I have debates with liberals by post office mail and by email (not to mention chat rooms) frequently. It's got to the point where I seldom hear anything new from them, and I can almost guess which bit of obfuscation or confusion they're going to attempt before it gets out of their mouths (or keystrokes). Here's a debate between someone in Missouri and myself on the subject of racial tolerance.
Here's my letter to Mimi.
Liberals impress me as being people who have gotten way ahead of everyone else on the philosophy of disaster. Their ideas sound good on paper, but, one by one, they prove devastating in practice. The liberal problem seems to be one of insisting on impractical “shoulds” concerning human behavior. People “should” love each other. Marxism “should” work just fine. Different races “should” get along fine together. When they’ve led people far enough down that road for the signs of ruin to be obvious, some of the liberals, like me, stop being liberals. The rest of them produce blindfolds, gags, leashes, and tie everyone up, and continue marching and singing hymns about social justice and racial equality loudly enough to smother any whimpers from their prisoners. And nothing will suffice to show some liberals the error of their ways. They'll preach morals to the very laws of nature and would advise God on the right way to do things. They start with their wants, and convert them to shoulds, and statistical evidences of their failure will simply not attract their notice.
I think that the reason the liberal err so badly about fact, and thus the reason for why there exists any controversy over race, is that liberals attempt to deduce fact from their moral sense. That doesn't work because Nature has never been under any compulsion to be nice. A person is never informed about the facts of existence, or about the laws of nature, by way of his moral sense. That is, moral sense is not a substitute for eyes and experience. Moral sense tells you what to do about the facts, once experience has made you aware of what they are, of what you're up against. But Liberals, by the attempt to produce fact from moral sense, ask themselves how things should be. The races "ought" to be equal because that's "fair." Setting the races equal before the law is as ignorant an act as setting p legally equal to three—something that arrogant legislators have also done.
Nigger originally meant "slave." The word slave came from "Slav" because the Slavonic peoples were often enslaved by Tartars, Mongols, Turks, etc. Sevdalina is part Slav (and part Nordic).
My tribal feeling doesn't include just anybody inside the US borders. I feel closest to other Celtic descendants, then to those of Nordic/Germanic stock, and somewhat to Slavs. I've even met some fair-skinned Iranians who stuck me as being close-to-Whites, almost in the family you might say. My feeling for Blacks (and etcetera) is not so much the absence of respect, in the sense that I'd willingly give it to any Black who earned it, but rather it's a feeling that they are most definitely not in my larger family. They are outside, other...just barely this side of "monster." They're people who take extra effort to be around.
Two weeks ago, the West Virginia Dept of Transportation had work crews out sawing off the limbs of trees overhanging the highway, so that they couldn't fall on somebody's car. Along with dozens of other people, I took advantage of the chance to grab some free firewood for my wood stove. A White policeman (this area doesn't have any Black police as far as I know) was directing traffic around one of the work crews. On impulse, as I passed him, I rolled down the window and, in a conversational yell, said, "You can tell these guys that they don't have to grind up the wood into sawdust. People will haul this stuff away for free." The policeman laughed good-naturedly, exactly as I knew he would, even though I'd never met him before in my life. I would hesitate to act on such an impulse with a Black policeman; he might also laugh good-naturedly, but I can't anticipate it with enough confidence. With Whites, I can presume on that racial family feeling. With Blacks, I cannot.
But the individual Black is not exactly a racist's concern. Racists notice patterns in the behavior of racial groups. When an area's demographics change from all-White to mostly Black, certain correlated changes in the social environment can be depended on to happen.
Violent crimes increase, and the neighborhood is no longer safe to walk in at night. If Blacks continue to migrate into the area, then it will eventually be dangerous even in the daytime.
Robbery increases, starting with sneak thievery and shop-lifting, but graduating to armed robbery and gang-extortion as Black criminals gain confidence in their ability to get away with their crimes.
White women become targets of Black rapists, and the more so as the local government becomes too corrupt (or too spineless) to defend the victims with the appropriate legal vigor.
