't interested in going after Jewish crooks. If Wall Street were run by Arab- or Chinese-Americans, it would have been very different. And there would have been no 'bailouts'. Media, government, courts, etc would have taken them down.

Anonymous said...

Liberal media, still ridiculous and anti-race-ist, i.e. in denial about racial reality.

Anonymous said...

I have a solution. Since blacks are so wonderful... how about we settle most of them in liberal gentrified parts of NY? And take all the blacks in Watts and give them housing vouchers to live next to Hollywood liberals in Beverly Hills.

After all, urban liberal communities, still segregrated and hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

Did NY Times even run articles on the discrepancy between black-on-white rape and white on-black rape? Did it report on all those black-on-Asian violence in San Fran?

Anonymous said...

This is a totally racist article by NY Times. Those are 'youths' on death row, not blacks. How dare NY Times mention race as a factor!!
It's all about 'youths'. It's not 'racist' but age-ist. Our country unfairly sends more 'youths' to deathrow.

OneSTDV said...

Modern leftism is on the precipice of evil:

More Thoughts on Black Mobs and the Evil of Modern leftism

Udolpho.com said...

ditto dennis dale's suggestion

TGGP said...

There was a well known incident of white-on-black homicide within my memory (and I'm a youngster): James Byrd, whose name is usually forgotten in the subsequent hate crime law since it shares space with Matthew Shepard. Two of the three white defendants were sentenced to death, the third got life in prison. Well, two out of three ain't bad.

Anonymous said...

The word that comes to my mind Steve is 'kama sutra' - yes the the ancient Indian sex manual.
As we all know the kama sutra is famous for its exotically named and improbable gymnastic/contortionist 'positions'.
You see, the 'intellectual' (actually childish sophistry) contrortions, posturings and logic twisting that 'liberals' do with anything regarding their pets being abused - or even worse - with absolutely anything whatsoever to with the death penaltyas it relate to their pets, is simply astonishing to witness.'Tis rather like watching an elephant walk on its hind legs.Improbable and faintly rididculous at the same time, but definitely not dignified or even intelligent.
How this 'piece of evidence' or that,, this selective statistic or that, melding together with that disparity,mixed withat percentage and X number of dollars the taxpayer pays, which is 'proved' by that study 'not to work' and how the poor perp wasn't warned of that exotic right minutes after his arrest, are all melded together in an agonized sob story is truly a wonder to behold.
One would need a heart of stone not to laugh.

Antioco Dascalon said...

I am sure Dow is just as concerned about gender bias : "in cases where the victim was a woman, the death sentence rate was 10.9%, seven times the rate when men were victims (1.5%)."
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studies-gender-bias-death-sentencing

Women make up 2% of the death row population, yet are responsible for 11.2 % of homicides. Interestingly, both men and women murder men more than women. Isn't that clear disparate impact proof that the criminal justice system is biased against men and that they need to execute more women.

I think we need to incarcerate a million more women, call it affirmative action, to dispel the notion than men are more violent than women.

As an aside could you imagine anyone writing this: "The racial bias that riddles the death penalty as much as gender and class bias is a good thing in that it saves the lives of whites"? No, but if you switch racial with gender and whites with women, you can write it without controversy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/quirky-gender-bias-in-the_b_488669.html

Marlo said...

Virtually everyone knows that the msm has an anti-white bias. So what exactly do blog posts like this accomplish (beyond preaching to the choir)? A more interesting post would detail a way to correct the bias, no?

The fact of the matter is, there hasn't been a widely covered, racially motivated, white on black crime for at least three years. When the msm declared a post-racial society, part of the implication was that hate crime stories would garner less attention. Certainly as far I can see, that has been the case.

I think some of you guys just like to play the victim, which is, ironically, the very thing you disparage blacks for doing. Instead of sobbing over hate crimes you have no control over, why not get busy taking on white crimials, the overwhelming victimizers of white women and children?

A recent case in Maryland has it that a white teenager raped a 1 year old girl. Who here is courageous enough to get "mad" about it and write a fiery piece? Or, better yet, stand outside the courthouse on his sentencing date to show support for the victim's family?

Xenophon Hendrix said...

Such a book would be excellent. Be sure to explain how many misconceptions are the result of mathematics abuse.

Chicago said...

Using the race of a hapless murder victim as a shield against receiving justice is really obscene.
Victims are usually put on trial as a tactic of the defense, another sickening common practice.

Irving L said...

Another point- more murders by whites (which overwhelmingly are against other whites) are pre-meditated than those committed by blacks, which are more often considered 'crimes of passion' or 'in the heat of the moment', and when caught, the pre-meditated act is more likely to lead to the death penalty. This stacks the deck such that the people who murder whites more often are given the death penalty than those who murder blacks.

Douglas Knight said...

Complaining about his lack of numbers is a bit unfair. He does mention the effect of both victim and perp on execution.

ben tillman said...

Facts:

White murderers are more likely to get the death penalty than black murderers.

Whites convicted of murdering blacks are more likely to get the death penalth than blacks convicted of murdering blacks.

Fernandinande said...

IIRC, 85% of murdered whites are murdered by other whites and 94% of blacks by other blacks. (US nationwide)

So a lot of, maybe most of, the "80 percent of those executed had murdered white people" are white people.

Anonymous said...

For a murderer to receive the death penalty, there have to be "aggravating factors." Examples are another crime in addition to murder such as rape, robbery, kidnapping, etc. Or it can be "especially heinous," such as sexual torture of the victim(s).

Black on white murders usually have aggravators. The case mentioned by a previous poster, the Knoxville torture-murders of Channon Chistian and Christopher Newsom are a prime example.

CS said...

Anonymous #2 is right; when a black murdering a white is more likely to be a stranger crime (there have been criminology studies on this) and it is more likely to be of a horrific nature (guy stranger rapes, tortures, mutilates woman for example), and therefore more likely to get the death penalty. Black-on-black is more likely to have a less sympathetic victim (gangbanger) who was somewhat culpable is his (or her) demise.

Kylie said...

"There was a well known incident of white-on-black homicide within my memory (and I'm a youngster): James Byrd, whose name is usually forgotten in the subsequent hate crime law since it shares space with Matthew Shepard. Two of the three white defendants were sentenced to death, the third got life in prison. Well, two out of three ain't bad."

I remember that case well. It literally sickened me--not so much the manner of his murder, which was horrific, but the absolute lack of any reason for it beyond the innate evil of those three human beings. The fact that all three defendents are still alive thirteen years later sickens me, too.

By the way, I see Brewer has a scheduled execution date of 21 September 2011. Too little, too late.

Anonymous said...

As for white-on-black murders, a good number of them may have been of a defensive or reactive nature.

White on black murders are remarkably rare. If you kill somebody in self-defense, it is not murder.

This is similar to the issue of rape within and between the races. I think some black "leader" complained once that it is racist of white men to rape so few black women.

Anonymous said...

A recent case in Maryland has it that a white teenager raped a 1 year old girl. Who here is courageous enough to get "mad" about it and write a fiery piece?

