Another common Liberal argument for systemic racism in America today is that the chances of being pulled over by a police officer are higher for blacks and Hispanics, which they call the crime of “Driving While Black.” The claim again is seductively simple: if blacks are stopped for speeding at a rate higher than whites, this must be due to systemic racist policies or racist cops.
A now infamous study conducted by the Public Services Research Institute in New Jersey was commissioned in light of numerous allegations of racial profiling and the unfair targeting of non-white drivers. The New Jersey Turnpike study set out to discover why around a quarter of traffic stops were of black drivers when blacks accounted for only 16 percent of the drivers on the Turnpike. Well, as fate would have it, after the study examined over 38,000 drivers, they found that black drivers were almost twice as likely to speed on the Turnpike. The study concluded that blacks were actually being stopped at a lower rate than whites, in terms of each group’s propensity to speed.215 There was indeed an unfair distribution of speeding tickets in regards to race and speeding; it just so happens that once again, the Liberal narrative inverted the truth.
Blinded by the theory of Cultural Relativism, Liberals refuse to acknowledge there might be differences between groups of people as a whole; they therefore conclude that all outcomes should be identical. But every time further research has been conducted into one of these issues, we find that different outcomes are the result of groups of people behaving differently.
The New York Times ran a piece titled, “Only Mass Deportation Can Save America.” Its Jewish blogger, Bret Stephens, argues that Americans should be deported to make more room for migrants. Stephens claims Americans are now “Complacent, entitled and often shockingly ignorant on basic points of American law and history.” He cites high rates of out-of-wedlock births and criminality as cause for deportation.216 What Stephens fails to mention is that crime rates of migrants are only lower than those of black citizens. The same is true of out-of-wedlock births. Compared to whites and Asians, migrants commit more crime, have higher rates of single parent families, and produce more out-of-wedlock children.
The Liberal talking point on immigration and crime needs to be explained further. Liberals claim that the immigrant population in the United States actually commits lower rates of crimes than those born in America. They cite the figure from the American Community Survey, which finds that 1.8 percent of immigrant men between eighteen and thirty-nine are in prison, while 3.3 percent of native born citizens are in prison.217 Yes, the average rate of incarceration is about 3.3 percent for US born males under the age of 40. However the incarceration rate varies widely between races. The Asian population in prison is negligible, the white American population is at 0.7 percent, Hispanic citizens 1.8 percent, and 4.7 percent of black American males are in prison.218 Thus, though it is technically correct that immigrants commit less crime, they commit crime at about the same rates as Hispanics born in the US, double the rate of white Americans, and at a many times higher rate than Asian citizens. The reason the migrant crime rate is less than the average crime rate of native born Americans is solely because the rate of black crime is so high.
I’ve noticed something else in my discussions of racial issues with Liberals. They refuse to discuss any of these statistics. Any statistics that show racial discrepancies are racist in the Liberal mind. Liberals have gone so far as to define the merest suggestion of documented group differences as racism. They have effectively turned statistics and data into racists.
Taking a further look at some of those racist facts, one in particular stands out: the fact that blacks are twenty-seven more times likely to attack a white person in a violent crime than the other way around. Hispanics are eight times as likely to attack whites than the other way around. A large portion of crime takes place within races, meaning both the offender and the victims are of the same race. Yet when we look at data of crime between races, we see that whites are targeted at an overwhelmingly disproportionate rate by both blacks and Hispanics. A tremendous amount of white victims of violent crime are attacked by non-whites.219 This is striking when you consider the respective population rates, and the fact that whites are still a majority in the US; one can only imagine what happens when the white population falls below half. Because we are being forced to live with groups of people that have much higher crime rate, white victimization rate increases in an inordinate fashion as our relative numbers diminish. The media doesn’t bother with these facts. These inconvenient truths are damaging to the Liberal narrative that the evil white man is abusing non-whites with total impunity.
In terms of interracial rape, almost 100 percent of rapes between blacks and whites are black men raping white women .220 If the rates and roles were reversed, if whites were raping and murdering blacks at a rate of twenty-seven times more than the other way around, the media outrage would be non-stop. It’s all we would hear about. But when whites are victimized, it is simply business as usual. The government and media are both actively engaged in covering up the over half a million violent crimes each year against whites by non-whites. While they constantly decry racism, it is whites who are by far the most victimized group in America.
There is an argument suggesting that the high victimization of whites is the result of a mere frequency effect. That is, because there are about five times as many whites in the US as blacks, we would expect whites to be victimized more often by mere chance encounter. And this theory would hold if rates of victimization were actually five to one between blacks and whites. But they are not five to one; they are twenty-seven to one.
