This subject is absolutely deadly for progressives because there is a fear that an examination into the biology of crime will tend to focus on race. As is, in the US, Blacks, Hispanics, Amerindians and Polynesians have crime rates, 8, 3, 2 and 2 times higher than Whites, respectively. Asians have crime rates 5 times lower than Whites.
Leaving aside race for a moment, it is reasonable to pry into the extra-racial aspects of crime. For the moment, let us look at testosterone and MAO-A levels.
MAO-A inhibits the production of catecholamines, in particular serotonin. Persons low in MAO-A tend to be low in serotonin.
Persons low in serotonin have elevated rates of impulsive violent behavior, including homicidal and suicidal attempts and successes. These studies have been done on successful suicides and impulsively violent criminals behind bars. Serotonin is an inhibitory chemical. It follows that low levels of an inhibitory chemical would make a person less inhibited in some ways.
A UK study on abused children found that those who had good MAO-A levels did not develop antisocial behavioral problems. Those who had low MAO-A levels did become antisocial. In this way, chemical levels in the brain interacted with negative environmental effects to either promote or inhibit antisocial behavior. It's clear that abuse alone is not enough to cause antisocial behavior de novo.
In Aggression: The Testosterone-Serotonin Link , Berger et al attempted to synthesize studies showing links between low serotonin and high testosterone to better explain the enigma of criminal behavior. With regard to testosterone, they noted that results indicated a positive correlation in boys between testosterone levels and serious aggression in social situations, but no correlation with playful aggression.
This is interesting. Boys with normative testosterone can be quite aggressive in play, but they are able to turn it off and keep from going over the edge into actual serious aggression. High-testosterone boys were aggressive in both play and in serious aggression.
A study of 4,462 men revealed that the overall picture among the high-testosterone men is one of delinquency, substance abuse and a tendency toward excess aggressive behavior. This is the classic picture of the teenage delinquent, gang member, etc.
These men have more trouble with people like teachers while they are growing up, have more sexual partners, are more likely to show disciplinary problems during their military service and to have used "hard'' drugs, particularly if they had a poor education and low incomes.
As we can see, poor educational outcome and low income serve as additive effects for high-testosterone men who display antisocial or sociopathic tendencies.
Measurements of testosterone saliva levels in 692 adult male prisoners showed that inmates who committed violent or sexual crimes had higher testosterone levels than inmates who were incarcerated for property crimes or drug abuse. Therefore, theft and drug abuse is not necessarily related to high testosterone. Anyone can be a thief or a doper, but not anyone can be a rapist or commit violent assaults.
This study also showed that inmates with higher testosterone levels violated more prison rules, especially those involving overt confrontation.
When salivary testosterone levels of young adult delinquents were compared with levels of a group of college students, matched for age, gender and race, the delinquent subjects had higher testosterone levels than the student controls, a finding that was true for both male and female subjects. It is interesting that even female young adult delinquents tend to have higher testosterone levels.
It can thus be concluded that high testosterone levels play a role in some criminal behavior.
In a previous post, I suggested that interventions to lower testosterone may be one avenue with which to attack testosterone-driven crime and antisocial behaviors.
These interventions would involve Black females taking a drug to lower the testosterone of their fetus 20%. Or giving the same drug to their young sons with the same effect. Or, offering it to young Black males who display repeated antisocial behavior, have gotten into serious trouble due to this behavior, want to change, but can't seem to. All of these interventions would have to be strictly voluntary.
Commenters have noted with horror the possibility of messing with the sex drives of Black males, but a 20% reduction would lower Black testosterone down only to the White male level. White males seem to be awfully horny last time I checked.
Now for the racial angle. Yes, Blacks do have higher testosterone than Whites. And Asians have the lowest levels of all. Precisely as we might expect from the crime findings.
This scholar, Tobias Hübinette, a doctoral student as Stockholm University, has written papers suggesting that Western men who are Asiaphiles, have Yellow Fever, etc. are actually pedophiles deep down inside. Or, as he puts it, "...what drives (Western man's) fetishism with Asian women is quite simply paedophile tendencies."
The usual PC morons are calling the poor guy a racist, and I haven't even the foggiest idea why.
He also says that the hip trend of Whites adopting East Asian kids is part of a long tradition of colonial oppression.
The university's legal department is investigating him and he may face charges of reverse racism, whatever the Hell that means. What does that mean, "face charges"?
I still don't understand why this guy's work is seen as racist, but to PC dolts, just about everything is. I guess the Sun is racist because it shines on those poor Third World countries so hard and makes them sweat and get tired and stuff.
All these years I've been romping around with Asian women, and it turns out I was really a serial child molester. I never realized that pedophilia could be so much fun.
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
One great thing about the coming election of Obama as POTUS is that hopefully Blacks, other minorities and Leftist Whites will finally have to STFU about White racism (to some extent) and quit screaming racist at White people all the time. Heck, I'm a Leftist anti-racist, and these idiots call me racist incessantly. This has gone way overboard for many years and it's time to call the dogs off.
It's hard to believe that a virulently racist and White Supremacist US, dripping with White Privilege and other nonsense, would voluntarily choose to elect the antidote to its racism, supremacism and privileges.
Also, hopefully, Blacks and Leftists won't have any more excuses for the problems of Blacks and other minorities. If these problems continue under a Black President, just how much of it was due to racism anyway?
I'm probably dreaming here. The Left, Blacks and other minorities are hooked on the crack of screaming racist at Whitey and blaming us for everything. The habit feels so good and has so many excellent psychological benefits (Why do you think fools go through so much of their lives blaming other people?) that there's really no reason for them to stop it and face the harsh music.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
A great movie. I just got through watching it. Africa Addio or Farewell Africa is an Italian documentary film shot in 1964 and released in 1966. The film, by famous Italian documentary film directors Gualtiero Jacopetti and Franco E. Prosperi, is about the decolonization of Africa. There's some great music by the Italian composer Riz Ortolani.
The directors had earlier become famous with the release of Mondo Cane, a famous shock documentary.
It was released in the US in a censored version called Africa Blood and Guts, with all the fine music cut out. Jacopetti and Prosperi disassociated themselves from this American perversion of their film.
The film has English subtitles so you can follow right along.
Tragically, the film was condemned by the PC Orthodox anti-racist idiots who rule our Western world. It has subsequently been banned in Italy and the UK as "racist." Much criticism nowadays has centered on the movie being racist, misleading, exploitative, or staged. In particular, film critic Roger Ebert has singled the film out as racist.