I'm sure that white teenager will get off with a slap on the wrist unless Steve writes a fiery piece.

Virtually everyone knows that the msm has an anti-white bias.


No, virtually everyone does not know that. Practically nobody in the media knows that. And the bulk of the MSM's viewers are also unaware of their bias.

Anonymous said...

I'll willing to wager that female-on-male murders tend to be more 'understandable' than male-on-female murders too.
Surely, a girl who got tired of an abusive boyfriend and shot him to death is different than some male thug attacking an innocent woman, raping her, and strangling her.



Oh, please. Does that sort of feminist claptrap really deserve to see the light of day?

Wandrin said...

"Nationwide, blacks and whites are victims of homicide in roughly equal numbers, yet 80 percent of those executed had murdered white people."

A disparate impact study of the American media would show massive and overwhelming discrimination in favor of Jews.

They don't care about it when it benefits Jews. They don't care about it when it benefits blacks. They don't care about when it benefits hispanics etc.

Ergo the American media self-evidently do not care about disparate impact on principle at all.

They use disparate impact solely as a means to attack white people and only people.

In fact the American media's reporting of disparate impact is itself a prime example of disparate impact.

It's stealth Jewish racism.

Anonymous said...

Virtually everyone knows that the msm has an anti-white bias.

Besides 98% of white Americans, of course. I *love* trolls who like to tell pundits writing about issues that virtually no one else will touch that the issue is passé and should be ignored. I'm sure you've got our best interests at heart.

The fact of the matter is, there hasn't been a widely covered, racially motivated, white on black crime for at least three years. When the msm declared a post-racial society, part of the implication was that hate crime stories would garner less attention. Certainly as far I can see, that has been the case.

Gee, that couldn't be because these crimes simply aren't happening, could it?

And what's the deal with you telling us that everyone knows the media is anti-white, and then 30 seconds later telling us that media's reporting isn't anti-white? How are we supposed to respect your trolling when you can't keep your story straight?

Instead of sobbing over hate crimes you have no control over, why not get busy taking on white crimials, the overwhelming victimizers of white women and children?

Right, because we have tons of control over white criminals.

Again, there's no taboo against media coverage of white criminals, but there is a taboo against honest reporting about race. Does it make sense for one of the few writers brave enough to tackle the later taboo to move into a much more crowded field?

jody said...

not much coverage of this guy in michigan who killed 7 people, the demographics of the situation are way, WAY wrong.

again i wonder if this is to become a normal part of american life. gullible european women dating african men, getting beaten, impregnated, and occassionally, the guy has so many psychological problems and hang ups over race, despite most of the europeans treating him pretty well, that he finally decides to just kill them all.

guy went above and beyond the call of duty, even killed girlfriend's parents, ex-girlfriends, and his own kid.

Kylie said...

"Virtually everyone knows that the msm has an anti-white bias...I think some of you guys just like to play the victim, which is, ironically, the very thing you disparage blacks for doing."

The difference being, of course, as you yourself admit in your first sentence, there is an anti-white bias out there, one that is influential in setting policy, determining which crimes will be prosecuted as "hate crimes", garnering media attention, etc. So there's no irony involved. Try for a little internal consistency before you start lecturing.

"why not get busy taking on white crimials, the overwhelming victimizers of white women and children?"

Well, for starters, that's not the topic under discussion here. And I'm not sure just what you have in mind when you suggest we "get busy taking on criminals". Absent vigilantism or our getting involved in the prosecutorial area of the legal system, there's not much we can do. Unless you mean that silliness about protesting on the courthouse steps. I've yet to see footage of that scenario in which the protesters, who tend to be either santimonious or incoherent or both, don't look like utter idiots.

Oh, and drop the emotive language (e.g., sobbing, fiery, courageous). That crap flies at HuffPo; here, not so much.

Too Tall Jones said...

Many black-on-black murders tend to be more 'understandable' than black-on-white murders.

Sheer garbage. What is supposed to be "understandable" about getting shot over a psir of sneakers, or looking at someone "the wrong way"? Using this approach then it is perfectly fine to say that the Holocaust was "understandable" - after all Jews were involved in a variety of corrupt practices, initiated perverse ideologies like Marxism, and were much too prominent in many fields in Germany. A "final solution" to this problem was "understandable".


But many black-on-white murders are just downright heinous. Like the Knoxville massacre, for instance. In that case, it was just blacks attacking, raping, and murdering a perfectly innocent white strangers. It was not a crime of passion or reactive rage or revenge. It wasn't thug on thug but thug on innocent.

MOre garbage. B-W crimes are no more henious than the mix of crimes over a nation of some 300 millions. They certainly are no more henious than the thousands of blacks killed or maimed for such "crimes" as being RELATED to other lynching victims, or questioning why a white landlord was shortchanging sharecropper tenants, or getting beaten so bad that your eyesight is lost- as happened to military veteran Sam Woodward whose "crime" was asking a white bus driver to let him off so he could use the restroom. The perpretrators walked out on a "not guilty" verdict, courtesy of a white jury.

http://weeseeyou.com/2011/02/28/from-honorable-discharge-to-blinded-by-racism-the-american-injustice-of-isaac-woodard/

And they certainly are less henious than "hot" white girl Casey Anthony murdering little Caylee.


As for white-on-black murders, a good number of them may have been of a defensive or reactive nature.
Righhttt.... I am sure the 4 little black girls murdered in Birmingham were "threatening" their murderers, calling forth a "defensive" reaction.



Not all murders are the same, and whether someone gets the death penalty depends largely on extenuating circumstances and the nature of the crime.

Righhttt.. Now "hot" white girl Casey Anthony can get back to partying, without the bothersome details of child care.

Glaivester said...

ou can count on one hand the number of those executions that involved a white murderer and a black victim and you do not need to use your thumb, ring finger, index finger or pinkie.

Note the finger they left out there. Whom exactly is Mr. Dow flipping the bird to?

Anonymous said...

Steve,

You know I love your stuff but let's give the 'White Hot Defendant' meme a rest. I was unaware that Casey Anthony was white (frankly I didn't care) before her face popped up on my yahoo mail. That said, she is fugly. Not White-Hot.

What the stats say about capital punishment is that we need more of it. I saw a guy get 18 months for two counts of attempted murder, (the guy knee-capped then shot both victims in the torso) and two and a half years for possession of marijuana.

We need to reinstate the use of the death penalty. I know that some will be executed that are innocent. That does not bother me as much as supporting them endlessly on the public dime. Absent permanent exile on some Aleutian Island I don't see any alternative to reinstating the death penalty.

Don

jody said...