White children get beaten up by gangs of Blacks at school, and the school authorities are too timid or too corrupt to do anything about it.
The civil authorities begin imposing, at first subtly, a double standard for White and Black crimes, in which Whites are held strictly to account for even small infractions (such as name-calling) while Blacks are allowed, by means of a look-the-other-way policy, to get away with more serious and even violent crimes. (Lonny Rae, a White Idahoan, was arrested for impolitely referring to a "nigger" who had assaulted his wife—the Black man was not charged. In Seattle, during a race riot, police stood by and watched as groups of Blacks ganged up on, and beat to unconsciousness, White victims.)
The cultural level starts to deteriorate, as the music shifts from uplifting, sentimental White forms to the rhythmic, chanting negroid forms that appeal to the darker, baser side of human nature.
Public vulgarity becomes more common, until at last it becomes the norm.
The area becomes trashier, too.
And welfare offices spring up, where none had ever been needed before.
(In the 1970's, at the moment I forget where, the US Government built a modern hi-rise apartment building and then filled it with Black tenants. Within a few months, the building had to be evacuated and torn down. It had been vandalized by its residents, windows broken, riddled with bullet holes, and it appears that the electrical wiring had been shorted out in places by improperly disposed urine—in particular, in the elevators.)
Footnote: I was referring to Pruitt-Igoe, which was built in 1955 (not in the 1970s) and turned over to niggers the following year. The place was ruined by its Black occupants, despite the best efforts of repair crews. The filthy, almost uninhabitable wreckage of what had been a modern high-rise 3800-apartment complex was demolished in 1972.
All of these symptoms result from the demographic shift of an area from White to mostly Black. An all-White city will have about 590 "serious violent crimes" (the FBI classification for murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault and rape) per 100,000 residents per year. For each percent of Black residents, however, you can add 35 more serious violent crimes. An all-Black city would have about 4000 serious violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year. See Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, Tables 46 and 311.
Here's Mimi's letter to me.
You have a bothersome and ugly view of non-whites. You fail to realize that "poor white trash" live and act like blacks in the ghetto live. You fail to realize that lack of hope dooms humans to a crippled state. Crippled people don't act like people whom the gods smiled on. I want to try to balance the unfairness of the luck of the draw, you want to proclaim your superiority.
Your obvious intelligence and skill with words does not make up for your lack of compassion.
Living in the Ozarks, we live in the midst of what we label as "red necks." We've had to ask neighbors not to use the N word around us, and they mostly remember.
My father, a teacher, raised us children color blind. We had visiting students from all over the world share our home, especially at holiday time.
I wonder how your parents raised you, and where, for you to develop such a strong anti-black stance. Do you discuss your racist ideas with your neighbors?
Here's my letter to Mimi.
I have a natural and realistic view of non-Whites, which is based on solid statistical evidence that you have chosen to ignore. When you refer to yourself as “color-blind,” it is this blindness that you actually mean, whatever you may believe. Among other things, you appear to think…
Different races + same conditions = same behavior (by and large, on the average)
But the truth is…
Different races + same conditions = different behavior (by and large, on the average)
Understanding that your present idea is wrong and that mine is correct requires only that you appreciate why impartial, statistical methods are superior to your emotionally biased anecdotal data and any unwarranted generalizations therefrom. Yes, you know nice Blacks. Yes, you've heard about vicious Whites. But these are exceptions contrary to the trend, to which you give undue weight for two reasons:
(1) The media are under the control of Jews who distort/misrepresent the facts about racial differences in behavior in order to confuse gentile Whites (like you, I presume) and
(2) You have an emotional predisposition to see what you want to see, as most humans do until they learn to apply scientific habits to the study of people.
Relevant and fairly comprehensive statistical information is available to you, or to anyone, who will put forth a modest effort to obtain it. Sources include the US Census Bureau, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and government publications such as Statistical Abstract of the United States. It is from these national surveys that you will find data sufficient to answer the questions before us, and not from episodes in your personal life. You'd need thousands of lifetimes to gather as much relevant information from personal experience, assuming that you could remember it, as the government collects in a single year.