Jacopetti was tried in Italy on charges of murder on the grounds that one of the executions in the movie was staged for the film. He was acquitted.
All of this is quite unfortunate. 1964-1966 was not exactly the height of racial liberalism in the West.
A friend in Italy tells me that Jacopetti and Prosperi were both liberal and progressive men, and neither one was racist or fascist in any way. He described them both as "open-minded". He also said that in Italy it is understood that the directors blamed colonialism for creating the conditions that led to much of the violence depicted in the film.
The film simply tells the truth about decolonization in Africa. It was brutal, horrid, stupid and genocidal. In quite a few ways, colonialism did seem better. Immediately after decolonization, there were horrible tribal wars. In the course of these tribal wars, there was horrible massacres of men, women and children of opposing tribes.
Arabs, up to 30,000 of them, were singled out and massacred in Zanzibar. In some cases, Whites were killed, even as they were trying to flee the country. In at least one case, the Simba Rebellion in Congo, the Simbas committed mass cannibalism on the opposing forces. Hutus slaughtered 18,000 Tutsis.
There are scenes all through the movie of scores or hundreds of bodies lying all over beaches, towns and jungles, or piled in mass graves. We watch the killers as they do their dirty work.
It's not a pretty movie.
At the same time as humans were being slaughtered, so were animals. Under colonialism, great game reserves had been set up, and men had scarcely been allowed to enter at all. If they did, they were to keep their voices down to not disturb the animals.
With decolonization, all Hell broke loose. At one point, the animal slaughter was so bad that the Africans called the British Army back in to set up the game reserves again. This was quickly amended, and every Friday was kill the animals day. We watch helpless as hunters, White and Black, massacre animals - hippos, elephants, gazelle, cape buffalo, crocodiles, by the thousands.
Apparently at some point later on, some sane people came to power and the animal slaughter drastically tapered off. Because if the animal slaughter depicted in this movie would have been allowed to continue, there would not be one large wild mammal left in the continent.
The animal slaughter has continued, but the grim scenario predicted in the movie has not come to fruition. Large game reserves have been set up, and large mammals still in general have decent populations, except for a few like rhinos.
44 years after decolonization, it's amazing that there are any large mammals left in Africa at all. I think we should give Africans some credit. It's been 44 years, and they haven't killed all the big animals yet.
The horrible tribal wars seem to have tapered off, though there are still some horrible wars in Sudan and the Congo. For most of Africa, there is peace or relative peace; the horrible, insane and stupid massacres of the decolonization period have not continued or rematerialized. This is good.
In 1964, it seemed that Africa was going to continue in racist and tribal genocide and mammal slaughter until most of the people and all of the big animals were gone. This has not occurred. Africa has proved better than our worst fears, and it's been nearly a half century.
Let's give them some credit.
In part, I think that the horrible leaders and parties of the decolonization period have been followed by much better leaders and political parties in most nations.
The film also discusses South Africa, and predicts that it will not last. They were right.
The film is being distributed now on the Net at least in part by White Supremacist assholes, but that figures, and it doesn't make it a bad movie, except if you're an anti-racist loon.
The truth just hurts sometimes. During the decolonization period, a lot of Africans were acting really bad. That's history. Now a lot of Africans are acting a lot better. That's progress.
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated August 24:
As usual, this blog has been accused of being incoherent on race, and furthermore, I've been accused of being a racist myself, as usual. The person doing the accusing is apparently himself a White racist of the White Nationalist variety.
He says that any anti-racist would never call a Black man a "nigger" (Yes, I did this once about 15 years ago or so), and an anti-racist would not care anything about his neighborhood, city, county, metropolitan area or state being turned from 80% White into 90% Black or Korean or whatever, or the United Nations, even overnight. He also said that since I talk about race all the time, I must be a racist.
That's a pretty strange definition of anti-racism. I suppose that the typical anti-racist crazies would not care about such a thing, but your average White Californian is not too happy about replaced and displaced and turned into a minority in his state.
At the same time, he's usually not that racist himself, and he will often say that he opposes racism. He gets uncomfortable to irritated at any kind of overtly racist talk. He hates White nationalism, not to mention White Power Nazis. He hates segregation, the Indian Wars and apartheid in Africa. He's not too happy about colonialism.
He's in favor of interracial marriage and relationships often has friends or family who are in one. At the same time, he thinks that the standard PC anti-racism of the activist variety is completely insane, and he regards people who push this as radical nutcases. He has a low opinion of illegal aliens, but he may want to legalize them because he thinks it's cruel to send them all home. He hates racial slurs.
He supports all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws but is often dubious about affirmative action. He's typically pretty much indifferent to the whole topic of race and racism and finds the whole subject unpleasant and distasteful and doesn't want to talk about it. He thinks xenophobes who dislike all foreigners and want to stop all immigration are Know-Nothing Idiots.
He believes that there IQ differences between the races, but doesn't necessarily want to talk about it too much, though he regards the topic as fascinating.
He will often defend Amerindians, Filipinos, Aborigines, East Indians, Africans, Negritos, Gypsies, Blacks, Hispanics, Papuans, Melanesians, Polynesians, Micronesians and just about any other minority group that is often the subject of scorn. He will regard them as interesting people who are being oppressed and he wants to defend them.
At the same time, some of these people are racists, but only about certain people. I know some White Californians who are racist against Hispanics, especially illegal aliens. At the same time, these same people have Hispanic and even illegal alien friends and acquaintances because they believe in treating everyone as individuals.
White nationalists paint a bizarre picture of anti-racism that fails to describe how people really are. Either you're a crazed PC anti-racist radical, or else you're a racist White nationalist. You're one or the other. But people are complicated and most California Whites don't fit into either category. I suspect that many people of other races and ethnicities have similar conflicting views.
When it comes to race, as with many things, people are complicated, conflicted and all over the place. It's not just race. Humans are like this about all sorts of subjects. That's just the way people are. People don't necessarily have coherent views about many things, or about much of anything.
I admit to writing about race and racism all the time and even being obsessed with it. I'm also very interested in White nationalism for some reason, but the movement is repellent. If you go to antifa forums, you also find a lot of folks who are pretty obsessed with race. On sites like Humanbiodiversity, you find much the same thing. I doubt if this makes me a racist, but maybe it makes me a nut. Oh well.