"Instead of sobbing over hate crimes you have no control over, why not get busy taking on white crimials"

i think that was the point here. europeans are definitely the best on average at reducing crime and corruption. not to say every european run nation is perfect, they're not. but as soon as you leave them, the corruption rate goes way up, and the crime rate often does too.

even in european run nations, as soon as you get into the non-european populations, you immediately get into groups of people who are not very interested in policing themselves. in the US, many africans simply do not think that obviously guilty african criminals should even be punished. many mestizos do not feel the need to obey almost any law.

and let's not get into muslims. trying to find the 3 muslims on earth who are speaking out against islamic violence against apostates is just an internet argument tactic for nerds. one nerd says "See, there are 3 whole muslims speaking out against this latest situation" while the other nerd correctly observes "Most of them don't seem to be bothered, in fact, a lot of them seem to be OK with it."

who do you think is doing most of the "get busy taking on white criminals", anyway? europeans developed most of the modern crime deterrent and crime solving methods. in the US, most europeans are fine with coming down hard on european criminals. many conservative euro americans even really enjoy it when a bad guy gets what he deserves.

who was that running the "To Catch A Predator" television show? or "Cops"? was that muslims and mestizos and africans who wrote those shows, who were so interested in crime prevention that they all got together and created shows about their extensive efforts to police their own group?

jody said...

not only are they better at crime prevention, crime fighting, and crime solving, they are far more concerned with going out of their way to find and end human rights violations and crime in other nations which is not even their business. some of these people will spend years investigating human smuggling operations or prostitution businesses in other countries, or even looking for instances of slavery which they can expose and break up. these may not even be crimes in the third world dumps where the foreign, english speaking journalists are investigating.

meanwhile the US media has, for balance purposes, gone far out of their way to portray european men as serial killers and molestors, by selective reporting on crime. hence the urge by the poster to "Hey whites, how about you go after all those white molestors for a change." police are going after them, and ahem, europeans actually serial murder and molest people at lower rates than some other groups.

except maybe the chinese and chinese diaspora nations, who are good at coming down hard on obvious and caught in the act criminals, there is no group better at handling crime than europeans. not that they'll solve every case and get everything right, not that everything will work out correctly every time. but in cases where nobody was caught in the act and detective work will be necessary, your chances of getting justice goes way up in a european nation.

outside of them, in cases where the criminal is not simply caught red handed, your chances of the police finally catching up to some criminal, or the courts getting things right, goes way down. in many instances WAY down. in lots of nations, whatever the local cop thinks, or local judge thinks, is what happened. you can get thrown in jail for years, and forget procedures or international treaties and such.

jody said...

this is why obama was just being a racialist, a panderer, and a liberal politician in that recent texas execution case. the president of the united states acting as if the local IQ 90 police and judges in mexico frequently share his concerns about international law or are routinely concerned with treating suspected criminals fairly. don't make us laugh. the chances of you getting fair treatment in mexico are pretty low. meanwhile, because the police work is so crap in lots of these countries, plenty of major crimes can go down pretty easily, with few of the perpetrators caught.

is it third world journalists who come to the US to report on an epidemic of white criminals who are participating in crime type (fill in the blank) and the american police who are either powerless to stop this crime wave, or worse, corrupt and allowing it to happen?

or is it the other way around? with bright eyed, idealistic, college educated reporters and journalists from english speaking nations who go to third world dumps to uncover stuff?

Mr. Anon said...

"TGGP said...

There was a well known incident of white-on-black homicide within my memory (and I'm a youngster): James Byrd, whose name is usually forgotten in the subsequent hate crime law since it shares space with Matthew Shepard."

In the moral calculations of the left, a gay hustler and drug-dealer, who may not have actually been killed because he was a homosexual, is far more important than a black man who was killed because he was black.

Oh, and don't forget Emmett Till - God knows NPR won't let you forget him. Although he was killed in the 1950s, this is still a current hate-crime, and regularly trotted out as an example of the unspeakable barbarity of white people. News outlets like NPR deem the Till story to be perennially newsworthy, despite the fact that he was killed nearly 60 years ago. The Knoxville murders (2007) or the Carr brothers crimes in Wichita (2000) - those are not now and never were newsworthy.

Anonymous said...

Agree with the idea that Steve has a great book in him he's yet to write.

Anonymous said...

"Agree with the idea that Steve has a great book in him he's yet to write."

Triple ditto.

Anonymous said...

Ok,

Just did a google search for news about Operation Fast and Furious and got 534 hits. I did Casey Anthony news hits and got 19000. We are so screwed. The biggest government cover up since, well ever with a 150+ death toll, and a woman kills her kid. Which does our media report on? Which had people up in arms on twitter?

I think we are seeing the last days of the republic folks.

ATBOTL said...

"Sheer garbage. What is supposed to be "understandable" about getting shot over a psir of sneakers, or looking at someone "the wrong way"? Using this approach then it is perfectly fine to say that the Holocaust was "understandable" - after all Jews were involved in a variety of corrupt practices, initiated perverse ideologies like Marxism, and were much too prominent in many fields in Germany. A "final solution" to this problem was "understandable".

You're missing the point. A large percentage of black on black murders involve things like shots being fired during a gang brawl outside a night club, a man being killed in retaliation for a robbery or prior killing or a drug dealer killing another drug dealer. These kinds of victims tend to be less sympathetic to anyone that say, a mother who is kidnapped from a parking lot, raped and murdered or a gas station attendant who is killed during a robbery, which are typical scenarios for black on white murders where I'm from.

Black on white murders are more likely to involve totally innocent victims who are murdered to facilitate a robbery or sexual assault. Black on black killings are more like to involve two thugs whose roles could well have been reversed if the victim had been quicker on the draw.

Anonymous said...

Unrelated, but you can add this to the list of "flash mob" like phenomenons....
http://blog.al.com/live/2011/07/about_60_people_mostly_juvenil.html

Kylie said...

"not much coverage of this guy in michigan who killed 7 people, the demographics of the situation are way, WAY wrong."

Apparently two of the seven victims were the murderer's exes and one was his daughter. The others were family members of the ex-girlfriends. So it's domestic violence writ large rather than stranger violence or workplace violence.

Anonymous said...

I think some of you guys just like to play the victim, which is, ironically, the very thing you disparage blacks for doing. Instead of sobbing over hate crimes you have no control over, why not get busy taking on white crimials, the overwhelming victimizers of white women and children?

I've been over this and over this, but it never sinks in. You guys keep propping up the same tired old arguments. One, blacks bitch as a race. Pointing to a few white exceptions and pretending that makes for parity is absurd. Narrowing the argument as you're attempting to won't fly. Two, blacks have a hell of a lot less to bitch about than whites do. Whites are dragged down by blacks. Blacks are pulled up, way, way, up, by whites. Africa is what blacks get on their own. If anything, blacks should be kissing our arses. Three, pointing out OUR grievances is a strategy that will get blacks (inter alia) to STFU, if it becomes part of white culture. Playing the stoic will get us more of the same crap we've been getting. Four, I really don't bitch about blacks playing the victim PER SE, I complain about blacks playing the victim when they are, in fact, enormously benefitted by proximity to white America.

How stupid do you think we are?

Who here is courageous enough to get "mad" about it and write a fiery piece? Or, better yet, stand outside the courthouse on his sentencing date to show support for the victim's family?

Okay, you think we're really stupid. Plenty of people are already "mad" about it, I'm sure. But we have to pay attention to all the stuff you think we have to pay attention too, not to the things we think aren't getting attention. Otherwise, you get to call into question our "courage." What a joke. Like it takes more "courage" to denounce an intra-white sex crime than it takes to denounce the racist regime in America.

