The Color of Crime
The execution-style murder of three African-American college students in Newark, N.J., forced to kneel and shot in the head—allegedly by an illegal alien from Peru who was out on bail for the serial rape of a 5-year-old—has the makings of a Willie Horton issue in 2008.
Newark, like New York, is a "sanctuary city," where cops are not to ask criminal suspects if they are in the country legally. Mitt Romney has been hammering Rudy Giuliani on the issue, trashing his tough-cop resume by painting the mayor as den mother of the Big Apple's playpen for illegal aliens.
The arrest of Jose Carranza in that Newark massacre, amid reports he had Hispanic accomplices and the murders may have been part of a gang initiation, has also elevated the issue of the black-brown war raging in U.S. big cities.
In the Aug. 10 Washington Post story that covered the Carranza arrest, the same page had two related articles. One was headlined, "Study: Almost Half of Murder Victims Black," the other, "Slaying of Popular Editor Stuns Blacks in Oakland."
The second headline reveals an ideological slant. One would assume that everyone in Oakland was stunned by the daylight execution of African-American editor Chauncey Bailey, allegedly by a teenage foot soldier at Your Black Muslim Bakery, which Bailey was investigating.
At Bailey's funeral, a mourner held up a sign reading, "Stop Black on Black Violence." That was the subject of the second Post story.
"Nearly half the people murdered in the United States are black," declared the opening paragraph, "part of a persistent pattern in which African Americans are disproportionately victimized by violent crime, according to a new Justice Department study."
Among other conclusions reported by the Post:
—Blacks are more likely than whites or Hispanics to be victims of crime.
—Blacks are more likely than any other group to be victims of "serious violent crime," such as rape, assault and robbery.
—Blacks were more than twice as likely as whites to be confronted with a firearm during a crime.
"Overall, the new Justice findings jibe with previous studies," said the Post. "For example, a review of FBI data from 2004 by the Violence Policy Center, a liberal-leaning group that campaigns for stricter gun control laws, found that blacks accounted for about half of the nation's murder victims that year."
"Black victimization is a real problem, and it's often black on black," said David Harris, a law professor at the University of Toledo who studies crime statistics.
"Often"? Correction, Harris. As the Post reports and Justice concedes, in more than nine out of 10 cases, black victims are murdered by fellow blacks.
Utterly absent from the Post story and Justice Department stats is anything about white victims of crime. Not a word. Do white folks not count, though they are two-thirds of the population?
Yet, in "The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Justice in America," produced by the "right-leaning" New Century Foundation in 2005, using the same FBI and Justice surveys, startling facts emerge:
—"Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against other blacks." Forty-five percent of the victims of violent crime by blacks are white folks, 43 percent are black, 10 percent are Hispanic.
—Blacks are seven times as likely as people of other races to commit murder, eight times more likely to commit robbery and three times more likely to use a gun in a crime.
—"Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit violent crime against a white person than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery." (If decent black folks have trouble hailing a cab, and they do, these numbers may help explain it.)
—Black-on-white rape is 115 times more common than the reverse.
Even the two most famous sexual assaults by white men on black women in the last two decades—the Tawana Brawley and Duke rape cases—turned out to be hoaxes.
What do these statistics tell us? A message the Post will not report. The real repository of racism in America—manifest in violent interracial assault, rape and murder—is to be found not in the white community, but the African-American community. In almost all interracial attacks, whites are the victims, not the victimizers.
Why does the Post not report such statistics? My guess: Because the stats would shatter the Post's cultivated image of America as a land where white racism is the great lurking malevolent monster. Stories that conform to the image get play. Stories that contradict it are buried.
But, if the Bush Justice Department is doing in-depth studies on black victims of crime and who is responsible, why not one on the victimization of Americans of all colors and who is responsible?
Or is that information we ought not know, and news not fit to print?
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
Bernie:
"I wish they would read The Color of Crime."
I did read it.