Let me give you an example.
A friend of mine was over there the other day. Older White woman. I was showing her the website of Erectus Walks Among Us, and she thought the guy was a complete idiot. She said, "Why does he care? Why did he spend all this time writing a book on differences between the races?"
I said, "He's a White nationalist. That's all they think about all day long. That's all they care about. Black people are destroying America and the world and this is the most important issue of our time."
She shook her head and said, "Well! He's a nut!"
Then I asked her if she thought there were differences between the races of the type the guy is describing. She said I'm sure they exist. I asked her if she thought that most Whites thought there were differences between the races, and she said I think they do.
I then said that a lot of these people move to try to get away from Blacks and Hispanics. She said, "Sure? Of course they do. So? What's wrong with that?" I asked her if that's racist and she said, "Of course not!"
Later she was reading the paper and pointed to some morons who keep crashing cars into canals and drowning around here. These idiots drive with full carloads along the edges of canals and then fall in the canal and drown. I said, "They're all Hispanics." She laughed and said, "Of course they are! No one else is that stupid!"
But this woman totally hates White nationalism and all overtly White racist movements, supports all civil rights laws, supports interracial marriage (her son is married to an Asian), and hates segregationists, neo-Confederates, apartheid-lovers and supporters of the Indian Wars. She even defends illegals and wants to make them all into citizens.
She loves Obama and worries that the opposition to him is racist and that a lot of Whites voting against him are racists. She also harbors no illusions about other races. She thinks there are IQ differences by race and regards this as a fascinating though forbidden topic.
This is pretty much your average older White Californian.
Let's describe another fellow.
He's 45 years old and White. This guy will defend Blacks and the whole Black agenda, and he's voting for Obama too.
He's been known to use the word "nigger" but usually as humor. He saw Cynthia McKinney once on TV and started making monkey noises and laughing. We were talking about South Central LA once and he described it as "land of the silverbacks".
On the other hand, he thinks Whites who hate Blacks are idiots, and he's turned off by anti-Black racism. He supports reparations for Blacks, but he also says that a lot of Blacks are rapists and thieves, and Whites should be careful about getting involved with them. He often uses typical pro-Black rhetoric when describing Blacks and talks about how horribly we have treated them.
At the same time, when I was dating Black women 25 years ago, he said, "You're sick! How could you date a Black woman! You're a nigger lover!" And then he laughed.
He describes himself as a racist, but only towards Jews, Hispanics and South Indians. He thinks Whites, especially Northern European Whites, are superior to all other groups. The guy's basically a Nordicist and he's been known to read proto-Nazi literature by German authors. He has no amimosity towards anyone else.
He's furious about being made a minority in his home state and he blames Hispanics. He's mad at South Indians for "taking over all the 7-11's and gas stations." He's dated Amerindian and Japanese women. At the same time, he has Hispanic and even illegal alien friends. Nevertheless, he also openly states that Hispanics are an inferior race and that Amerindians are stupid.
Let's look at one more guy.
He's 48 years old and White. This guy who used to go on and on about the need for White people to procreate, as they are going extinct. He's also very racist against Blacks, as he used to work as a security guard and then a prison guard, and has lots of White cop friends, and White cops in California are extremely racist against Blacks, even if most others aren't.
He loves to quote statistics about Blacks and crime, and once, when I had bad experiences dating some Black women, he chided me and that's what you get for associating with Black people. At the same time, this guy dated a Black woman a while back (!) and he married a Vietnamese woman a few years ago and just fathered a Hapa kid (!). Does any of this make sense? Not really.
I'm sorry if people find these folks "incoherent on race", but that's just the way a lot of people are out here. Race is a complicated subject and it twists minds in some pretty interesting ways. That's what makes humans and life so interesting.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated August 23:
Boy, the Left has really gotten us into a pickle here, haven't they?
If you are on the Left, support any degree of socialism, or are even a liberal, you are obligated to go along with the whole PC nutjob package: support for the craziest notions of man-hating Western feminism, for White-hating and non-White-worshipping lunatic anti-racism, for the insanity of mass immigration, not to mention illegal immigration of all things, for the idiotic and suicidal notion of Open Borders.
I talk to regular White people all the time. The Western Left has precisely nothing to do with the realities of how most White human beings in the US live their lives. Most of them hate illegal immigration and want cuts in legal immigration. Most of them dislike mass immigration turning the US into a United Nations on every block. Most of them reject White-hatred and non-White-worship.
And fanatical Western feminism is increasingly trivial to the lives of hundreds of millions of non-Western women who labor under the horrors of misogyny and male supremacy vastly worse than what American women endure.
What I have noticed is that Western feminism seems irrelevant to the realities of how heterosexual males and females negotiate sex and relationships in modern times. It is as if Western feminism is broadcasting from some bizarro alternative universe that has nothing to do with the one most of us negotiate on a daily basis.
What I am trying to say is that the Western PC Left, as its constituted, is irrelevant.
It's hostile to men and Whites, and double so to White men. Any White man who buys into the bullshit of the Western Left must be out of his fucking mind.
It says right on the sidebar that I'm heterodox. You got it. For one thing, I'm a race realist. There are differences between the races and even within the races in terms of minor races and even ethnic groups. These differences are observable on a wide variety of metrics. It is irrelevant whether these differences are due to genetics or culture, since both intertwine anyway.
To see a particularly nasty view of race realism, shot through naturally all the way with racism, check out this book by Ricard Fuerle, a PhD in Economics and a patent attorney. The book is called Erectus Walks Among Us. The premise of the books is that Black people are monkeys, or apes, or Homo Erectus, or a much more primitive type of man. I'm almost done reading it. It's pretty entertaining, but I'm warning you, this is toxic stuff.
While most of us don't even want to think about stuff like this, he does marshal an awful lot of data showing that there are significant differences between the races. Philippe Rushton has done something similar lately and has been raked over the coals for it.
I will say right now that Rushton, Fuerle and the rest may be correct in some of what they say: there are more differences in the races than the obvious ones such as skin color. A quick rejoinder to this argument is typically shot from the Left: that in saying so, we are classifying ethnic groups and races in the same way we classify species and subspecies of animals - as having invariable behavior.
Like most Left rejoinders, this is garbage, but many racists sadly do think this way. I'm not much of an artist, but if I was, I would draw a scatterplot for you. That is what differences, particularly behavioral, psychological, intelligence and other such, but also including athletic ability, would look like between the races if you plotted them out on a graph.