So, where are all the liberals, conservatives, and other establishment types on your "courage" meter, given that they'd all denounce or express sadness over the intra-white crime you mention, given the opportunity, but none of them will ever give the realities of race in America the time of day?

You're going to have to step up your game, you suck.

Svigor

Anonymous said...

B-W crimes are no more henious

Actually, inter-racial crime is worse than regular crime. See, being victimized by a person of another race (to say nothing of learning the hatefacts about race and crime in America) tends to foster racism, and racism is not only a horrible sin, it's also a scourge on society.

Svigor

Anonymous said...

Too Tall Jones said:

As for white-on-black murders, a good number of them may have been of a defensive or reactive nature.

Righhttt.... I am sure the 4 little black girls murdered in Birmingham were "threatening" their murderers, calling forth a "defensive" reaction.


OK, so which unspeakable black-on-white murders cancels that one out?

There's plenty to chose from.

Whiskey said...

Too Tall -- I will see you your victims and raise you with: the Knoxville Horror, the Wichita Massacre, the career of Tookie Williams, OJ, Reginald Denny, the victims of Omar Thornton, the victims of that guy in Milwaukee (seven people) and the lynching of Carter Strange.

Unlike your victims, many of these happened within the last year. Blacks are by and large conducting lynchings, excused/approved by the state, media, and legal system, against Whites. That's the whole point of the Black flash mobs (beat the hell out of Whites) and it is not sustainable.

Why the hell should I **CARE** about what bad stuff long-dead White people did to Blacks fifty years or more ago -- when every day I risk being beaten or worse for the crime of having White skin? And when I know it will only get worse?

You are betting on forever-guilt by White people. That's a poor bet you'll lose.

Marlo said...

"I'm sure that white teenager will get off with a slap on the wrist unless Steve writes a fiery piece."

The sad thing is, you're probably right.

"No, virtually everyone does not know that. Practically nobody in the media knows that. And the bulk of the MSM's viewers are also unaware of their bias."

So it's all subconcious? I don't think whites are so unaware of the dynamics of race politics that they don't realize when they're getting the short end of the stick. I suspect that most whites are well aware of the bias, but don't see it as a serious threat; or are just too scared to discuss it in public.

"Besides 98% of white Americans, of course. I *love* trolls who like to tell pundits writing about issues that virtually no one else will touch that the issue is passé and should be ignored. I'm sure you've got our best interests at heart."

My interests and motivations are irrelevant.

"Gee, that couldn't be because these crimes simply aren't happening, could it? "

Of course not. Hate crimes are a fairly common occurance. If you want evidence, check out the FBI or Bureau of Justice statistics.

"And what's the deal with you telling us that everyone knows the media is anti-white, and then 30 seconds later telling us that media's reporting isn't anti-white? How are we supposed to respect your trolling when you can't keep your story straight?"

Ugh, where did I write that the media isn't anti-white? Pointing out that hate crimes stories don't receive the amount of attention they received in years past doesn't contradict the statement that "the msm has an anti-white bias".

"Right, because we have tons of control over white criminals."

I wouldn't say you have 'tons' of control over white criminals, just that it makes more sense for you, a person who's so concerned with the well being of whites, to take on the overwhelming perpetrators of violence against whites.

"Again, there's no taboo against media coverage of white criminals, but there is a taboo against honest reporting about race. Does it make sense for one of the few writers brave enough to tackle the later taboo to move into a much more crowded field?"

I agree that there's no taboo against media coverage of white criminals. I'm disputing claims that hate crimes against blacks are frequently reported.

Whiskey said...

Svigor makes a good point. Most of the MSM/Elite action has been to control ordinary Whites by screaming "racist" at them for thought crimes. That worked up to a point, but elites in order to keep it up ... actually HAVE TO DELIVER. In other areas. In other words, more prosperous, higher standard of living.

Is that in the cards? No. And there's not enough storm trooper police in a nation as big and as well, "diverse" to use force to get their way. Threat of it can work for a while, but eventually it will end.

So White folks getting victimized by "people of color" means particularly with a media distrusted like that of the Soviets, the internet/rumors take over and amplify things. Making the reality of race relations, and critically the willingness and ability of the still-White-Majority to sacrifice for non-Whites nearly zero.

ben tillman said...

Complaining about his lack of numbers is a bit unfair. He does mention the effect of both victim and perp on execution.

No, he doesn't mention any "effects"; he mentions correlations.

But he does lie like crazy.

From the Supreme Court's opinion in McCleskey:

Baldus subjected his data to an extensive analysis, taking account of 230 variables that could have explained the disparities on nonracial grounds. One of his models concludes that, even after taking account of 39 nonracial variables, defendants charged with killing white victims were 4.3 times as likely [or 3.3 times more likely] to receive a death sentence as defendants charged with killing blacks. According to this model, black defendants were 1.1 times as likely to receive a death sentence as other defendants.

So, Dow's figures producing the claims of "4.3 times more likely" (white victims vs. black victims) and "1.7 times more likely" (black murderers vs. white murderers) were run through a filter that presumably worked to exaggerate the discrepancies, which Dow conveniently leaves out.

And Baldus himself found -- using his "best" model, which considered only 39 of the 230 variables that he looked at overall
-- that black killers were 3.3 times more likely to get the death penalty, not 4.3. [4.3 times as likely equals 3.3 times more likely.] At least, that's what the Supreme Court said.

And this was only ONE of Baldus's models (which considered only 39 of the 230 variables that he looked at overall). Obviously, there were other models that produced less, um, interesting numbers, at least on that one point.

The Supreme Court says that the model that produced the worst-looking number (330% difference) for black and white victims showed only a 10% difference between black and white murderers.

So, it appears, Dow cherry-picked and took a different model that showed a 70% difference that Dow dishonestly or innumerately turned into a 170% difference.

Thus, Dow lies and says that Baldus said 4.3 times more likely instead of 3.3, and fails to qualify it by noting that these were not raw numbers but were instead presumably "cooked" numbers, adjusted for variables chosen to make the figures look the worst.

Dow lied, and it is manifestly fair to call him a liar.

Marlo said...

"The difference being, of course, as you yourself admit in your first sentence, there is an anti-white bias out there, one that is influential in setting policy, determining which crimes will be prosecuted as "hate crimes", garnering media attention, etc"

Cite some examples of how the media's bias is influential in setting policy. Then, show me some evidence (from a public policy journal) that black criminals who target whites receive lenient sentences. Then, show me some evidence (again, from a policy journal) that black criminals who target whites on the basis of race are often not charged with hate crimes.

"So there's no irony involved. Try for a little internal consistency before you start lecturing."

Lack of consistency isn't my problem. My problem is that I'm arguing with people who can't read.

"Well, for starters, that's not the topic under discussion here."

It should be, since you care so much for the "white race".

"And I'm not sure just what you have in mind when you suggest we "get busy taking on criminals". Absent vigilantism or our getting involved in the prosecutorial area of the legal system, there's not much we can do."

Vigilantism! That's the word I've been looking for. Yeah, try that.