"And I pointed out that black crime in the UK (most blacks in the UK came from the West Indies) is similar to the black crime rate in the U.S." And I pointed out not only the absence of a cited printed source, but also the logical and empirical fallacy of assuming the historical circumstances of Britain and American to be identical. Has Bernie's never been outside of Gringoland? I'll grant the benefit of the doubt that he's not so parochial . As for the other user of the fallacy, Allan Wilson .....
"Sounds more like Marx or Lenin to me." Since when did these two believe in prescription? Sounds like to me Bernie's never read any of the counter-revolutionary Conservatives. I urge him to do so. If he knows German and French, he'll be way ahead of most.
"You mention James Q. Wilson in an earlier post. He reviewed the 1999 Color of Crime data and confirmed it [sic] was sound." Ambiguous pronoun reference. What is the "it"? The book or the data?. And until Bernie provides the citation, and thus allows us to see just what this ostensible "confirmation" is, we cannot assume it to be so. There is no doubt that James Q. Wilson would find little on THIS page to confirm.
For the record: The New Century Foundation is the product of the Brown Light crowd of the "white" nationalist magazine _American Renaissance_ (better, _Gringo Dark Ages_). This source is as about as trustworthy as Eric Foner for Reconstruction. And who, pray tell, is its house academically accredited and peer acclaimed criminologist? I pray his last name isn't Chamberlain (Houston Stewart )? I'm pretty sure it isn't Welsing, though I suspect she's retreaded the same ideas and changed the color.
Well, I give Bernie credit for not citing _The Turner Diaries_, which I am sure he abominates as much as I.
I thank T. French for #15. An ideological climate that not only denies reality but can't even offer evidence and argument is exactly what I'm try to expose. And to unmask the Browns wearing the false whiskers of Real Burkean-Counterrevolutionary or NeoThomist-Aristotelean Conservatism is my other goal. I welcome T. French to join me.
I'm enjoying the Sid-bashing so much. I love to listen to buffoons, and I confess a Medieval taste for comedy of the grosser varieties. Indeed with eager expectation I return to this page every few hours, and arise from my desk an ever more happy man. The only danger is spiritual: I arise from my desk also fortified in a feeling of my superiority, and that I have be thrown, willy-nilly into a meager and exclusive aristocracy. This being hubris and superbia, my soul is in danger. Thanks all the same.
The valid point Sid would be making -- were he not so intent on wallowing in his own suuuuper-genius like Wile E. Coyote -- is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
That is, the burden of proof is on those who assert the affirmative.
Sid's assertion -- and mine -- is that there is no particular reason for thinking race is anything other than an *accidental* rather than an *essential* factor in criminal behavior.
For example, most terrorists are Arabs.
However, I doubt I am the only person here who would say that the propensity to terrorism is linked to Islam and its teachings rather than to the Arab race.
I doubt whether too many Iraqi Christians run about blowing people up -- rather, by and large they are on the receiving end.
As to the I.Q. question -- again, I do not know how anything conclusive can be drawn short of performing tests on infants of various races.
A prospect which I find creepy. Add to that the fact that I am dubious of the metrics by which modern scientists define "intelligence" anyhow.
Chris Hitchens & Ricky Dawkins would no doubt prefer I.Q. tests include high-score questions along the lines of "Do you believe in God?"
Unlike Sid, I will wholeheartedly concede that the functioning of the brain -- a *biological* structure determined partly by heredity, not a cultural structure -- *is* connected to intellect, personality, and behavior.
But the peril of Promethean arrogance comes in when we presume to know precisely how, and draw sweeping connections based on incomplete evidence.
The problem -- and the only reason I am bothering to get involved -- is that Sid is arguing his position so poorly that many of you may come out of this discussion more convinced than ever that said position is wrong.
Sid Cundiff & Walter Sobchak --
Ever Seen In The Same Room At The Same Time?
If Sid’s “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” speech (Post #30, ‘The Way We Are Now – Sigh!”) doesn’t evoke the er, wistful style and tone of Sobchak’s eulogy for Donny Karabotsos in *The Big Lebowski*, then I’m a poached egg.