On athletic ability, you would find Blacks more likely to plot superior on certain variables. Some Whites and even Asians would be over with the Blacks. Some Blacks would have very poor athletic ability. Racial and ethnic tendencies are only averages, and there will always be all sorts of individuals who will fall outside the stereotypes for their races.
Unless you understand what a scatterplot looks like, or unless you understand averages and statistics, you can't discuss racial differences at all.
Why discuss racial differences at all?
Because, for one, the Right keeps throwing them in our faces.
And because the Left's reaction to any racial or ethnic differences in outcome is wrong. The Left says that all races and ethnic groups are equal, and therefore, any differential outcomes must be the result of racism.
This leads the Left into insane, decades- to centuries-long, never-to-be won wars against racism, sexism, homophobia and whatnot. These things will probably always be with us. The insanity of the Left is the folly that they dream they can eradicate these aspects of human nature.
All you can do is reduce or increase things like that. I am certain that when I die, racism, sexism and homophobia will be alive and well, and the Left will be insanely waging war "to rid them from the Earth".
Scientifically speaking, it is certainly not true that if one race or ethnic group scores worse than another or does worse on any sort of variable, it must be due to racism. Surely there are all sorts of reasons why this might happen. The folly of the Left is its refusal to consider that there may be things other than racism causing this.
Problem is that almost anyone online taking a race realist position is simply a racist. And almost all such folks are Whites who are arguing at least for getting rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation and and at most for outright White separatism, apartheid, race war, or ethnic cleansing.
Wow. Breathtaking. You mean that if one acknowledges differences between the races on a variety of controversial variables, one must be a racist, a separatist, a fascist or a Nazi? Yes. This is what it means. Any socialist who steps outside of PC idiocy on race will find himself embraced by some other funny socialists. Almost all such persons will be sympathetic towards White racism, White separatism, fascism and Nazism.
Whew. Well, allow me to step out of the box here for a second. This blog will make the outrageous statement that race realism (a recognition that there are non-trivial differences between the races) and anti-racism can go hand and hand. Just because there are average differences between races does not mean we have to turn into a bunch of racist assholes, much less racial separatists.
There are specific, subspecific and racial differences all across the natural world of biology, and none of it necessarily leads to hating this or that brand of organism or critter. For instance, here in California, we have various threatened and endangered species that I know a lot about. We have Tipton Kangaroo Rats and California Red-legged Frogs and Alameda Whipsnakes.
I assure that all of these damned critters act different. I will assure you that a California Red-legged Frog acts a Hell of a lot different than a Foothill Yellow-legged frog, and an Alameda Whipsnake acts a Hell of a lot different than a Pacific Gopher Snake, and a Tipton Kangaroo Rat acts a lot different than a Dusky-Footed Woodrat. I, lover of nature, love all of these critters.
Why be a speciesist, a critter racist, lining up with the Tipton Kangaroo Rats and swearing to drive the California Red-legged Frogs to extinction? I, lover of humans, love all humans. Why should I be a human-critter racist, lining up with the White human critters against this or that non-White human critters? They act different. So? So do all the other critters.
The reason for the Left's opposition to race realism is quite simple. All we have to do is look at the agenda of those big names promoting hardcore race realism. They're all White, and almost all, or all of them are on the Right or the Far Right, and I haven't found one yet who was not a hardcore racist.
Furthermore, every prominent race realist out there supports getting rid of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. The reason being that if there are average differences between races, people ought to be able to discriminate racially or ethnically against individuals on the basis of those averages.
But average differences mean nothing when it comes to individuals. Individuals are individuals and groups are groups. You can't tally up group stuff and use it to thumbs up or thumbs down on individuals in the group. Forget it. Group differences be damned, one still must treat individuals as individuals.
With such a bunch of ugly creeps running the show, is it any wonder that decent people run away from race realism in droves?
It's really sad that socialists have to choose between fascists and PC airheads. There's got to be more space in the room than that. Come on.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
It's completely clear that no matter how wrong racism itself is (and the position of this blog is that racism is both immoral and sinful in the Christian sense), modern anti-racism (de facto race denial) of the PC, Cultural Marxist variety has gone completely out of control.
Allow me to share with you some examples of some of the trouble I have gotten into with the anti-racist lunacy that stalks our land.
We're going to avoid one case completely because some of the idiots involved in this case keep coming back to the blog trying to engage in character assassination of me.
I have some hangouts where I like to go to, buy coffee, read a paper, whatever.
One is up in the mountains. The town is all White for the most part and extremely conservative, but lunatic anti-racism has penetrated to the core nevertheless.
I had some posts on my blog called "Spot the Language". It's a little game where I posted a snippet of a widely-spoken foreign language, gave a bunch of oblique, strange and obscure clues about the country dealing with history, religion, culture, the language itself, sociology, psychology, history, famous people, cuisine, geography, native plants, animals and ecosystems, etc.
I quit showing them to people because either no one can understand it, or no one gives a shit about it, or they don't want to read it because they hate me, or some combination, I'm not sure which. Mostly it seems like nobody can make heads or tails of it, and most people I gave it to act really disturbed and upset by it for some weird reason. I think they can't understand it, so they think it's evil and dangerous.
Well, I made the mistake of showing it to this guy at this place in the mountains. He's White in an all-White town, but he loves Hispanics and illegal aliens, probably because he never had to live with lots of them. He's a pretty typical White person in this part of California. There was another post interspersed with the language stuff dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and he got all caught up in that.
He kept flipping the pages, looking through the stuff and getting more and more confused, baffled, agitated and freaked out. He started saying, “What is this? Jews? Arabs?” He was saying that over and over. He acted like I was showing him child porn. That's the way most people react to my writing, which is why I never show anyone my stuff anymore.
I answered, jokingly, “Jews? Arabs? Oh, those are just excitable Semites.”
He didn’t get it, of course. A lot of the time, no one ever gets my jokes. “What’s a Semite?” He’s baffled. He acts like it must be something evil, or a disease.
“Oh, it’s a branch of the Caucasian Race." I smile.
Now he's really upset. The guy goes nuts. “What? What?! What’s that?! What’s Caucasian? What's the Caucasian RACE?! What's that? What do you mean RACE?!"