"I've yet to see footage of that scenario in which the protesters, who tend to be either santimonious or incoherent or both, don't look like utter idiots."

About 90 % of regulars here look/sound like utter idiots too. That's clearly no excuse for remaining inactive.


"Oh, and drop the emotive language (e.g., sobbing, fiery, courageous). That crap flies at HuffPo; here, not so much."

I'll use whatever type of language I want. And there's nothing you can do about it.

"who do you think is doing most of the "get busy taking on white criminals", anyway? "

Mostly law enforcement agencies, which fail to catch a number of white criminals, leaving them free to roam the streets in search of easy targets. The ones who get caught often receive light sentences.

Hence, it's your responsiblity to pick up the slack.

Harry Baldwin said...

Wandrin said...They use disparate impact solely as a means to attack white people and only [white] people.

Make that only white MEN. It's okay if women do better than men, as in college admissions, employment, etc. It's only bad if white men are in any way doing better than anyone.

Harry Baldwin said...

Dennis Dale said...Steve, just sell the hell out already and write a popular sociology book . . . "

In order to sell out you need a buyer. It's unlikely it is that any publisher would give Steve an advance to present his ideas in book form, and equally unlikely that such a book would garner any publicity or reviews. Look at the trouble Jared Taylor had getting his latest book published.

I say this as a big fan of Steve and as someone who makes an annual donation to him.

Marlo said...

"I've been over this and over this, but it never sinks in. You guys keep propping up the same tired old arguments. One, blacks bitch as a race. Pointing to a few white exceptions and pretending that makes for parity is absurd."

The reason that bitching whites are exceptional is because whites really don't have much to bitch about. In job hunting, for example, a white with a criminal record has better odds of finding a job than a black with no criminal record, all else being equal. Likewise, job applicants with "black sounding names" are less likely to get call backs even when their credentials are identical to applicants with "white sounding names". These are facts.

If you deny them, it's only because your mind is so riddled with guilt that it blocks your ability to engange in reasoned and dispassionate argument.

"Narrowing the argument as you're attempting to won't fly."

I'm definitely not attempting to narrow the argument. Rather, I'm trying to get a sense of why the hbd/white nationalist movement only gets worked up over interracial crime. I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer. That's all there is to it.

"Whites are dragged down by blacks."

Mmmmhmm,a good example of this would be how blacks prevented America from becoming the world's greatest superpower. Oh...right, that never happened. On the contrary, blacks benefited whites by giving them nearly 300 years of free labor, dying in their wars and not slaughtering them en masse like whites did to every race they've encountered.

"Blacks are pulled up, way, way, up, by whites."

I see, so "pulled up" is hip talk for "economically exploited". In that case, I would agree--whites have pulled blacks up quiet a bit. While blacks have "pulled down" (in Svigor's universe this means, "died for", "been loyal to" etc.) whites. Got it.

"Three, pointing out OUR grievances is a strategy that will get blacks (inter alia) to STFU, if it becomes part of white culture."

How will grieving about your fears on isteve accomplish this goal?

"Playing the stoic will get us more of the same crap we've been getting. Four, I really don't bitch about blacks playing the victim PER SE, I complain about blacks playing the victim when they are, in fact, enormously benefitted by proximity to white America."

Duh, everyone benefits by proximity to white America. No one is denying that, or complaining about it.

"How stupid do you think we are?"

Pretty stupid.

"Okay, you think we're really stupid. Plenty of people are already "mad" about it, I'm sure. But we have to pay attention to all the stuff you think we have to pay attention too, not to the things we think aren't getting attention. Otherwise, you get to call into question our "courage."

I'm not saying you HAVE to pay attention to white on white crime, much less become active in preventing it. Just that doing so would be more beneficial to whites than what you currently do. Which is nothing.

"So, where are all the liberals, conservatives, and other establishment types on your "courage" meter, given that they'd all denounce or express sadness over the intra-white crime you mention, given the opportunity, but none of them will ever give the realities of race in America the time of day?"

Who cares where anyone is on my courage meter? Don't make this about me. This is about whites looking out for whites.

NOTA said...

Marlo:

I've seen little evidence for an MSM bias against whites, exactly. What I have seen is a an unwillingness to report some data honestly, such as the race of criminals, and a willingness to emphasize some crimes (white on black hate crimes, straight on gay hate crimes) over others (black on white hate crimes).

The thing is, this is actually the normal mode in which the MSM operates. They routinely just don't report stuff that doesn't fit into the narrative they want to convey, spin stories in a consistent direction, and emphasize some stuff while de-emphasizing others. You can see this all the time in the MSM--look at our war reporting, the reporting on antiwar protests and arguments before the invasion of Iraq, the way tea party rallies were always covered by finding some nut with a gun or an outrageous slogan, the black-holing of the pentagon military advisors' scandal on broadcast news, etc.

That's just what they do. The blackholing of black on white hatecrime is just a small fraction of it.

And as Svigor said rather tongue in cheek, it really does fuel racism in some ways. The more obvious it is that the "respectable" sources of information are constantly lying to us, the less those sources can damp down falsehoods, silly conspiracy theories, rumors, etc. Who'd believe them?

I assume there's an ideological motive

Wandrin said...

Marlon

"Cite some examples of how the media's bias is influential in setting policy."

1) 12% of the population is responsible for 50% of the murders and proportionately other violent crime also.

This is the single biggest factor in violent crime in America and has been for 60 years.

There have been millions of avoidable victims.

The reasons for this disproportion in violence rates include
- lower average IQ
- lower average impulse control
- lower average empathy
- media incitement
etc

There may be other reasons as well but those four exist independently of any other reasons and are the most important.

(Anyone who wants to talk about poverty, blah blah, either doesn't know what they are talking about or is a lier. The gangsta yout are the main problem. They prevent education in the schools and they destroy the local economy.)

Despite everything the media tried to do to prevent it things got so bad there was a huge prison building program which reduced the murder rate to roughly 2/3 of the peak.

If the media had told the truth and this had been done earlier then you're looking at more than a 100,000 fewer murder victims.

The racial incarceration rates should follow the racial crime rates not the demographics. The media doing everything it could to prevent people from understanding the truth of the problem and preventing that happening is indirectly responsible for all those 100,000+ avoidable murders.


2) Affirmative action aka anti-white discrimination. The media (by the same definition it uses to attack white people itself guilty of massive discrimination against non-Jews) only applies disparate impact to situations where white people are the benficiaries. This creates the political climate for continued and greater anti-white discrimination.

.
"Rather, I'm trying to get a sense of why the hbd/white nationalist movement only gets worked up over interracial crime."

The MSM gets very worked up about inter-racial crime also but only when the perpetrators are white and the victims non-white. Inter-racial crimes like that are given top-billing on the news night after night for months and months.

They still talk about some inter-racial crimes like that hundreds of years later whereas with anti-white crimes they've started to cover them up while the blood is still wet.

It's the area where the media's anti-white double standards is most evident and causes the most harm.

And it is the media that should be attacked. Black crime as a problem could be dealt with if the truth were told and racial incarceration rates followed racial crime rates.