When the Left does speak candidly about the incredible criminal variance between races, they often blame poverty and economic inequalities. As with most Liberal arguments, the idea that poverty causes crime is simply unsupported by all available data. This very theory was examined in an analysis by the New Century Foundation. New Century Foundation looked at rates of crime in all fifty states and Washington D.C. It found that violent crime was correlated more strongly to the percent of the population that was black and Hispanic than it was to either poverty or unemployment, by a factor of more than double. Violent crime correlated to the percent of the population living in poverty at 0.36, the percent of the population that has not completed high school at 0.37, and to unemployment at 0.35. The violent crime rate and the percent of the population being black and Hispanic was a strong correlation, at 0.81.221 Meaning a poor white neighborhood has less crime than more affluent “diverse” neighborhoods.
Researchers Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen published an analysis of crime correlates which found that there is a relationship between low IQ and crime. The lower the IQ, the stronger a correlation to committing crime.222 Also quite interesting is a recent study called “Political ideology predicts involvement in crime,” by John Paul Wright et al. Wright found that people who self-report being conservative or very conservative have a lower correlation to criminal activity. While people who are Liberal or very Liberal are much more likely to be involved in criminal activity, with a high correlation.223
A journal article by Steven Levitt states that the lowest homicide rates found in the country were in the poorest white neighborhoods. The rate of crime and homicide is actually higher in black neighborhoods with higher median family incomes than in poor white neighborhoods.224 In a study titled “Race, Wealth and Incarceration: Results from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,” researchers found that at all income levels, even high income levels, blacks and Hispanics committed more crime than their white counterparts.225 There is a tremendous body of literature that entirely disproves the myth that poverty causes crime. Yet this work seldom makes its way into mainstream discourse.
Facts and statistics can never be racist, sexist, Islamophobic, antisemitic, prejudiced, biased, or hateful. Facts are nothing but the mathematical and numerical representation of events in the real world. The untruthful Left shies away from facts to the point that France and several other Eur
opean countries have outlawed the collection of demographic data of crimes, so that their citizens do not see how badly they are being victimized by foreigners. Liberals scream and cry when presented with facts like witches doused in Holy water. For their position is weak, and cannot stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny.
When a few numbers can make your entire narrative go up in flames, yet you stick to it adamantly nonetheless, what you have is no longer a political opinion. You no longer have a thoughtful argument. You are left with nothing but blind adherence to the narrative, no different than that of any member of a cult. You are left with a bankrupt ideology, one which you refuse to let die.
Redefinitions
Part of the Liberal strategy has been to redefine what it means to be racist; for without a redefinition, the already weak Liberal position would be entirely devoid of any substance. Racism once described the irrational treatment of others, for worse or better, simply on the basis of race. This was a simple and effective definition.
Today, Liberal academics have redefined racism to mean any acknowledgment of differences among racial groups. Further, they have defined racism to mean that one group holds higher levels of “institutional power,” which can be used to oppress other groups.226 This sleight of hand does two things; first it ensures that racism only applies to the actions of white people, as they are seen to hold the power in society; second, it makes any actions done against whites by non-whites, necessarily non-racist.
So called racism, Islamophobia, and antisemitism do not exist in vacuums. More often than not, they are the normal reaction to the anti-white sentiments and behaviors coming from non-whites, Muslims, and Jews. The very basic assumption of Racism, Islamophobia, and antisemitism is that if you offer any criticism, no matter how legitimate, of a non-white person or group, then something is wrong with you. This entire paradigm should be outright rejected.
The Left goes so far as to refer to all white people as white supremacists, since their “unearned” privilege places them ahead of non-whites, whether they realize it or not. There is now no definitional differentiation between being white and being a racist or a white supremacist.
To provide some practical examples of what this means, a “racist” is essentially now anybody who has an understanding of crime rates and statistics, or the ability to recognize behavioral patterns within group dynamics. A recent study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, found that people who have a higher cognitive capability to recognize patterns, also tend to be more likely to form stereotypes.227 This study, in a manner of speaking, found that those who the Left refer to as “racists,” might simply be acute behavioral-pattern-recognition experts. What the Left calls “racism” is primarily little more than in-group preference coupled with pattern recognition — both traits being highly-evolved behaviors and markers of intelligence.
It is crucial to note that during the Presidency of Barack Obama, with Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch as Attorney Generals, the Left never once claimed that black citizens held institutional power. The narrative was still that only whites can be racist. But if we redefine racism to be applicable to whites alone, then the Left’s anti-racism would have logically to be by nature anti-white.
The entire platform of race relations from the Left has been nothing but the demonization of whites. They use fictitious phrases for which they refuse to provide evidence, such as “white privilege,” “systemic racism,” or “power plus privilege equals racism,” to provide answers as to why other groups do not fare as well as whites — all the while conveniently ignoring the groups that prosper far better than whites.
Further, even the Liberal definition of racism never manages to logically elucidate how “institutional” power would benefit the average white person. The new definition essentially assumes that every white in society has the same degree of power and privilege that the elites of our society are afforded.
The Left has weaponized white guilt through constant propaganda in the media and the education system to ensure that feeble-minded whites kowtow to their agenda. Then, any white not guilt-ridden to the point of submission is automatically labeled a white supremacist. The Left uses white guilt to convince white folk to succumb to their demands, to roll over and die during their dispossession.