"Caucasian is a race. It's one of the three main races. The Caucasian race. The White race." I'm still smiling because this whole incident is starting to get amusing.
Now he's visibly agitated. "White race!? What?! What’s the White race!? What's that!? Do you believe in that stuff!?”
He’s angry now. I decide to speak up in favor of my blighted and abused people: “Well, I think White people have a right to be proud. I think White people should be proud. Everyone else is. Only Whites are supposed to hate themselves. I don't think we should hate ourselves or deny our existence. We are not bad people.”
“You believe in that?!” Now he looks like he’s going to hit me.
I look up and there’s two White girls working in the shop, frozen, staring, mouths open.
I try to backtrack my way out of the conversation and get the handout back.
A few days later, I come in and apologize for making him mad. The high school girl behind the counter says, “Well, in the future if you could avoid discussing that. You know. Discussing people’s races.”
I will note that everyone involved in this idiotic event is a White person.
Another time I was in another hangout. I was talking to a woman there who used to work in a coffee shop in town that I used to hang out at all the time.
We were talking about the people who had taken it over, a mother and her daughter. I was describing them. "They're Spaniards," I said noncommittally. She gave me this look like, "I'm shutting this conversation down." I guess it's not ok to discuss the heritage of White folks anymore? Wait a minute. I like Spaniards.
I was in a dentist's office and unfortunately the conversation somehow wormed around to our heritage. I'm French, British and German. The hygienist was Hispanic from back before California was a state, back in the days of the Californios. We have a lot of those around these parts and it's always interesting to meet them. The dentist, well, I forget, but I think he didn't want to discuss it.
"Let's not talk about anymore of this racist stuff," the hygienist said, like we were talking about grubby worms or something. The dentist agreed.
One time a guy gave me his business card. I looked at it said, "Oh, you're Italian," with a big smile. It's the name of a famous family of winemakers. The guy acted like I had challenged him to a fight. Why? I'm not supposed to say that anymore?
Actually, I love Italians. Tell you what. I'll trade you 10,000 illegal Mexicans from my city for 10,000 glorious, civilized, hard-working, law-abiding, patriotic Italian-Americans. Deal?
Seemed like when I was younger, Whites always talked about their heritage. It was, "I'm Italian," "I'm Irish," "I'm half Greek and half Mexican." Everyone was always proud of their heritage. I guess that's all banned now. It's racist.
On and on it goes.
There's a Russian neo-Nazi video on this site. It's clearly labeled that it's up there for anti-fascist and anti-racist purposes. The local Hispanics have all seen it. According to them, having this video on my site means I'm a Nazi. I've explained to them over and over why it's up there, but it's like they don't get it.
At another hangout, there was a Black guy and an Hispanic guy who I used to sit with, drink coffee and talk. The Black guy never did tell me his name in all the time I knew him. That was one of his weird things: he wouldn't tell you his name.
Anyway, when I first met the guy, we were talking about the Jena 6 case. I was writing it up on the blog. I said I thought the whole thing was a fake White-racism hoax a la Tawana Brawley, that race had little or nothing to do with the case, that the Jena 6 were a bunch of thugs, and that Mychal Bell had dislocated his girlfriend's eye socket. Well, this was evidence that I was a racist.
The guy had long Black dreadlocks and loved to go on and on about the Evil White Man. There are Blacks like this everywhere here, and American Indians, and Hispanics too. They just open right up on us and start ranting away about all the evil shit we did or still do or whatever. I always just sit there and listen to them and nod my head and more or less agree that I'm evil.
Funny thing is, if a White person ever unloads on any American Indian, Black or Hispanic about all the evil stuff they did or still do, that's like Capital Offense Racism of the First Degree. So we Whites just have to sit there and grovel masochistically and admit how evil we were, and probably still are. Of course non-Whites never admit to any such thing.
I lived in a White town for 16 years and hardly got ripped off at all. I move to an Hispanic city and there have been little ripoffs all the time. Little "loans" that of course never get paid back. Young Hispanics invite their way into your home, you turn your back on them, and they steal from you. That's happened five times now. The "loans" go out to the Hispanics and Blacks, and they never come back.
So I complain to Dreadlocks. "I wonder if they are ripping me off because I'm White," I offer dubiously, since I've run out of theories. The guy jumps out of his seat, "Racist! Racist! Racist!" He's almost yelling. His Hispanic Tonto is on on it too.
I can't use the words "Black" and "White". Dreadlocks corrects me. That's racist. I have to use the words "African" and "European" instead. And never forget that the Europeans are the most evil race that ever set foot on this planet.
I was in a specialist's office, on the phone with a friend. I'm into race and ethnicity, I eat it for breakfast. I was telling her about how I was in my town, in a doctor's office, looking at a man and his daughter. Were they Mestizos? Were they Mediterranean of Middle Eastern Whites? You can never tell in this town, they all blur together.
Finally, the little girl was walking out the door and she had a t-shirt that said "Greece". The Med Whites in this town are really ethnocentric. They're always walking around with shirts saying "Italy" or "Portugal". It's kind of neat, ethnocentric ethnic Whites, the way our country used to be.
"Greeks are White," I note to my friend on the phone.
My mulatto specialist starts waving his hand like a traffic cop. There's such thing as Whites. There's no such thing as a White race. There's no such thing as race. Plus, Whites all got a little Black in em anyway. Especially those swarthy Meds.
Hispanics are the craziest of all about this stuff. Most Hispanics don't seem to understand that they are part White and part Indian. I don't know what they think they are. They are especially pissed off by the notion that they may have a drop of White in them, and most don't have the slightest idea of what a mestizo is. White's the enemy, after all, right?
It's like the opposite of Latin America, where the mestizo crabs are all climbing to the top of the White barrel, pulling each other down as they near the top.
Some Hispanics have told me that people think that they are Asian due to their eyes. I point out that that was because, being part-Mexican, they were part-Indian, and Indians came from Asia. They never seem to understand, and then they get upset and act like they're shutting down the conversation. It's like I'm speaking Greek.
I'm not saying Hispanics are stupid, because my opinion, having been around a lot of them, is that they are way smarter than you might think in terms of sheer brain speed, but it's like there is not much in their brains most of time other than the latest rap songs and the usual quotidian stuff.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
On the more mainstream and moderate White nationalist sites such as American Renaissance, the general tone of the pieces and in the comments is that there really is no such thing as White racism in the US anymore.
There are only a pitiful few incidents here and there, and it's all a big joke.
