- "African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence."
- "African-American boys are more violent"
- "Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else."
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
30 comments:
I gave up less than half way in. Did he mention Emmet Till? He did blame black violence on historical stuff and thats just not what happened. Trayvon Martin's culture is "new school" as Rachel Jeantel put it and has nothing to do with slavery, segregation, Jim Crow or any of that. Trayvon Martin violence is about hip hop/cool/rap/gangsta/drugs/teeth grills/tattoos.
http://www.volokh.com/2010/04/30/on-a-bus-in-kiev
I remember very little about my childhood in the Soviet Union; I was only seven when I left. But one memory I have is being on a bus with one of my parents, and asking something about a conversation we had had at home, in which Stalin and possibly Lenin were mentioned as examples of dictators. My parent took me off the bus at the next stop, even though it wasn’t the place we were originally going.
Perhaps I have some of the details wrong (was it just Stalin, or also Lenin?); childhood memories remembered 35 years later are like that. I’m telling this to explain why I feel so strongly about it, based on my memories; my personal account does not affect the soundness (or unsoundness) of my arguments. But my sense from all I’ve heard is that this is exactly how life was like there, and that no-one who lived there in the 1970s would think the scenario at all improbable.
What’s more, this is so even though most people, including most Communists, knew that Stalin was of course a dictator. The government itself had acknowledged as much. Even Lenin was widely understood to have been a dictator in the sense of someone who didn’t govern through democratic means.
But it’s not the sort of thing that you’d want to say in public, or even to your friends in private. Sssh! — people might hear! Those who hear might draw deeper inferences about what else you might believe. This might get back to the place you work. You might be fired, or blacklisted. By the 1970s, you probably didn’t have to worry much about being shot, or being sent to Siberia; these were not the 1930s. But lost jobs, ruined careers — sure. And a forced public apology: well, of course, that might help a bit.
Stand your ground sounds more humane than ground and pound.
I wonder what Obama and Holder think about the proliferation of the internet and its impact on race relations. It is going to be like the 60s all over again except this time it will be the right that causes hay. The harder the left clamps down on un-PC comments and thoughts the more fun it will be to poke fun of the squares. Only now the squares are the blank slaters.
When it comes to urban hood films like "Boys In The Hood" and "Menace To Society", I wonder what percentage of African American males can personally relate with characters like O-Dog and Doughboy ? I wonder what percentage of African American males see themselves in those characters ?
- "African-American boys are more violent"
Duh, duh, and duh.
Mr. Prez, let's not forget the AA females. Stay out of Walmart or Target isles when an AA woman wants through.
Also: retail security looking askance at you, if you are both a young man and black, to the point you feel dissed, is a violation of the Constitution or the Geneva Convention or something.
If America ever gets a white president again (but please heaven, not Hillary!), let him call a press conference every time a white is killed by a black. And let him give a long, sorrowful speech each time. Let him speak of our historic oppression - I mean the generations that actually exist. Let him speak of the murders, rapes, muggings, thefts whites have endured at the hands of blacks. 37,460 black-on-white rapes in 2005 alone, compared to fewer than 10 white-on-black rapes in the same year, as just one example. Let him say, "Let's understand the context. Blacks have been making war on my people."
(Note that Holder's DO"J" 404'd the page Auster referred to in the article I linked above.)
He used the definite article before 'jury'!
Note that Holder's DO"J" 404'd the page Auster referred to in the article I linked above.
I've notice that the (in)famous table 42 of the National Crime Victimization Survey (race of victim by perceived race of attacker) has gone missing. At least, I can't find it.
In the 60's etc. we were told that if we all got along, and made explicit efforts to reach out to Black people, and treated them like Scandinavians; we would see a great flourishing, and see great things done by the Black community.
Well, fifty years later, this is looking like a bad investment. We should have closed with the Malcolm X offer to set up a separate homeland for Blacks and subsidize them for 25 years. That would have been a bargain.
Now Barry O. tells us to just accept Black criminality and non-performance; just keep on paying. Nice for him that he can dictate terms. The rest of us are looking for ways to cut our losses.
Yes, that's one reason I thought this was a very good speech - in contrast to Obama's previous race speeches.
With those points and others that you didn't mention*, Obama actually advanced the conversation on race. For one thing, it means that anyone who mindlessly parrots these talking-point statistics now, when they're already on the table and accepted, either is not listening or is not acting in good faith.
You've obviously decided not to take Obama up on his suggestion to try to engage in a real conversation. (This isn't concern-trolling, because frankly, I'm not really concerned.) I don't know what your reasons are, but I do think it's worth a try to listen and engage, even if most people on both sides are uninterested in doing so and not much could be accomplished in the big picture.
*Here's another of Obama's points: "There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have."