Once again, ironically, I agreed with Sid’s position – individual nations come and go, but civilization and the Western heritage endures, so we shouldn’t get so caught up in the politics of the Now….
Frankly, I felt neither optimism nor pessimism upon reading that post, O Sid of the Far Travels & Wide Learning.
Rather, at the time I couldn’t help but feel embarrassment at your need to tell us all how-you-spent-your-summer-vacation, and reflect philosophically:
“Hell’s donkeys, maybe the final and permanent death of Western Civilization wouldn’t be such a bad thing after all.”
WALTER: “Donny was a good bowler, and a good man. He was one of us.”
[Here Sid might’ve added that Donny was a “Real Conservative”.]
Sid,
In all seriousness, vicious sarcasm aside.
That is how you are presenting yourself.
Walter, dude.
G.S., your interjection into this sordid thread is much appreciated. If, as I stated above, most complex behavioral phenomenon are the result of both nature and nurture, then it seems to me that the real "extraordinary claim" requiring "extraordinary proof" is that nature is not at least partially involved with criminality (a complex behavioral phenomenon).
Also, if the racial disparity is consistent across cultures, (the consistent disparity is more important than the absolute numbers and somewhat controls for environment) then the most obvious explanation would be that race has something to do with it. It would require extraordinary proof to prove otherwise.
There is clearly not a crime gene. I’m sure Sid will not be satisfied until one is produced. But factors that might contribute that are heritable to some extent are tendency toward interpersonal aggression, risk taking, lack of future orientation, etc. and of course IQ.
I mean, Sid, take a cold hard look at this post of yours at Taki's blog:
"In which case, rather than a stentorian reply in the key of C-sharp minor, in the manner of Berlioz, with 50 trumpets, 70 trombones, six timpani, 5 cymbals, 7 car horns, 3 ready to fire 6 pounder guns, and a deep base synthesizer, all at fff volume and durchaus leidenschaftlich und phantastisch vorzutragen – instead let us adopt the soft and accommodating mien of the professional diplomat and Southern gentleman,and, with eminent chivalric courtesy and gracious Chesterfieldian respect, all laced with mint-julepy conviviality, kindly ask the honored and good Rabbi whether, perhaps, his statement was the most felicitous way that he might have chosen to express his reflections – reflections that surely in intention bore no pejorative adumbration or malice aforethought either toward the late Cardinal or his sacred Institution, as one distinguished man of the cloth to another –, and that whether another, more commodious, if not mellifluous, expression, perhaps, might now be used in its place – an expression free altogether from any thought or interpretation that it might have been made in the heat of passion, all put forth in an pacific statement less likely to be unduly burdensome to fulsome and winning Jewish-Catholic relations, made with the undoubted intent of furthering even more the mutual and reciprocal rapprochement of such relations witnessed over the last sixty years, and with a propitious and fortuitous eye to the many years forthcoming."
Come on, now, get a grip, my friend.
The idea -- if your respect for others outweighs your ego, that is -- is to communicate, not win first prize in the multisyllablic composition contest.
Stop and think, and reflect:
That was all one friggin' sentence.
"pejorative adumbration or malice aforethought..."
Come on, Sid. You're better than that.
DUDE
Everything's a ***ing travesty with you, man!
WALTER
Look Dude, I'm sorry. It was an accident!
DUDE
What was zat-- What was that **** about Vietnam!
WALTER
Look Dude, I'm sorry--
DUDE
What the **** does anything have to
do with Vietnam! What the ****
are you talking about?!
Another heritable race related factor that is likely implicated is baseline testosterone levels.
Sid,
Item 15 was meant for you. Using a train of thought consistent with yours I've never enjoyed a glass of water. I'm certainly not a competent authority regarding water quality lacking credentials and a lab. So how can I really know it's water I'm drinking. Your arguments amount to obfuscation, well documented but still smoke.