Hanging nooses is just a silly gag. Blacks and Hispanics need to quit being so hypersensitive about everything, and just let it go. Racism, when it refers to Whites, is always in quotes, implying it does not even exist, while other races are constantly accused of racism against Whites that is actually real. So it is as if the only real racism problem in the US is against White people.
The usual response is to say that these people are just a bunch of lying racists.
I will, however, say that there is a bit of truth to these accusations. Racism by Whites is dramatically exaggerated in the US, and every little comment or scribble is inspected for the horrible crime. Hispanics and Blacks in particular are far too wont to yell racism over every little thing, in many cases over mostly or completely innocent comments.
Entire subjects that do not necessarily have anything to do with racism are walled off and forbidden from discussion. On the other hand, non-Whites get to bash away at Whites for all of their racial crimes, past, present and future, while Whites are supposed to sit there and take it, groveling, like guilty supplicants. There is a presumption that non-Whites are incapable of racism and that Whites are automatically filled with it.
This is all nonsense, but it's a product of the Left in the US and the West that started this crazy conversation about 40 years ago. They've been quite successful selling this silliness to the public.
On the other hand, there surely is racism in the US. I don't think much of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), but they do have an interesting list of racist incidents in the US for the first three months of 2008. It seems pretty incredible the amount of this stuff that is going on, or is it?
One thing for sure - you rarely hear about it in your own town. Considering what a multicultural society we are, it is amazing that there is not much more of this going on in every reasonable-sized city just about every day. Right? Or am I wrong?
You will note that simple name-calling is apparently not listed, and is not a crime. Some of the stuff on that list seem a bit of a reach. In the course of a fight, or altercation, racial slurs are uttered. Now we have a hate crime.
Auburn, California (Legal Developments) Published on 03-06-2008 "Lance Clements, 37, was arrested on hate crime related charges after he allegedly made racial slurs against a black student and a Hispanic student during an altercation."
This strikes me as an excess. There was an altercation. A fight? A verbal fight, or a physical one? In the course of the altercation, some slurs got uttered. This is a crime? I'd like to know some more facts about this case.
Unfortunately, in a free society people get to call each other names, and in the course of fights, people will just call each other any slur that comes to their minds that seems to apply to the person they are fighting.
For instance, in the past ten years, I did call a Black man a nigger once. On the other hand, I'm going to say I'm not a racist.
He ran a recycling place and I used to take my bottles up there. He got mad at me when I did not separate my browns from my greens from my clears. I forget what happened, but a shouting match ensued. This is not normal behavior for me - I'm a quiet guy and I don't get into it much with people. In the course of this argument, I called him a nigger. Not once, but a few times.
Not because I'm a raving racist; I'll say I'm not, and you're welcome to disagree. More because at that moment I hated him, he was Black, and fishing in my bag of tricks for insults, it seemed appropriate. If he was fat or ugly, I would have insulted him on those bases.
I've since talked to a Black woman I know, and she was quite upset that I did that. I'm going to think about whether I want to do that again.
I wonder how often this sort of thing goes on? In the course of fights and shouting matches, angry people will say stuff they would not ordinarily say. Not out of racism or bigotry, but because in a fight, you use any ammo you've got.
Most of the other stuff on that list is pretty clear-cut and straightforward. I was shocked by the amount of anti-Semitism in the US. I don't like the ADL, and I think they go nuts about anti-Semitism, but you can see quite a few cases on that list of anti-Semitic graffiti on Jewish institutions, vandalism of Jewish graveyards, actual assaults on and threats against Jews, etc.
I was appalled by that, and surprised. For the first time in a while, I will throw a shout out to the Jewish groups who are publicizing this, while deploring their efforts to code as anti-Semitic a wide variety of comments and writings that are generally not. The ADL types go overboard, but there's clearly an anti-Semitism problem. Things are complicated.
On the White Nationalist boards, there is a lot of talk about how most assaults by Blacks against Whites are accompanied by racial slurs. Typically, the police deny that a hate crime occurred. The White Nationalists have an interesting point, and if White assaults combined with slurs get hate crime attachments, it's about time to start slamming a lot of Blacks with the same stuff.
I guess the assumption is that the Black criminal victimized the person just to be a criminal, and that racism was secondary, and therefore the attack was not primarily bias-motivated, instead it was primarily dirty criminal-motivated. Perhaps that is so, but fair is fair, and there appears to be a double-standard here.
There were 104 incidents over a 93 day period in the first three months of 2008. That's a little over one a day, and most all of these incidents are pretty serious.
A 2005 report by the US government found that there were 191,000 hate crimes in that year. That's 600 a day! That's 24 an hour. One every two or three minutes. Does that seem credible?
I wonder what standard they were using to judge what is a hate crime? The same as in the SPLC list? If so, there's still a big problem here in the US. But if they are using everything down to my little argument above, the report is pretty meaningless. Someone might want to get ahold of that report and see what's really in it.
White nationalists say that in a multicultural society, these sort of incidents are to be expected and are in fact normal. Why? Because a certain amount of racial hostility is to be expected in such a society. Are they right? If not, why not?
The appropriate response to this issue is the Middle Way, as the Taoists say. Not to overemphasize racism and exaggerate it out of all sanity, and not, on the other hand, to say that it barely even exists anymore.
For the record, SPLC does list several anti-immigrant groups that do not strike me as racist in any way, shape or form. SPLC says:
These groups generally attack immigrants as individuals, rather than merely disagreeing with immigration policy. Some have close ties to white supremacist ideas, groups and individuals.
That statement is just wrong about several of those groups. The groups listed are:
American Border Patrol
California Coalition for Immigration Reform
Save Our State
American Patrol/Voice of Citizens Together
Rescue Without Borders
Federation for American Immigration Reform
Social Contract Press
Emigration Party of Nevada
Border Guardians
American Immigration Control Foundation/Americans for Immigration Control
Of those, Save Our State, American Patrol and the Federation for American Immigration Reform are surely not racist at all. I can't speak of the rest, but I imagine they are the same. True, Social Contract Press is racist, but they are on the moderate end of White nationalism.
It seems like any group screaming about the illegal alien invasion of the US is going to get tagged with a racist label. That's where SPLC is so wrong and does a lot of damage.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
First one White nationalist commenter attacked me for supporting Whiteness Studies. According to him, it's nothing but anti-White propaganda. Then I offered an explanation for what I meant here:
Actually I endorse Whiteness Studies in a way. First of all, I want to reject the vast majority of this nutty discipline.