It's the media lying about the problem that has got so many people killed.

Joseph said...

To show how statistics can "lie" and inflame the emotions, consider the following: The Bureau of Justice Statistics at the USDOJ.GOV shows that blacks, 12.3% of the U.S. population per the 2000Census, committed 52.2% of all homicides in the U.S. in the 30 years ending December, 2005. The remaining non-black 87% or so of the population committed 47.8%.

So we have the black homicide perpetration rate that is 7.8 times that of the non-black population. So-o-o, if we had 10 non-black convicted murders and the proportional 78 black convicted murderers, and we executed 50% of the white ones, and benignly, only 25% of the black ones, we'd have about 20 executed blacks out of a total of 25. OMG! 80% of executed murderers are blacks while they are only 12.3% of the U.S. population! Obvious arbitrary racism!
No it isn't. It's the result of the astoundingly high black homicide perpetration rate.

JSM said...

More murderers of Whites are executed than murderers of Blacks because most murderers of Whites are White, whereas most murderers of Blacks are Black.

Anytime you give the death penalty to a Black, no matter how deserving, you get "Civil Rights Activists" raising bloody hell. Ex: Tookie Williams.

If you give the death penalty to a White, there's just in general less hassle for the judicial system.

So, since most murderers of Blacks are Black and since you get such anger from the "Black community" anytime a Black is sentenced to death, more Black victims of murder don't get to see their (Black) perp executed than White victims get to see their (White) perp executed.

This is NOT due to White racist lack of sympathy for Black victims, however. It is due to Blacks making so much noise whenever a Black thug gets his just desserts, that the justice system can't do its job.

Kylie said...

"Steve, just sell the hell out already and write a popular sociology book called 'How it Really Works'."

Maybe it's just the last, lingering vestiges of my idealism but I can't imagine Steve selling out.

Even if he did, I can't imagine he could find a publisher who would give his book the promotion it would deserve (and require).

And by definition, Steve isn't a popular writer now and I doubt he ever will be. Despite his folksy manner, he's concerned with ideas that just aren't even on the radar of most people.

Plus, I think he likes the independence of being about to think about the stuff he likes to think about, rather than being too concerned with what's marketable.

Anonymous said...

The reason that bitching whites are exceptional is because whites really don't have much to bitch about. In job hunting, for example, a white with a criminal record has better odds of finding a job than a black with no criminal record, all else being equal.

And whites are even more likely to be doing the employing. But the point is, whites have a lot more to complain about vis-a-vis blacks than vice-versa. Really, blacks have nothing to complain about, but everything to celebrate. But, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, right? Which is why blacks bitch. Not because they're justified, but because it gets results. Ergo, whites needn't worry about whether they're justified in bitching, they need only know that bitching works. Right?

I'm definitely not attempting to narrow the argument. Rather, I'm trying to get a sense of why the hbd/white nationalist movement only gets worked up over interracial crime. I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer. That's all there is to it.

I explained it to you (your tendentious phrasing aside), but you're apparently too dense to get it.

Mmmmhmm, a good example of this would be how blacks prevented America from becoming the world's greatest superpower.

Wow, that's persuasive. Yes, you do think we're stupid. And it's projection.

On the contrary, blacks benefited whites by giving them nearly 300 years of free labor, dying in their wars and not slaughtering them en masse like whites did to every race they've encountered.

"Blacks are pulled up, way, way, up, by whites."

I see, so "pulled up" is hip talk for "economically exploited". In that case, I would agree--whites have pulled blacks up quiet a bit. While blacks have "pulled down" (in Svigor's universe this means, "died for", "been loyal to" etc.) whites. Got it.


Hey, you know what? You can be on team Svigor any time you like. I don't even need to respond to this stuff - res ipsa loquitur.

Just do me one favor; keep talking.

Svigor

Get Off My Lawn! said...

We could avoid the problem entirely by joining the rest of the civilized world and abolishing the death penalty. For one thing, the state should not be in the business of killing for killing's sake.

Secondly, although I'm undecided on the constitutionality of capital punishment per se, I believe it is both unconstitutional and immoral that its application varies so much from place to place. I'm not just talking about the extremes of Texas and the several states with no capital punishment; what is particularly absurd is the situation in places like Pennsylvania, where there are 222 people on death row but where there have been only 3 executions since the death penalty was reinstated. With numbers like that, it becomes obvious that the state has no real appetite for executing people. As a Pennsylvania resident, I'm happy to say that; but this inconsistency between stated intention and execution (no pun intended) makes of a mockery of the justice system and wastes a lot of money on appeals that wouldn't be necessary if PA would just admit that, when push comes to shove, it really doesn't WANT to execute anybody.

Just get rid of this relic of the past. Yes, it's expensive to keep prisoners alive, but it's also expensive to provide exhaustive appeals for years on end.

Then again, others have an alternative, more efficient solution: Kill 'em all, and let God sort it out. Anon says:


I know that some will be executed that are innocent. That does not bother me as much as supporting them endlessly on the public dime.

So you would rather that the state - the people who govern in your name - kill a few innocent people than that it spend money ensuring that only the guilty are executed? Interesting priorities you have there.

Mr. Anon said...

Marlo said...

In job hunting, for example, a white with a criminal record has better odds of finding a job than a black with no criminal record, all else being equal. Likewise, job applicants with "black sounding names" are less likely to get call backs even when their credentials are identical to applicants with "white sounding names". These are facts."

Perhaps it is a fact that whites with criminal records make better employees than blacks who have none.

"I'm definitely not attempting to narrow the argument. Rather, I'm trying to get a sense of why the hbd/white nationalist movement only gets worked up over interracial crime. I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer. That's all there is to it."

Oh, I suspect that there's quite abit more to it than that. But here's an answer: black-on-white crime is more likely to be stranger-on-stranger crime, and that is something that we have a greater chance of preventing. If you do not belong to that class of people where it is common for cousins to kill each other in the course of a drunken argument, than you are far more likely to be killed by a stranger than by a relative or aquaintenance. So it is in your interest to be more concerned with street crime, which is quite likely to be interracial.

"On the contrary, blacks benefited whites by giving them nearly 300 years of free labor, dying in their wars......."

Much the same could be said of horses.

Drop the act, dipshit - you are not a disinterested party in this discussion - you are clearly a minority or one of thier liberal cheering section. We don't give a crap what you think.

Anonymous said...

I am genuinely surprised that, in this entire thread, nobody pointed out the fact that, because most of the people who kill blacks are themselves black, if we actually did start executing the killers of blacks at the same rate as the killers of whites, the only effect would be that there would be even more blacks on death row than there are now. I doubt that's what the New York Times wants, so why is it making such a fuss about this?

It reminds me of a few weeks ago, when Bobby Rush chided white Chicagoans for being so concerned about flash mobs wreaking havoc downtown. His point was that mobs of black teenagers have been terrorizing black neighborhoods for as long as anyone could remember, but nobody seemed to think that was a big deal.