Oh come on, David. If a white president called a press conference every time a black person killed a white person, he would be holding press conferences practically every day. And called a racist for noticing.
when that louisville basketball player broke his leg, i looked at his online team profile & his favorite movies were "Boys In The Hood" and "Menace To Society" & then i no longer felt sorry for him.
"If America ever gets a white president again (but please heaven, not Hillary!), let him call a press conference every time a white is killed by a black."
Oh, so Zimmerman's white now? It's about time you guys admit it.
I've notice that the (in)famous table 42 of the National Crime Victimization Survey (race of victim by perceived race of attacker) has gone missing. At least, I can't find it.
The 2008 table is still there (scroll down on this PDF), but if the corresponding table has been published for later years, I can't find it.
Something must have happened in 2008 to change the data analysis methodology. What can it have been? 2008? . . . No, can't think of anything.
Wait a minute - did he just say the words "African-American boys"? The First Commandment of PC is "Thou shalt not refer to any African-American males as boys". How racist and insensitive of him!
Sssh! — people might hear! Those who hear might draw deeper inferences about what else you might believe. This might get back to the place you work. You might be fired, or blacklisted. By the 1970s, you probably didn’t have to worry much about being shot, or being sent to Siberia; these were not the 1930s. But lost jobs, ruined careers — sure. And a forced public apology: well, of course, that might help a bit.
That sounds eerily like 21st century America, doesn't it?
This is a great opportunity for true conservatives to crush liberals and neocons. Liberals and neocons refuse to acknowledge the role of black iq in the decline of detroit. The sickening blindness of liberals and neocons on the issue of black intelligence can be seen in the following headlines in the ny times and commentary.
We Have to Step In and Save Detroit - Steven Rattner, New York Times
Detroit a Poster Child for Failed Liberalism - Jonathan Tobin,Commentary
This is a great opportunity for true conservatives to crush liberals and neocons. Liberals and neocons refuse to acknowledge the role of black iq in the decline of detroit. The sickening blindness of liberals and neocons on the issue of black intelligence can be seen in the following headlines in the ny times and commentary.
This is true, Vermont is successful and run by liberals it only has about a 11 percent or 12 percent poverty level but a little too much on food stamps but not the violence. Conservatives that are neo-cons or Libertarian types blame economics on everything, if so why is it that whites in California a target of neo-cons on average are less in poverty than Blacks or Hispanics. Compton unemployment around 12 and Misison Viejo 3.9 percent. I know some whites have been hit and have trouble getting a job or a worst job but blacks and Hispanics in a liberal state even do worst than whites.
Interesting bullet points that you completely under emphasized in your snarky fisking of the President's statement yesterday. All in all he did a great job talking about a tragedy and why it resonates so deeply among black people (even in if the media storm was sparked by terrible reporting). It woudn't kill you to give the man a little credit when he delivers a statement that doesn't follow Sailerian guidelines.
1
>he would be holding press conferences practically every day< [emphasis added]
What do you mean, "practically"?
2
Mr. Derb, thanks for the link. Document duly downloaded.
>your snarky fisking<
Words that literally no one would have been able to understand 13 years ago.... Glad to be among you hep cats with your swinging lingo.
(I suspect that forty years hence a lot of twitter messages and the like will be as incomprehensible and risible as hippie-speak - like "groovy," "far out," etc. - is now.)
"Interesting bullet points that you completely under emphasized in your snarky fisking of the President's statement yesterday."
The media tried to get a hispanic man killed as a proxy white man for the shooting of a little black kid who was actually a 6' 11" hood rat.
Obama tried to help.
Now it's all gone horribly wrong he's trying to row back a little.
Aaron Gross: "anyone who mindlessly parrots these talking-point statistics now, when they're already on the table and accepted, either is not listening or is not acting in good faith."
Are you saying this in good faith? For most liberals the terrible facts of black-on-white crime are certainly not going to be "on the table and accepted" simply because B.O. alluded to them in this speech. Those same facts have already been stated, argued for, interpreted and reinterpreted for decades -- in academic circles, in relatively mainstream media, in ordinary experience. On one level, almost everyone knows these facts. And yet despite that, many libs continue to write and speak and reason _as if_ there were no such facts to be taken into account. As if, for example, the only possible explanation for whites being suspicious or fearful of blacks must be some kind of irrational prejudice.
Surely you noticed that this was the gist of countless idiotic liberal and leftist comments and discussions and polemics to do with the Martin-Zimmerman thing.
But you really think that _now_ the facts about massive black crime are really "on the table and accepted" just because B.O. admitted to something the ballpark? You think liberals generally are now accepting these facts as part of the "conversation" we're having? If they were to seriously accept these facts, they'd have to stop complaining that blacks undergo the trivial inconveniences B.O. whined about in his speech. Do you think they're going to stop with that, even?