If your point is simply put that race shouldn't be everything, I agree. That doesn't imply that race and ethnicity can be safely discounted. Nor does it follow that only a scoundrel would care about such things.
Please, stop trying to save people from themselves, it's an odious form of narcissim and you enjoy it too much for me to think that you only have our well-being at heart. Demonstrating your "superiority" on an obscure blog is not much to be proud about. Rather it smacks of the kind of ill manners and evil ways you claim to warn your presumed inferiors away from. Life is not a game and it's not all about "me" as you point out supra, take a break from gloating and think about that.
... “James Beck” does sound like “E.A.” alias “Evan Almighty” alias … , the sad case that was booted & purged from here as such a short while back; hmmm, it’s uncanny…
Same thing now ... as "E.A." "had" "Jeff" to "discuss", throwing in a lame "disagreement" here and there, but the mental signature speaks ... ... ... ... "G.S." ...
"E.A." alias "Evan Almighty" alias "Jeff" alias "Lord Karth" alias "James Beck" alias "G.S." ...
Sid writes:
1. “You mention James Q. Wilson in an earlier post. He reviewed the 1999 Color of Crime data and confirmed it [sic] was sound.” Ambiguous pronoun reference. What is the “it”? The book or the data?. And until Bernie provides the citation, and thus allows us to see just what this ostensible “confirmation” is, we cannot assume it to be so. There is no doubt that James Q. Wilson would find little on THIS page to confirm.
No? Read this for what James Q. Wilson had to say about the 1999 study - http://www.amren.com/inthenews/hatecrimes.htm
2. For the record: The New Century Foundation is the product of the Brown Light crowd of the “white” nationalist magazine _American Renaissance_ (better, _Gringo Dark Ages_). This source is as about as trustworthy as Eric Foner for Reconstruction. And who, pray tell, is its house academically accredited and peer acclaimed criminologist? I pray his last name isn’t Chamberlain (Houston Stewart )?
New Century Foundation and American Renaissance are always trustworthy sources of information on racial issues. Sam Francis often wrote for the publication as do many other academics such as Michael Levin, Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and Roger McGrath. NCF produced the Color of Crime using FBI and DoJ reports. Where does Sid get his data?
The academically accredited and peer acclaimed criminologists go by the names of James Q. Wilson (I believe you know him) and Morgan Reynolds, director of the Criminal Justice Center at the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis.
By the way, what academically accredited and peer acclaimed criminologist is Sid using?
Now that Sid's gotten his just deserts, I'll just add a defense of egotistical professors: they're often the best professors. I tend to prefer them to err on the side of ego rather than on the side of blindly following the accepted norm without thinking. Also, with a bit of ego a man might attempt what many of us only dream of doing: defending ourselves (not an implication of violence...)
Had I taken a class from Sid, I suspect he'd have thrown me out a few times, we'd have debated a few times, and I'd have come away having learned a great deal rather than as I was in most of my classes: bored. That said, I suspect most girls would prefer not to have debates.
Regarding the race stumper from another thread: race can be any mostly separate gene pool. That can include a tight clan or a vast nation. Though substantial racial differences seem to exist among some, I'm more interested in race for its value in identity and its defense against the modern abyss. Another point regarding race: blood is thicker than water, so members of a free state can work for the betterment of the whole nation more readily and with less force. A third point, a diverse nation can over time amalgamate into a homogeneous and unique organic nation; however, as a white Southerner I love my own nation and reject amalgamation.
If the firebird's to be reborn, I want it to have a Southern accent. Who knows, maybe in another few years folks will drop their talk of Jewish conspiracies for Southern conspiracies. Neocons will cry, "Mammon save us; the Southerners have been educated!"
G.S. has some wisdom in #53 and #54, and I thank G.S.
With #57 G.S. should have re-established the context in which I made my hyperbolic statement.
In #59 T. French makes a faulty analogy. The Venerable Newman was right to say chemists are not our best cooks and geologists are not our best stone masons. Genetics, on the other hand, requires some sterner stuff, or at least more erudite.