Of course, I'm sure the average white Chicagoan would have absolutely no problem with the police cracking down on violent mobs in black neighborhoods. I'd be willing to be that most of them would think that was a fine idea. What Bobby Rush didn't seem to understand is that, if the police did crack down on them, that would just mean that there would be even more blacks being arrested and locked up than there are now.

It isn't the white population of Chicago that would throw a hissy fit if that happened.

It's almost as though many jurisdictions have an unwritten agreement with black criminals, that if they want to destroy their own neighborhoods and other black people, the police will look the other way, just as long as they don't do the same thing in white neighborhoods. Which is truly unfortunate for those decent black people who make up the bulk of their victims, but it's the only solution if people are going to cry racism because there are more blacks in jail than whites.

Truth said...

"Marlo said..."

Did Marlon write that post, or did I, sleepwalking, wake up, make a new alias and write it?

IT READ SO MUCH LIKE ME, I'M NOT SURE!!!

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

"Marlo said..."

Did Marlon write that post, or did I, sleepwalking, wake up, make a new alias and write it?

IT READ SO MUCH LIKE ME, I'M NOT SURE!!!"

He's much more loquacious than you are. You manage to pack your non-sequiturs, half-truths, and inanities into a much shorter, more economical form - for which you are to be commended. If one is to read drivel, it should at least not take too long.

Mr. Anon said...

"Marlo said...

In job hunting, for example, a white with a criminal record has better odds of finding a job than a black with no criminal record, all else being equal. Likewise, job applicants with "black sounding names" are less likely to get call backs even when their credentials are identical to applicants with "white sounding names". These are facts."

All else being equal, perhaps a white with a criminal record still makes a better employee, on average, than a black without one.

Kylie said...

"On the contrary, blacks benefited whites by giving them nearly 300 years of free labor, dying in their wars and not slaughtering them en masse like whites did to every race they've encountered."

So that's why so many African-Americans are relinquishing their US citizenship and returning to their ancestral homelands.

Anonymous said...

Marlo,

Blacks need whites. Whites don't need blacks. Blacks need whites more than whites need blacks.

Blacks don't feel and aren't made to feel guilty for putting blacks first or for hating whites.

Whites do feel and are made to feel guilty for putting whites first or for hating blacks.

See the difference?

Truth said...

"Marlon

"Cite some examples of how the media's bias is influential in setting policy."


The media does not cover the ONE MILLION (extremely conservatively, some people say 3,000,000+) murders of Arabs/Persians by whites in the middle east over the past 20 years either. Which is more egregious?

"It's the media lying about the problem that has got so many people killed."

The OVERWHELMING majority of white murder victims are killed by white people.

"Perhaps it is a fact that whites with criminal records make better employees than blacks who have none."

Perhaps, Old Sport, and perhaps it is exactly what he's implying.

" Rather, I'm trying to get a sense of why the hbd/white nationalist movement only gets worked up over interracial crime."

Marlo...GET...OUT...OF...MY...FREAKING...HEAD!

"Drop the act, dipshit - you are not a disinterested party in this discussion - you are clearly a minority or one of thier liberal cheering section. We don't give a crap what you think."

YOU TOLD HIM ANON!!! Hey, with rhetoric and composition like that, the school that awarded you your PHD from must invite you back to speak all of the time.

"Blacks need whites. Whites don't need blacks. Blacks need whites more than whites need blacks."

Blacks were around, like HUNDREDS ouf years before white people came over from Africa.

White people are the ones who came over to shake hands.

Anonymous said...

You don't see blacks clicking their heels in hopes of a magical return to Africa. You don't see blacks wishing their ancestors had never been brought here. You don't see blacks trying to "undo" the "calamity" by fleeing whites.

The "calamity" that blacks bemoan is the greatest boon in their history.

Kind of a tightrope they're walking. On one hand, gotta bitch, or no grease for the wheel. On the other, well, it's like whites bitching about the industrial revolution, Magna Carta, or Renaissance.

Svigor

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it is a fact that whites with criminal records make better employees than blacks who have none.

No, Marlo gets to pick the criteria, meaning, he gets to ignore any "qualifications" he doesn't like. Like IQ.

Svigor

Anonymous said...

On the contrary, blacks benefited whites by giving them nearly 300 years of free labor, dying in their wars and not slaughtering them en masse like whites did to every race they've encountered.
example of whites slaughtering peoples en masse? You must be thinking of the moors, ottaman turks and mongol hordes, all of whom slaughtered whites 'en masse'. BTW< over 3 million whites were enslaved by north african muslims. Do you hear us bitching?

Anonymous said...

not slaughtering them en masse like whites did to every race they've encountered.
the hostility in this statement - implying that whites and only whites 'genocided' ( i am using an inane non-word intentionally) people shows just how deeply and widely cultural marxist education has infected this country.
This silly 'argument' would have gotten as much traction as 'UFOs caused WWII" a mere 30 years ago, now it rolls off the tongues of simple minds without notice.

Anonymous said...

"On the contrary, blacks benefited whites by giving them nearly 300 years of free labor"

Slaves were not free but they had to be housed, clothed, fed, and taken care of.
Under a free market system, employers pay employees and employees have to take care of themselves.
Under slavery, masters keep most of the wealth but have to provide for the slaves. (But some slaves were allowed to earn money on the side as skilled workers.)

At any rate, prior to being brought to the US, blacks had been, for 100,000 yrs, a people without written language, no useful medicine, no substantial civilization to speak of. Within a few centuries, blacks in America gained greater freedom and opportunities in the most advanced nation on Earth. American blacks live better than 95% of people on the planet. In contrast, blacks in Africa are dying of starvation.

Anonymous said...

"It reminds me of a few weeks ago, when Bobby Rush chided white Chicagoans for being so concerned about flash mobs wreaking havoc downtown. His point was that mobs of black teenagers have been terrorizing black neighborhoods for as long as anyone could remember, but nobody seemed to think that was a big deal."

Bobby Rush is so full of shit. Italian-Americans have been attacking Italian-Americans, blacks raise a ruckus--as in Howard Beach and Bensonhurst--only when the violence is white-on-black.

If blacks attack blacks, black community should get to gether to fix the problem--just like whites should deal with white-on-white violence. It is a bigger problem when the violence crosses racial lines for racial reasons.
Rush of all people should know that matters of race adds special significance to violence.
Isn't he the type that bitches endless about 'hate crime' after all?

Anonymous said...

not slaughtering them en masse like whites did to every race they've encountered.

Not all whites are WASPs or Russians.

Anonymous said...

Truth,

The media does not cover the ONE MILLION (extremely conservatively, some people say 3,000,000+) murders of Arabs/Persians by whites in the middle east over the past 20 years either. Which is more egregious?

It's not "murder." It's called "war." Maybe it doesn't make much difference to an African like you but the civilized world has always drawn a distinction between the two.

That said, those wars find VERY, VERY little support in the "hbd/wn" world. So nice try but lol way off as usual.

Blacks were around, like HUNDREDS ouf years before white people came over from Africa.

White people are the ones who came over to shake hands.


Who cares how many hundreds of years blacks were "around"? It has nothing to do with what I said: blacks need whites more than whites need blacks; whites, in fact, don't need blacks at all.