Let's take, as an example, the commonly heard liberal argument that the higher per capita rates for violent crimes among Blacks, as compared with those among Whites, is due to the greater proportion of Blacks in poverty. The underlying assumption to this argument is that Blacks are driven to commit crimes in order to obtain the basic essentials of life, such as food, or things that are hard to be without, such as transportation. This, say the liberals, is why Blacks steal money and property, especially automobiles.
However, this is a false notion. Poverty cannot be the root cause of the disparity between Black and White rates for violent crimes. Poor Whites do not display anywhere near the level of crime that poor Blacks do. According to the US Census, 11.2% of American Whites and 29.0% of US-resident Blacks lived in poverty in 1995. Yes, a higher percentage of Blacks than of Whites are poor. But how many poor Whites and poor Blacks are we talking about? Obviously, poverty can't motivate anyone who is not poor to commit a violent crime. In 1995, there were 218.3 million American Whites and 33.1 million US-resident Blacks, which shows, after multiplying by the respective percentages, that there were 24.4 million poor Whites and 9.5 million poor Blacks living in the United States that year. Wetbacks to one side, poor US residents were 72% White and 28% Black in 1995.
Poor Whites outnumbered poor Blacks by a ratio of (about) 2.6 to one. If poverty were the fundamental cause of violent crime, as liberals often say it is, then for every 100 violent crimes committed by Blacks, there would be about 260 violent crimes committed by Whites, give or take a small percentage. But that is not what happens. In 1995, Blacks committed 55% of the murders in the United States. In other words, for each 100 murders committed by US-resident Blacks, only 82 murders were committed by all US-resident non-Black groups combined! Even if you assume that Whites committed all of the murders in 1995 that Blacks did not commit, you’re still a long way from “parity.”
Once the facts are in hand, the falseness of liberal arguments is easy to expose. The basic mistake of liberals, as I said earlier, is that they presume to deduce the facts of existence from their moral sense, and this does not work because nature has never been under any compulsion to be nice. But hand-in-hand with their presumption goes dishonesty and, usually, even self-deception. One of the results of these characteristics is that, once someone blasts away the argument upon which liberals had based their dogma, they immediately shift to a secondary basis and pretend that they never had stood on the former one.
Often, then, after a liberal has been made to understand, by hours of having his nose rubbed in numbers whose authority he cannot deny, that he cannot stand on his "poverty causes crime" argument, he shifts as stealthily as he can over to his secondary position, which is usually some variation of the Marxist idea that "it ain't race; it's the class struggle." He won't call it Marxism, however. He'll call it "social justice." Black crime, the liberal might say, is the result of social injustice, and since Blacks are generally poorer than Whites, Blacks will generally have an animus against Whites on account of the disproportionate ownership of wealth.
This argument is distinct from the previous one in that the previous argument assumed that Blacks were driven to crime by hunger, inadequate housing, or the like. But at this point, it has been proved that poor Whites don't display anywhere near the crime rates that poor Blacks do, and that therefore poverty isn't the cause of the crime. Now, the idea is that class envy motivates higher violent crime rates among Blacks.
How might we test this new liberal hypothesis? We test it in the same way that we test any hypothesis: by discovering whether its predictions come true. What does it predict? It is based, more or less, on the idea that crime is a function of jealousy, for which, liberals insist, Blacks must not be blamed. [These days, angry feelings are considered to mitigate crimes committed by those who are in politically favored groups, though they can be aggravating factors (hate crimes) when the criminal is not so favored.] The more often Blacks can see themselves as "disadvantaged," relative to Whites, the more often they will be provoked toward jealousy, and thus toward crime.
Does this prediction come true? No, it doesn't. Densely populated (urban) areas afford the greatest contact between persons of differing socioeconomic status. The contact trails off with the population density; i.e., as progressively more rural areas are considered. Though contact between different SES groups never reaches zero, it becomes much smaller in the countryside than it was in the cities. But regardless of the degree of urbanization, Blacks exhibit much higher per capita rates of violent crime than Whites do, and, again, what the liberal theorist predicted is not what really happens.
