Comments at Steve Sailer:
* The problem is — and this is no great revelation — no public figure, whether they be a politician, “celebrity” or “journalist”– is allowed to point out these staggering differences in criminality among black people as compared to whites and Asians. Rudy Guiliani “went there” last week and the New York Times accused him of peddling “myths.” That’s the word they used: “Myths.” Meaning they felt he was making stuff up, not just being impolite.
Sure, one can point out high levels of crime in the “inner city,” but that’s about as far as one can go. And since we can’t blame the inhabitants of these “inner cities” we are left looking elsewhere, i.e. white people.
* Every religion has its myths, and for modern progressives the concept that white supremacy is all around constantly working against striving minorities who would otherwise be achieving (or overachieving) the same life outcomes as whites.
Thus the need for a powerful central government that stands ready to tilt the scales for favored classes.
* The general – and actually only real and meaningful – point to take from all this is that so-called ‘race relations’ between blacks and whites in the USA are no better, and likely even worse than they were 400 odd years ago (or thereabouts), when the very first cargo of ‘neger’ – that’s how they were described in the ship’s manifest – slaves was landed from that fateful Dutch ship at that fateful Virginia port.
If ‘race relations’ haven’t improved in 400 years they are unlikely *ever* to improve.
The lesson to those EU states yet to have mass immigration of black Africans imposed on them from ‘on high’ could not be starker.
But, alas, rest assured, the leaders of those states will prove, inevitably, deaf, dumb and blind to stark,staring, raw, concrete reality.
* Obama is careful not to directly address black violence or racism because he would be giving everyone else permission to openly discuss it and that would be the beginning of the end of white guilt reparations. If he cannot do it, Trump will. This could of been a unique opportunity for the first black President to go against his base to do something important for the country but he will go down instead of being nothing more than a partisan hack.
* Matt Drudge tweeted a link to your Nixon ad post. Have you seen an uptick in traffic?
Does this mean Drudge will start linking iSteve posts on his site?
This could be the big one folks.
* Scott Adams of Dilbert fame noted recently that the intimidation and violence around BLM has had the effect of cratering Trump’s support. Trump won the nomination by being the un-PC dominant male, and now Hillary! has unleashed BLM which trumps, well Trump. You will note he’s said just about nothing regarding BLM and Adams relates constant death threats, no more speaking engagements, and a decline of income of 40% for his Trump content.
Intimidation works as Third World Aristocrat Obama well knows. Obama grew up in a household run by a Suharto minor princeling, and Hawaii home of “Beat Up Haole Day” so he knows well the power of anti-White intimidation. It is natural to him as breathing and he can’t NOT do it. So BLM has been a godsend — intimidating and demoralizing Trump supporters and energizing the army of non-Whites that Hillary! depends upon.
Secondly, Rudy Guiliani was called “far-right” by NBC screencapped by Instapundit. So there is a general Intifada against Whites who notice anything by Blacks that is negative. SJW are at heart religiously attached to a doctrine of noble Black victims of ordinary Joe White racism, with noble White Guy/Gal leaders dancing with Wolves/Avatars/Blue Cats to save the natives. Or somesuch. Its deep WASP culture. [Jews don’t go in for that stuff.]
* During his speech at the memorial for the Dallas policemen, as well as in his famous 2008 speech on race, Obama always follows a certain pattern.
1. Says something unifying–race relations have improved in this country, most policemen are good people doing their best in a difficult job, etc.
2. There’s still a problem–whether they’re conscious of it or not, the racism of white people affects the way they treat blacks.
3. Blacks have legitimate grievances–slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, vague racist-ish things that still go on today (being mistaken for a valet, being followed around in a convenience store).
4. Those grievances make black people angry and white people have to understand that and work harder to expunge racism from their hearts.
What is always missing from the Obama’s analysis is that white people have legitimate grievances too–against black people. These include their neighborhoods being ruined by an influx of blacks; public school quality lowered by unruly black students; the financial burden of supporting a community relies so heavily on government services; losing out on a job or promotion due to affirmative action; having to avoid places because of the threat of black crime; experience of being robbed/raped/assaulted by blacks, or having family and friends who have been. These grievances are dismissed, even mocked, yet they are actually more legitimate, more relevant to the daily experience of whites, than the historical black grievances that Obama insists on rehashing.
As a teenager, my girlfriend (now wife) was raped at knife-point by a black man who followed her into her apartment building. She was still a virgin at that time. Honestly, it did not affect my general view of blacks, but by Obama’s standards, wouldn’t I be entitled to dislike blacks based on that incident?
* It’s worth pointing out that the one thing that white progressives, police unions, and black leaders agree on is disarming young black males. The only reason it doesn’t happen is conservative 2nd Amendment tribalism.
Insisting on the constitutional right for every young black male to own a handgun is one of the Republican party’s dumbest and most destructive stands. Thousands of people die every year because of it.
* Violence, even legitimate violence, is ugly and shocking to those not accustomed to it. This is not my own observation, but that of Rory Miller, retired corrections officer and Iraq war veteran, who has written several excellent books on the subject. (Start with Meditations on Violence.)
* The fixation here is with violent crime.
But, the rates of such criminality as embezzlement, corruption, fraud, abuse of public office etc, also follow the same generalized multiplier effect.
* It is a strange thing: for thousands of years–all of history until a generation ago–being a loser/victim in conflict was nothing to shout about, it was an embarrassment, a great shame, perhaps the greatest. Even after WWII, it took about a generation before the holocaust shibboleth-ism really kicked in, but when it did, did it ever!
Sometime around the 1970′s it seemed that suddenly being a victim was the highest thing anyone could aspire to. Prior to that, if one had suffered profoundly at the hands of another, one didn’t want it known, after about 1970, suddenly one wanted any injustice broadcast and acknowledged as widely as possible. It was a strange turnabout that we still live with yet I’ve hardly ever heard anyone remark on.
I can’t say whether Jews actually created this change as response to their WWII experience, or whether they were simply earlier and more effective users of this change in the zeitgeist.
* When the Holocaust became a PR event, that is the first time I can think of that a group’s injury became their claim to–not equality–but special treatment. This was so successful that now everyone with a grievance seeks to achieve a similar victim apotheosis. Claims for black reparations were scarce in the immediate aftermath of slavery even up to the “civil rights” era. It was only recently, since the success of “holocaust-ism” that the cries for black reparations have become so incessant.