Even B.O. himself was not willing to take the first step towards fairness and reasonableness on this issue. Despite admitting vaguely that blacks are "probably" more likely to be killed by each than whites, that blacks commit a lot of crime, he still complains that whites think and act on the basis of such facts. When they treat blacks with suspicion or caution, they're using the facts as an "excuse" -- as if reasonable white behaviour needed excusing.
Aaron Gross you're either being disingenuous or are just very sheltered. BO's Friday presser was not in the tradition of Cosby's "pound cake" speech or Louis Farrahkhan's many sermons on financial and moral self-discipline. Barack was merely running his mouth steadily in anticipation of prime media succor. You're deluded if you think he "made concessions" to embattled whites or even acknowledged black pathology. Instead he just yammered on about the big bad Culture--so sad, life is unfair that way. "Then when I became a man I put away childish things. Keep hope alive, yes we can." That speech was standard-issue gasbaggery from that empty suit preppie--he couldn't preach a critical message to American blacks whom he doesn't understand too well if his life were at stake.
(This isn't concern-trolling, because frankly, I'm not really concerned.)
"Not really concerned" is the textbook definition of concern trolling, you nitwit.
"If America ever gets a white president again (but please heaven, not Hillary!), let him call a press conference every time a white is killed by a black."
Oh, so Zimmerman's white now? It's about time you guys admit it.
When did you become a full-blown parody of yourself?
Or, who are you, and what have you done with Troof? Are you really an i-Stever who killed Troof, and are now posting under his (reverse nick)name, wearing his head for a hat?
Never mind that many Asians came here dirt poor and brought themselves out of it by their bootstraps in 1 generation; never mind that the legacy of slavery seems to avoid responsibility of the Africans involved in it, that slavery has occurred across all regions of earth and still occurs in many regions, that whites were the last to start it and the first to end it (and have since fought to end it elsewhere as well), that there is a long history of enslavement of Europeans by Africans prior to slavery to the New World, or that there were white slaves and indentured servants in the US as well, the descendants of whom get treated as second class citizens for the benefit of sons and daughters of recent immigrants from Africa or even worse for the benefit of Hispanic sons and daughters of the Conquistadors responsible for most of the New World slavery.
Now, that's how you pack a paragraph, folks. Run-ons are sometimes perfectly sensible. On review, I see that looks like snark, but it's not; great paragraph.
The First Commandment of PC is "Thou shalt not refer to any African-American males as boys".
With the second then being, "thou shalt not refer to any white men as white men, but only as white boys."
It woudn't kill you to give the man a little credit when he delivers a statement that doesn't follow Sailerian guidelines.
O'bammy's already got about a zillion times more credit from DWLs than he merits. There are a zillion DWLs sucking the chrome off of D'Wan's trailer hitch, right now. Sailer's working in an under-served community, so @$(! off. You're like the guy trying to get the last Wal-Mart in the ghetto bulldozed.
Words that literally no one would have been able to understand 13 years ago.... Glad to be among you hep cats with your swinging lingo.
(I suspect that forty years hence a lot of twitter messages and the like will be as incomprehensible and risible as hippie-speak - like "groovy," "far out," etc. - is now.)
There will be an anon along, er, anon, to castigate you for your misuse of "literally." As for "fisking," I'm glad to hear of it; I've been doing it for years and never knew what to call it.
"Aaron Gross said...
With those points and others that you didn't mention*, Obama actually advanced the conversation on race. For one thing, it means that anyone who mindlessly parrots these talking-point statistics now, when they're already on the table and accepted, either is not listening or is not acting in good faith."
So - let me get this straight - what you are saying is that because Obama mentioned the statistics that show that blacks are more likely to commit crimes, nobody else can bring them up again without appearing to act in bad faith. "Yes, yes, we've all heard that before - it's time to move on". Nuts to that. Most people are not aware of these statistics, and people - white people especially - need to be made aware of them. And bringing up these statistics is not to "mindlessly parrot" them, as you disingenuously put it. Mentioning a fact is not "mindlessly parroting" something. Those scientists! - always mindelessly parroting Newton's laws of motion and the like!
"You've obviously decided not to take Obama up on his suggestion to try to engage in a real conversation."
Obama is not interested in a real conversation. By "conversation on race" what he means - what everybody who uses that term means - is this: "Sit down, shut up, and don't question what I say, whitey!"
"(This isn't concern-trolling, because frankly, I'm not really concerned.)"
Yes, we know you are not concerned. No, it IS concern-trolling.
"I don't know what your reasons are,......"
Could say the same about you. Or, then again, perhaps not.
Isn't it racist of Obama to say that only another black kid is Tray's "peer".
Or does he mean that he was in danger of being shot by a member of the British House of Lords? Tally ho.
Post a Comment