Where to start with the obscurantism of #61? I thank Bernie for providing a link, however unpublished. Alas, the link is NOT an article by James Q Wilson, nor even one by Morgan Reynolds. It is an article which claims to be from in the white nationalist rag _American Renaissance_. Nor are Wilson and Reynolds in anyway associated with this rag or its sponsor, the New [i.e. Brown] Century Foundation. They are quoted, but without any citation as to when and where they are supposed to have said what they are quoted. What they DO say (and its a pity to see such good scholars misused by bigots [much as John Rawls misused Kant and Aristotle and Gobineau misused Darwin]) is what I have never denied, and what Cultural Marxists would like to deny: Of course "black" crime rates are high. So are certain "white" ethnics. My points are (1) at best, "black" and "white" -- a fiction induced by American history, but fiction all the same -- are imprecise catagories. (2) the cause effect between genetic "race", or genetics in general, and crime is unproven -- and remains so. Sid-bashing instead is the procedure here, and it continues to entertain me, providing an paradigmatic example of the ad hominem fallacy.
"By the way, what academically accredited and peer acclaimed criminologist is Sid using?" I've named him #41 supra. I also referred to a book he actually wrote rather a doubtful quote in a white nationalist magazine. I can recommend a good eye doctor to you, Bernie. Or do you need to be taught how to read?
Re: #62, Frank, your welcome in my class anytime. You are more candid about your real beliefs than some here. I'd (and Socrates, Plato, and Allan Bloom) would rather have students with strong prejudices. For only those who have strong feelings about a matter -- however faulty -- are able ultimately to see the matter aright. In contrast, the pseudo-tolerance of "you can't say your way is the right way", everything's relative", or other general apathy -- what Bloom calls "easy-going nihilism" -- is a sure way to stay blind.
I now wish to drop my mask. Unlike Leo Strauss, I am prepared now to reveal my "hidden teaching", one that the adept have already caught on. My points in #41, true as they are, are not my real teaching. It would be worthless to discuss them further. There may be readers who are interesting in discussing these points; such readers have yet to announce themselves and drop their cyber calling card. My real teaching is different, and some of the responders have done my work for me in teaching it:
Some responders here are guilty of imposture and identity theft. They are not as they would have us believe conservatives. Their political coloration, to use European terms, is distinctly different and opening proven: Brown. To avoid the continued opprobrium of a professor whose laudable achievements for The Cause I cannot deny, I shall avoid the "N" word and the "F" word -- and granted these are the McCarthy-ite terms of Cultural Marxists, whom I loathe. So let's just call (some of) the folk who excoriate me on this page "Brown", and leave it at that. And they have made their responses apparently without having first been read their Miranda Rights.
For clarity: I certain do NOT consider "Brown" either Patrick J. Buchanan, Kirt Higdon, G.S., Simon Newman, the Jeffersonian Dr. Wilson, Red Phillips (I pray), or the staff of _Chronicles_, who would doubtlessly be swift to remove Holocaust Denial and recruiting material for Aryan Nation and the (American) National Alliance. We Real Conservatives should be just as eager to so disassociate ourselves from the Browns as the 1950s Vital Center Liberals disassociated themselves from the Reds.
My secret teaching now open and prove, I need say no more.
"(1) at best, “black” and “white” — a fiction induced by American history, but fiction all the same — are imprecise catagories."
One does not need to be a petty racist--which in my mind is defined as arguing that white skin is carried by a morally superior gene--to see the lie in this. Regardless of what drove the division between those with white skin and black skin, it is a real division, and to argue that the difference is a "fiction" is akin to arguing that there is no such thing as social class. And whether one race is superior to another (it is not) is entirely irrelevant to issues like immigration and national identity. If "Sid-bashing" seems to be in vogue, it is probably because Mr. Cundiff has indeed made a career on these forums policing anti-immigration restrictionism for potentially racist code words. If that is not "McCarthyite" (put in quotations because I actually do not appreciate this particular application of that word), I don't know what is.