It's filled with contempt for Whites, race-denying nonsense conflated with obsession with race (tell me how that makes sense?!), White groveling, self-abjection and guilt admission and obsession in the face of an implied superiority of non-Whites. In short, it's like modern anti-racism taken to a Mad Magazine extreme of absurdity.
But there is an aspect of Whiteness Studies where the Whites in it sit around and analyze how they themselves are racist against non-Whites and resolve to try to get rid of their racism. And a lot of them have acknowledged that it is going to be a lifetime battle, and some say that they may never be over it.
I kind of like the notion that we all have racist parts of ourselves and that those of us who are better at least work to try to reduce or get rid of our racist feelings.
In anti-racist insane America, you realize that it is a mortal sin to admit that you have ever experienced even the slightest, tiniest, most infinitesimal trace of racism, especially if you are White. Ask around to just about anyone, and they will tell you that not only do they lack the tiniest hint of racism in even the deepest recesses of their soul, but that they have been anti-racist pristine for their entire lives.
Admit to having 1% racism in your 99% anti-racist soul, or that you ever uttered a racist word or thought a racist thought, and be prepared for verbal lashings or deadly stares. Such is the madness of anti-racist America in 2008, and I do applaud Whiteness Studies for their honesty.
Whew! How's that for an outrageous and provocative thing to say? To which a commenter, also a White nationalist but not particularly racist, Uncle Milton, counters:
I went to the blog of the guy named Tom who described either your posts on Black crime or the comments as racist bilge which led me to a "Whiteness" website that was filled with false statements such as Whites commit the highest number of serial murders (nope , per capita it's Blacks..) or that White middle class people have the highest rates of suicide. (nope, tragically it's native Americans..)
Most of what I have seen of Whiteness Studies is self-hating or a rehashing of stereotypes. Everyday I am in an environment where I am a minority (at my work, the majority of my colleagues are Asian..) and generally I have no problems with them since they tend to be civil and competent. However in the past when I have been forced to live or work around an environment that is a majority Black then I have been quite unhappy.
Am I a racist in need of Whiteness studies or perhaps am I reacting to repeat acts of violence towards me (accompanied by verbal epithets such as White Mutha Fucka), theft, and name calling that called attention to the color of my skin?
This commenter exemplifies something that I might call guilty racism. I think he has some racist feelings towards Blacks, but he doesn't really feel good about them deep down inside. Hold on tight now, because we are getting into some religious and spiritual issues here, specifically Christian.
I'm now going to a Catholic Church and I just love it. One of the things that I love about it is the guilt. Guilt is actually a very debilitating thing, but I've been living with it my whole life, so it's very important to me, if even in an awful way.
I think that guilt is badly stigmatized. Guilty types are considered to be criminals, rapists, child molesters, and killers. Nothing is further from the truth. Antisocials are extremely violent and feel no guilt and obsessives, as one example, are the most nonviolent people on Earth and feel tremendous guilt.
The more guilt, the less violence. The more criminality, violence and antisocial behavior and activity, the less guilt. Real simple. All other things being equal, you should feel relaxed with a guilty type. Maybe they aren't any fun, but they probably won't hurt you. Alas, too many find the allure of the guiltless antisocial too delicious to pass up.
One thing I love about Catholicism is that they understood this truism long ago. The people always coming into confession all the time had never even done anything wrong, and were confessing about nothing at all. The best people were confessing the most. The worst people were never showing up at all.
It's still this way, even in psychologists' offices. Yet clinicians don't seem to get it either. Many clinicians can't even seem to reliably spot antisocials. If we train our clinicians to spot anyone, it ought to be antisocials.
Clinicians continue to confuse the worst people on Earth with the best people. This is a very interesting area of human nature, where even the best experts with most degrees and study seem to fail us. One wonders if some simple rural types somewhere would be wiser.
I've got to have a place in my heart for the guilty racist. When you go to White racist fora, you see lots of Whites on there who have had a lot of really bad experiences with minorities, in particular with Blacks.
Many are saying that they just want to wash their hands of Blacks altogether and get away from them. They want a divorce and no more troubles. A part of me feels for these folks. You get hurt, and you want to stay away. Such a perseverative human response.
I guess I'm a Catholic at heart. If you are a racist, just go right ahead and be one. Feel proud about it like 95% of them do. But there is a part of me that says that if you sin, at least feel bad about it. And racism, in my book, is a sin.
A Christian may sin, but if he feels guilt about sin, he gets +1 from me. If he resolves to stop sinning and tries to stop, then there's nothing more that he can do. At that point, one wonders if the person is even a sinner.
This is where Whiteness Studies, in all of its stupidity, insanity and idiocy, is beautiful. It had to have been thought up by a Catholic. Whiteness Studies is full of Whites who acknowledge that they have racist tendencies, but resolve to dedicate the rest of their lives to absolving them and purging them.
Who cannot love a sinner who has the nerve and courage to confess to the world and then try to go on the straight and narrow? That is Christianity in an essence.
An admission of guilt and sin is a beautiful thing to this Christian.
The world is full of those who pronounce moral purity. This has become the litmus test of our day. Moral purity in regard to race is an acid test of our times. It's hard to find a young person nowadays, or often anyone, who will admit to ever harboring the measliest racist sentiment. Oh how pure they are.
Purity, especially the probably dishonest kind, is as oppressive as smog. We are all peculiar mixtures of good and bad. We do good, and we should be proud, we do bad, and at the very least, we should feel bad.
Racism on an individual level is sinful simply because each and every individual should be evaluated on their own self-worth and nothing else. Disliking or shunning someone of one race who you would easily associate with if they were another race has got to be wrong, wrong, wrong. Dislike of groups collectively or from a distance is often perfectly reasonable and expression of self-preservation.
No, Unc doesn't need Whiteness Studies. No one does. You're a free agent and you can feel what you will. But if you want to recognize racism and combat it in yourself, you'll always get a cheer and a hug from me.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
It now says on the About Me sidebar that I am an anti-racist racialist. That may seem confusing to most folks.
There is a difference between racism and racialism. Racism is what most folks think it is. To me, it means to dislike or not wish to associate with a given individual based on their race or ethnic group. I don't agree that disliking or wishing to avoid certain groups in their aggregate is racism.