Liberal propaganda machines are constantly proliferating articles and films meant to destroy any remnants of heritage or pride in white culture. “Towards a Concept of White Wounding,” by Jewish blogger, Jesse Benn, is the title of a recent article from The Huffington Post; it advances the idea that all white people, without exception, are indeed racists. By benefiting from the imaginary system of “white privilege,” all white people are oppressing all other races.228
The anti-white propaganda is entrenched in society to such a degree that the phrase “white people don’t have a culture” has become a commonplace. I’ve met countless people around my age that truly believe country music, fast food, and Walmart, is the full extent of white culture. And is that really any surprise? History classes in school restrain themselves to a four month section about American involvement in the Atlantic Slave Trade, followed by a four month section on the Holocaust — but nothing of our history. A New York Times article titled, “What Is Whiteness?” has this to say; “Whiteness is on a toggle switch between bland nothingness and racist hatred.”229
This is the work of the education system, the media, and the press. This is the work of cultural genocide.
We have become personae non gratae. Damnatio memoriae, exiles in our own lands. Complete with an iconoclasm brought against our past.
First they tell us we have no culture.
Then they erase the remnants of our culture and history.
Finally they rewrite our own history without us in it.
White culture is that of dreamers and inventors — the Wright Brothers, Tesla, Karl Benz, and Ferdinand Porsche. The brave culture of the Crusaders, the Centurions, the Spartans, and the Revolutionaries. It is the culture of the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, timeless architecture, the finest literature of the world, and the most romantic symphonic and operatic masterworks from Beethoven to Wagner.
White culture is little more than a record of every meaningful aspect of civilization as we know it today. Never let anybody tell you differently. Our culture is nothing less than the Promethean fire that first illuminated mankind.
White-European culture has surpassed all others in terms of invention, advancement, literature, music, art, engineering, architecture, aesthetics, and thought. Yet my view of the European peoples is not acceptable to the Left, their narrative of white guilt, their claims of the necessity for “cultural enrichment.” For the view I hold, I am labeled a fringe, lunatic “supremacist.” If a person is proud of his Muslim, Jewish, Hispanic, Asian, African, or homosexual identity, the Left sees that as acceptable and welcome. Yet having pride in your European heritage is cause for the Left to immediately label you as a hateful supremacist.
I have a respect and sympathy for the Japanese people and their rich culture. I even view their culture as objectively finer than most others in many ways. Yet nobody would ever consider me to be a “Japanese supremacist.” Nor would they consider a Japanese person with those views to be a Japanese supremacist. The term is only applied to people of European heritage.
Wanting to live with people similar to yourself in a culture your ancestors built is not only entirely natural, it is human instinct, practiced by every group of people on Earth. Yet to the Left, that simple desire is entirely unacceptable in a white person, one that only the most ardent bigots and supremacists could ever forward.
During the spring of 1988, there was a student protest that shut down Gallaudet University, a school for the deaf and hard of hearing in Washington, D.C. The name of the protest was Deaf President Now, and the idea was simple: students felt the president of the university should be deaf, so that he could better understand and serve the community which he repr
esented.230 It makes perfect sense. It is normal and natural for people to want people who are similar to them, and who understand them, to represent them. I had a class in college in which the Deaf President Now protests were discussed, and the mostly Liberal class wholeheartedly supported their cause.
Japan would not likely elect a Swedish person to be Prime Minister. And I doubt Mexico would ever elect a person from Somalia to represent them. When over 90 percent of black citizens voted for Obama, nobody seriously considered racism to be their underlying motive. So why the double standard? Why is it seen as normal for deaf people, Japanese people, black people, to want to be represented by somebody like them, but whites are told they are racist and bigoted for wanting the very same thing? Isn’t it ironic that charges of sexism were rampant when men did not want to vote for Hillary Clinton, yet when Right-wing women such as Marine Le Pen and Beata Szydło were running for office, sexism suddenly has nothing to do with the question? A stunning hypocrisy in both the Left more generally, and in modern feminism specifically. When Trump won the white vote by a little over half, it was seen as a “whitelash,” and was obviously due to racism.231 Yet the same standard is never applied to any other group, anywhere. For everybody else, it simply makes sense; but whites are expected to choose national leaders who are totally foreign to them. Only whites are expected to hand over their civilization to hostile aliens, only whites are asked to allow themselves to be ruled by outsiders.
The Democratic Party makes the same play over and over again, and although it’s easy to see through, the majority of our elected Republicans are apparently too dense to notice, or more likely, sufficiently Left-wing themselves. Democrats demonize whites, claim that every shortcoming of any other group is the result of systemic racism, oppression, white privilege, the glass ceiling, etc., and then the Democrats promise to protect them from the evils of “white supremacy,” for which they still refuse to provide proof. By changing the definition of racism, Liberals have justified every horrific action committed against a white person.
Liberalism Unmasked Page 19