The "browns" who habitate these forums expose themselves pretty well with inarticulate ramblings about Jewish cabals and denials of the Holocaust. They do not need a comprehensive explanation of why race does not exist (a sentiment no less fictional than the romanticized Master Race). A swift kick in the arse is all that is needed to dismiss their ilk. They neither need nor deserve anything more.
"… “James Beck” does sound like “E.A.” alias “Evan Almighty” alias … , the sad case that was booted & purged from here as such a short while back; hmmm, it’s uncanny…
Same thing now … as “E.A.” “had” “Jeff” to “discuss”, throwing in a lame “disagreement” here and there, but the mental signature speaks … … … … “G.S.” …
“E.A.” alias “Evan Almighty” alias “Jeff” alias “Lord Karth” alias “James Beck” alias “G.S.” …"
For the record, the Chronicles staff is aware of my identity and I have the privilege of knowing Dr. Wilson, though not as well as I should like.
I have never been "booted" from this weblog.
"G.S. has some wisdom in #53 and #54, and I thank G.S."
You're welcome.
"With #57 G.S. should have re-established the context in which I made my hyperbolic statement."
Unless we are talking about a postmodern stream-of-consciousness novel, then I think it difficult to find a context which justifies a 230-word sentence.
I might gently add in closing, Sid, that you would receive greater respect if you stop styling yourself as the Second Coming of Socrates or Plato. Great men generally don't become great by dwelling upon how great they are.
As for Allan Bloom, he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Like Straussianism, *The Closing of the American Mind* is only impressive if one sets it next to mainstream liberal, Marxist-feminist twaddle -- which is not saying a great deal.
I am curious. Are G.S., Nicholas, and/or Sid going to the John Randolph Club meeting this year?
Checking back in on this thread never ceases to amuse: Sid's continued pretense to intellectual seriousness puts the serious crinkle of a smile on my face. Though it shouldn't: knowing what I do now, it almost makes me feel like I'm laughing at a mentally-retarded kid who is trying so hard to be "normal" that it drives him to insist that he is not only on everyone else's intellectual level, but FAR ABOVE IT. And condescendingly, at that.
I e-mailed around to some folks I know about this thread here, and, sure enough, several of them instantly recognized "Sid" and his pseudo-intellectual posting style. I even know a good deal about the somewhat pitiful story that animates it.
Folks, "Sid" is not remotely educated, in any serious sense. He is quick on the cut and paste, and has a broad, shallow, and somewhat clever "knowledge" in the internet sense. Without revealing anything personal, suffice it to say he should be more pitied than censored.
Trust me.
G.S., your #53 is a quite valid defense of a position that is worthy of discussion & respect: indeed, I agree with a fair deal of it. Please keep posting such logical arguments and counterpoints in this discussion, if for no other reason that it mitigates the silliness of the pseudo-intellectual splutterer "Sid"--whom makes the rational points you're making look ridiculous on their face, thanks to the hyperbole and pretend-scholarship of the author.
Frank in #62 said: "Had I taken a class from Sid..."
Frank, you're a good man, badly deceived by the pseudo-intellectual posting habits of a poseur in this web-thread. "Sid" has never taught a college or university course in his life--nor ever had the credentials too.
I'd wager; IMHO; and all of that. But I'd lay bank in Las Vegas if the question was put to that test, and be so sure that I'd make bank that I wish it could be so. And I'm not normally a gambler.
Sid C:
"For clarity: I certain do NOT consider “Brown”... Simon Newman..."
Cheers mate. I was worried there.
Nicholas Moses:
"The “browns” who habitate these forums expose themselves pretty well with inarticulate ramblings about Jewish cabals and denials of the Holocaust. "
Yeah, it's pretty obvious who has Nazi leanings. Although most such are on the Left and call themselves social democrats.
Once again from the top. No case.