Compare Mississippi (36% Black) with West Virginia (3% Black). Both states are relatively rural. But Mississippi has by far the higher rates of violent crimes.
If you think that comparison is unrepresentative, then feel free to replace West Virginia with Iowa, or with North Dakota, or with any other mostly rural state-sized region with a White majority of at least 96%. Or feel free to replace Mississippi with any other mostly rural state-sized region in which Blacks comprise more than one-third of the population. If you graph the per capita crime rates for the US states against the fraction of their populations that is Black or Hispanic, the correlation coefficient of the resulting spread is about +0.8.
Then, for good measure, try contrasting cities with essentially equal levels of urbanization, but with differing racial demographics, to check out that side of the urban-rural scale. For example, you might compare the crime rates in Washington DC with those in Colorado Springs. You could even try to be comprehensive about it, and examine data taken from all US cities with populations over 500,000. If you do this, you’ll find that there is a strong, positive correlation between the Black percentage of the population and the rate of serious violent crimes. The data make a nice, linear run up the chart.
You can do it with counties too. You can extrapolate the murder rate in Washington DC with good precision by using a least-squares curve fit to data for counties in Alabama, or in Georgia, or in Virginia. (Those are the three states that I picked for my own examination, as they each contain large counties having a fairly wide range of Black population percentages.)
You can discover that the crime rate of an area, city-sized or larger, regardless of its degree of urbanization, can be reliably predicted given only its racial percentages. There is no social factor that explains so much of the variation. In particular, the higher the percentage of Blacks in the region, the higher will be its per capita rate for violent crimes. And so the liberal's 2nd argument dies.
Whether I feel smug about the superior White fitness to live in the kind of civilization that Whites usually create is not really important. Why feel smug for having figured out what should have been as obvious as noticing that arctic reindeer would be out of their proper habitat, and thus wouldn’t do so well, in a tropical rainforest? What is important is that the evidence proves that I am right. Someone who studies the trend of the data will reach the same conclusions that I’ve reached. The relevant evidence might not be in the encyclopedia or on TV, but it is available in government publications that aren’t too hard to get (if you try).
You said that my intelligence and my skill with words do not make up for my lack of compassion. I will turn the tables on you. Your compassion does not make up for your being wrong. And furthermore, your compassion is unwisely extravagant. These Black crimes sometimes have method and pattern to them, and, if you can remember the all-too-public anti-White revolutionary talk from Black spokesmen in the 1960s, and if you can put these facts together, you will understand that we have a dangerous enemy, with whom we have been at war for about forty years. The media no longer publicize the Black rhetoric nationally, though it does occasionally appear in a local newspaper (such as after the Cincinnati riot of April 2001). But the Blacks’ ambition to displace American Whites, to take power for themselves so that they can enslave us, and loot us at will, has never gone away.
You can see what they’d like to do here if you simply look at what they’ve already done in other places where Whites, once in control, tolerated Blacks too long. Remember what happened in Haiti, in Rhodesia, in Belgian Congo, and what is happening now in South Africa. Don’t you suppose that it might happen here, too? Do you think it is impossible that grinning, smirking Blacks will be able, say 50 years from now, with impunity to break into any White home, rape the women and girls, castrate the men and boys, kill babies in their cradles, and urinate on everyone before shooting them in the head? Such things are happening, only not here. Not yet.
[Added note.] Actually, such things are happening in the United States already. One of them was the Black kidnapping/murder of five young Whites in Wichita, Kansas, on 15 December 2000, which was notoriously absent from the national news media's coverage. For the details of that crime and others, click here. But if the United States ever "goes Black," politically, there will never be any reversal of White people's fortunes. Democracy, having served the purpose of the Black and Jewish communists, will become even more farcical than it already is, or it will be discarded altogether. Either way, whether there remains a democratic veneer or not, the actual government will be a Jewish/Black dictatorship in which Whites are abused with impunity and used, for all practical purposes, the way farmers and butchers use sheep and cows.