For instance, it is certainly possible to look at US Blacks and say that, globally, they seem to have lower morals, high rates of sociopathy, lower IQ, less civilized behavior, much higher crime rates, higher rates of dishonesty and a tendency to break the rules, etc.
All of these things are more or less proven by empirical research, or, if not, based on my life experience, they are true anyway. I really don't need science to prove that; I can see it with my very eyes. These differences appear most common at lower income levels. At greater income levels, I see less and less difference between Blacks and other races.
Where racism goes wrong, in my opinion, and where it is irrational, stupid and just plain immoral, sinful and wrong, is that it lumps all individuals of a given group into the average of the whole group. For instance, racists apply the negative portrayal above of the Black group to each and every individual Black that they meet. This is madness.
Despite the fact that I believe that the Black group does have greater rates of the negatives above, it's clear to me that any given individual Black may be just as good and decent of a person, if not better, than any White friend I have or have ever had.
And there are many, many Blacks that do not have any of the qualities listed above. Therefore, it seems wrong for me to decide to have White friends and not to have friends of other races. That's just a personal decision on my part.
I would also say that it is possible to have racist feelings while realizing that they are wrong and struggling against them. This is the essence of Christian morality. Obviously, it's best if we limit our sins to the minimum. But many of us sin nevertheless. Regardless of the sin, one must recognize it's immorality and strive to reduce or end the immoral behavior.
Now, I happen to think that the overwhelming majority of racists do not feel the tiniest bit guilty at all, but there are some that really do feel bad about their racism and work on ending it.
In fact, there is an entire field called Whiteness Studies, which, in spite of being ridiculous race-deniers, takes this as a given in its theory. Whiteness Studies authors, usually White, often write about how they battle against their own internalized racism against non-Whites. Some say it will be a lifelong journey and they do not expect to ever completely overcome it.
Although this entire field is mocked by White racists, I applaud these honest individuals and their efforts.
Racists are usually trying to give intellectual or moral cover to their feelings. For instance, it is quite common for White racists to just say that they are cutting their losses as far as other races. Sure, they may be a few good Blacks out there, but why bother trying to winnow through the good from the bad in trying to figure out who is worth associating with? Why not just be done with the entire group and avoid them?
I really do not believe that most White racists are just cutting their losses (they just use that as a phony excuse for their racism), though do I feel that there are a few like this, and I sympathize with them. I'm not even sure if they are really racists.
Racialism is actually a completely different term with a different meaning. The Wikipedia article gives a pretty good picture of the formal meaning of the term. Unfortunately, the term racialism has been taken over by White racists in an effort to cover up their racism with fake and nice-sounding words.
Even the Wikipedia article talk page shows that both anti-racist boneheads and White nationalist liars have taken over the article and tried to mangle it to serve there ridiculous or dishonest agendas.
Strictly speaking, racialism simply means that one accepts the existence of various races of mankind. I doubt if it really means anything more than that. Many racialists feel that there are real and objective genetic differences between the races, but I do not think that that is a requirement to be a racialist.
A racialist would look at things like IQ scores, the makeup of 100-yard dash winners in the Olympics and the NBA, crime rates, etc. and would say that race is a common factor behind these scores. The race-denier would say that, first, there is no such thing as race, and second, that race has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with these discrepancies.
So a non-racialist is, strictly speaking, a race-denier. This position, that there is no such thing as race, has become quite popular lately, but I think it is complete nonsense. A non-racialist would also argue that because race does not exist, all differential racial attributes on various performance, membership and incidence variables is strictly coincidental.
Yes, I do believe that there are races and there are average differences between them on various variables. I do not believe that race does not exist.
Nowadays, most folks who call themselves racialists are just racists, almost always White racists. I'm going to step out of the closet and become one of the first anti-racist racialists to publicly identify oneself.
The objective of the race-deniers is clear. Once one cuts past the nonsense and crap, it seems there is a laudable agenda here. The race-deniers believe that the more people focus on race, the more racist they become. Unfortunately, it is probably true. So, by saying that race does not exist, they hope to strike a blow against racism. This is a noble goal and I sympathize.
However, I do not believe in abusing science and truth to achieve societal objectives. The existence of race is an objective fact to me, and I am not interested in denying it to further some anti-racist objective. Perhaps I'm contributing to racism by doing this. I doubt it, but even if I am, I don't really care. There are no truths that are so horrible that they should not be discussed or revealed.
There has also been a lot of confusion about me supporting White Pride. Well, I think that most every other race or ethnic group out there seems to have quite a bit of ethnic pride. Except Whites. This is denied to us.
The reason is that White Pride has led to some pretty nasty and horrible outcomes in the past 70 years or so. In wishing to avoid the recrudescence of such movements, people just want to do away with the sentiment altogether.
In other words, your average White who gets into the White Pride thing turns into, at worst, a raving Nazi or racist fascist fuck, or, at best, into some sort of genteel white bread polite racist type. So we have the strange scenario in which Whites all over the world deny that there is anything good about being White, deny any pride in their heritage, or even apologize for being White.
I think that that is a bit silly. I look in the mirror and see my White features and I like them and feel good about them. I'm comfortable with White folks, White behavior and White features because that's what I'm used to, and also what I believe in and am attracted to. I don't agree that we are bad or evil or need to apologize for ourselves. I do not think we need to be bred off the face of the Earth to protect the planet.
That's all I am talking about. If the above really bothers you so much and you think I'm a racist jerk, well, fine, you really don't have to come around here. We are not dying for readers; we get ~1,500 readers a day and can easily lose some.
I hope that that clears things up.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Independent Left journalist in California. Trustafarian in a shackteau, slumming it up in the barrio. Revolutionary, Leftist nationalist, Christian, liberation theology, replacement theology. BA Journalism, MA Linguistics, Green Party, Communist Party USA, Democratic Party.
Generally, topics focused through a progressive yet heterodox lens. Discusses race a lot. Also lots of shock and horror videos - if it bugs you, don't read or watch. Pan-humanist universalist, non-racist race realist, despises the PC, Cultural Marxist, Identity Politics, Western New Left. Iconoclast, smashes all party lines, angers everyone. Notorious provocateur; if I'm not making you mad, I'm not doing my job. Channeling Andy Kaufman, Tony Clifton, Lenny Bruce, Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Kinky Friedman, Hunter S. Thompson and Wally Gator. Shoot first.