JSM said...

"Who cares how many hundreds of years blacks were "around"? It has nothing to do with what I said: blacks need whites more than whites need blacks; whites, in fact, don't need blacks at all."


Horses were around for lots of years before domestication.

Then, lots of uses for horses were found.

Now horses are obsolete as farm machinery.

Now horses need people more than people need horses. Horses left to their own devices, like, say, the wild horses on BLM lands, die like flies of overbreeding-induced starvation.

PETA, a liberal organization, very loudly demands horse "rights."

The above is, of course, apropos of nothing.

Truth said...

"Maybe it doesn't make much difference to an African like you but the civilized world has always drawn a distinction between the two."

So you'd be upset if your daughter were 'murdered', but you'd go drink a 6 pack if some soldiers shot her?

"blacks need whites more than whites need blacks; whites, in fact, don't need blacks at all."

Then why is it that whites went to such great lenghts to bring blacks over here to live with them? Blacks never went to such great lenghts to invite whites to Africa.

Anonymous said...

white victims of black crime http://able2know.org/topic/138570-74

Anonymous said...

So you'd be upset if your daughter were 'murdered', but you'd go drink a 6 pack if some soldiers shot her?

So you think the victim's family members should be judge and jury?

"blacks need whites more than whites need blacks; whites, in fact, don't need blacks at all."

Then why is it that whites went to such great lenghts to bring blacks over here to live with them? Blacks never went to such great lenghts to invite whites to Africa.


1. You're conflating the 1807 (the last year slaves were imported) with 2011; since we live in 2011 and not 1807, what whites needed then is irrelevant to what whites need now.

2. Along similar lines, you're making a tacit argument in favor of enslaving blacks, since slavery was intrinsic to their value to whites in 1807, and the corresponding need.

The obvious play for you here is to seque into a song and dance about "oh use us up and throw us away," but that's more of the same old sins of the father tune, which doesn't play all that well to people who really stop to think about it.

The real comparison for cui bono is America vs. Africa. Which would a black rather be born into? I did a paper-napkin style survey of African economies some years back and my rough guess was that blacks are 14x wealthier in America than they are in Africa.

Call the experience of blacks in America today whatever you wish, but from where I sit it's the Black Racial Jackpot.

But hey, at least you gave an answer; that's far more effort than most.

Svigor

selene said...

The reason that bitching whites are exceptional is because whites really don't have much to bitch about."


What a load. It sounds like bizarro world. I live in the D.C. area. PG County is well known for its black civil "servants" who "serve" only blacks. My friend at a government-ish agency has seen a black female professional get into full-blow physical fights with her boyfriend and actually get promoted, making six digit figures, and no, it's not because she's all that great at her job. It's because they are terrified of law suits, and because they have to put blacks in certain positions and if one can be found with half the brains for it, they've got it. They are terrified of blacks, tolerating behavior and incompetence that would never be tolerated in others races. It produces huge stresses in whites, including my friends, who actually is friendly with most of them. But the injustice eats at her.
This is not just NASA, it's countless workplaces.
Just among my six to eight closest friends, all have experienced, or have had relatives experience, violent crime by blacks: two rapes; two murders; one attempted murder and rape; armed robbery in Georgetown at 3:00 AM; a son beaten to almost to death, and this son was raised in a family whose creed was racial togetherness (actually I've known many such cases, always black on white._
My quite safe, working class neighborhood turned into a crime infested place, first with Section 8, then with the inevitable onslaught of blacks moving in; the businesses gone except for braiding.
I could go, but I would be writing a book. Whites have ENORMOUS REASONS FOR BITCHING. They have their very lives at stake. The black on whit crime is becoming a "holocaust." They are being "genocided" according to them; yet I read of a black with eleven illegitimate children (all supported by tax payers, mostly white) who murdered a young white girl who had no children. That's not uncommon.
Whites have no reason to bitch?
What planet are you living in? Bizarro world.

Truth said...

"The above is, of course, apropos of nothing"

Never have you written a truer line (even though it was meant to be facetious).

Even after an equally facetious attempt to "help" the "horses" in Africa (by unleashing stone-age biological weapons on the population in the 1970s) the "horse" population is not only stable, but growing rapidly. There are very few "BLM agents" in Africa now, a tiny portion of the population.

Before the "BLM agents" arrived in Africa, the "horses" spent their days hunting, fishing, telling stories by the campfire and raising children. Basically, what the "BLM Agents" now call "vacation." The "BLM Scientists", seem to almost-universally believe that the "horses" were around long before they were, and that they actually descended from the "Horses"

Again apropos of nothing.

Truth said...

"So you think the victim's family members should be judge and jury?"

Said nothing of the sort, I simply asked a question.

"1. You're conflating the 1807"

Everyday life in America is a matter of "conflation."

Lawyers in courthouses all over America will go to court tomorrow, and conflate 2011 with 1787.

"2. Along similar lines, you're making a tacit argument in favor of enslaving blacks, since slavery was intrinsic to their value to whites in 1807,"

Slavery was not intrinsic to "our" value, a hardy, cheap and easily replaced labor force was.

"The real comparison for cui bono is America vs. Africa. Which would a black rather be born into?"

Of all of the hundreds of European immigrants I have met, I would estimate that less than 5% had any interest in returning to Europe...and that includes the illegal ones.

Guess what, there are a whole hell of a lot less blacks there. But you're right about one thing; this is an incredible country WE'VE built.

"and no, it's not because she's all that great at her job. It's because they are terrified of law suits,"

And white people never sue? Wow, I hope I'm not the one who has to tell all of those lawyers!

Marlo said...

Winning debates on isteve grows less challenging with each post. It's a simple matter of asking someone to cite sources for their claims. If I could teach my shnauzer to utter the phrase, "where's the evidence", he could easily stump the likes of Svigor, Mr. Anon and Kylie. That's what I love about da sphere.

"
At any rate, prior to being brought to the US, blacks had been, for 100,000 yrs, a people without written language, no useful medicine, no substantial civilization to speak of."

So what you're saying is that the written languages that appeared in ancient Sudan and Ethiopia weren't written languages? That the civilizations of Meroe and Axum, along with the midievel Mali Empire--all of which engineered their own mathematics, science and medicine--weren't civilizations. Cool!

"I could go, but I would be writing a book. Whites have ENORMOUS REASONS FOR BITCHING. They have their very lives at stake. The black on whit crime is becoming a "holocaust." They are being "genocided" according to them"

Show me that it's "becoming a holocaust".

"yet I read of a black with eleven illegitimate children (all supported by tax payers, mostly white) who murdered a young white girl who had no children. That's not uncommon."

Show me that that's "not uncommon".

"What planet are you living in? Bizarro world."

Nope. I just appreciate it when people document their claims. For all I know, everything you wrote could be made up or exaggerated. So, show me that black government workers--or blacks workers in general--exhibit behavior that wouldn't be "tolerated by other races". Show me that blacks job applicants, with credentials identical to those of white job applications, don't face discrimination. You surely don't expect me to take your words on faith, do you?