Your compassion is unwise because, by directing it toward your enemies, you are merely allowing them the opportunity to strike the first blow. And if that first blow is aimed well enough, and delivered powerfully enough, it will be the end of you and your overly tolerant ways. And many liberals are foolish enough, if they should survive that first blow, to forgive . . . allowing their enemy the second blow, too. And the third. Until finally the Blacks get lucky and finish us off.
Your guess about my parents raising me to be a racist is incorrect. My father was, I think, covertly a racist, but he always denied it. That is, he knew what the facts were, but he did not care to risk his social position in a stand for truth. He was a Christian preacher. My mother is, more or less, like you. Full of compassion. She'd smile at a nigger murderer as he approached with knife in hand, sure that he didn't really mean it, to the very end. My father was a hypocrite. My mom is just plain sick.
I was a liberal, distinctly anti-racist, until about 1995. I had to change my beliefs when I learned what I had not known before. Most liberals have a streak authoritarianism in them; i.e., readily obedient to what they've been trained to regard as authoritative. As a result, they are usually governed by a desire to conform to fashion in thought, and (Jewish) television leads the fashions by giving millions of people, simultaneously, a standard that is irresistibly easy to conform to. When I was liberal, I proceeded in good faith that someone, somewhere, had checked the racial equality and brotherhood idea against facts. When belatedly I learned that the facts were contrary to my position, I changed my position. I have to confess, though, that there was a time when I was tempted to turn a blind eye to what I had discovered, to pretend that I’d never known of it, and continue to profess racial equality. But I simply wasn’t enough of a cheat to do it.
Certainly, I discuss my racist views with anyone who will listen, in public or in private. I enjoy controversy and the challenge of educating liberals. The guy who runs the “sporting goods” (i.e., gun) store in Marlinton is a liberal. (So is his wife.) Sometimes, while shopping for ammo, I chat about race and crime, claiming that we don’t have a gun problem, but rather a minority problem, bringing forth Statistical Abstract and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, as needed. He never has any contrary evidence to show. His responses to my arguments are one dogmatic assertion or hoity-toity put-down after another. Proof? He hasn’t any. And he never will have any, as he’s wrong.
Here's Mimi's letter to me.
I have wondered, from time to time, how we'd adjust to each other if we became neighbors. I cringe at your racist wods and try as I might, I would probably look at you with prejudiced eyes.
You would get along well with a penfriend of mine. Lately he called me "the woman of all feeling and no thought." I rather like that title when dealing with him and now, with you. I accept it with pride.
How nice, for your sake, you know "you are right." I hope that gives you comfort. You obviously suffer from a terrible case of race fear. In fact I celebrate your rightness. Nestled in a quiet hilltop in West Virginia you can continue to shout your slogans and believe in your rightness, without doing any harm.
My remarks on the foregoing debate.
Mimi said, "I hope that gives you comfort," knowing full well that my knowledge is a great source of alarm and anxiety. I'm afraid that I am right. I'd rather not be right, but I am not able to engage in comforting fantasies.
Mimi compared my factual summary and my meticulous reasoning to the shouting of slogans.
She takes pride in being thoughtless, and says so.
Folks, every time I think I've plumbed the depths of liberal dishonesty and self-deception, along comes a liberal who surprises me by not rising yet to the level of those depths. I had already put my finger exactly on the dodge that she unblushingly used in her next letter. She epitomises the liberal dishonesty and self-deception that I tried to illustrate in my second letter.
If I wrote to her again, I'd have to settle accounts with her in a way that is at once accurate and likely to offend. She told me that, were we neighbors, she'd probably look at me with prejudiced eyes (no doubt despite her tireless struggles not to). I'd have to respond that, were we neighbors, I'd probably consider her to be a fool. I don't want to call her a fool, so I guess that this is where the debate ends.
Mimi said: "How nice...you know you are right." She said it as if I'd not just got done showing her that I was right, using official sources of information that she can access as readily as I can. Rest assured, she won't check the facts. She's got her liberal faith in racial equality, and she doesn't want to be bothered with the truth.