_Ad hominem_ is not a argument.
"I e-mailed around to some folks I know about this thread here"
Nor is bandwagon.
The Browns like this fallacies.
OK, guys. This is getting a bit ugly.
In mild defense of Sid, I don't think he has ever claimed a particular amount of formal education. Neither has he claimed to be a teacher. He is obviously well read and well traveled. In this day of extreme specialization, I think most of us could accurately be accused of having knowledge that is more wide than deep outside our area of "expertise."
That said, I think Sid knows more about the humanities than he does about science. I think his "purist" views on race are guided by what he wants to believe, not what the science indicates. But we all have our blind spots.
Sid, my advice to you is to let it go. I really don't get what your axe to grind in all this is. IMO, the system does a good job of weeding out the racial obsessives. It will all take care of itself with or without your hyper vigilance.
"I am curious. Are G.S., Nicholas, and/or Sid going to the John Randolph Club meeting this year?
It had crossed my mind. I'll know a bit better next week.
"Yeah, it’s pretty obvious who has Nazi leanings. Although most such are on the Left and call themselves social democrats."
Mr. Newman is doubtlessly familiar with Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's book _Leftism Revisited_, a nice heavy read (albeit not without a few pretty serious flaws), in which he draws a map of voting patterns in Western Germany in 1933 and 1955. The areas that voted National Socialist in 1933 are almost exactly the same as those that went SPD in 1953. Although, I'm not sure how far I'd go in calling Social Democratic politicials and ideologues Nazis.
Dr. Phillips,
I thought he was a professor, my mistake.
Jason,
a virtual acquaintance of mine has seemingly met Sid and considers him a friend. Judging by his comments, Sid's clearly erudite. Give him time to adjust, and he'll either learn to tolerate discussion of race and to contribute more productively, or bolt*. I'm intrigued as to what sort of ideology he possesses that would attract him to paleo sites despite his abhorrence of racial awareness.
I suspect educators to be prone to a blank slate view while breeders and doctors are more prone to a genetics is everything view.
Libertarian ideology is probably my pet peeve, and was I being judged I'm sure folks could have a time with some of the less well thought out posts I've presented =p
---
The powers that be,
Hopefully my attempt at moderation won't be taken as impudent
From Stalking the Wild Taboo:
*
re 72: "IMO, the system does a good job of weeding out the racial obsessives. It will all take care of itself with or without your hyper vigilance."
I pray you're correct, Red.
#73 is correct even today. The NDP (Brown) is most popular in the former East Germany, and many of its members were once in the SED (Stalin Red). Adenauer might have been correct to suspect the German east as anti-Christian and anti-Democratic.
#74 "I’m intrigued as to what sort of ideology he possesses that would attract him to paleo sites despite his abhorrence of racial awareness."
Why here? Well, cuz I'm a mixture: (1) a Real Conservative (and I mean the European meaning of this word), someone of the Counter-Revolutionary tradition of Burke, de Maistre, Adam Mueller, Chateaubriand, Bonnald, Tour La Pin, Pius IX et al. (2) a Christian democrat (and I mean the European meaning of this phrase as well) with roots in the tradition of Aristotle, Leo XIII, Neo-Thomism, Realist Phenomenology and and the Post-Scheler Polish school of Personalism. I also like a lot in Hannah Arendt's _The Human Condition_ and _Eichmann in Jerusalem_. None of these folk were racialists.
And I am a bit saddened that after 100 years and three world wars, our enemies are still just two: Communists and Nazis -- however these two may wish to denominate themselves today.
RE:Sid 41. Found the history of crime interesting. ii was a bit over my grade level. I shall have to return to the library.
I do remember an old saw when I first started in law enfarcement; "If not for the Irish there'd be no police, if not for the Irish there'd be no need"
Oh lighten up !
I sincerely hope you all are walking as much as talking.
Blesses.
P.S. the beginning of my new comedy routine ... I come out and look at the audience:
"Ok anyone have restless leg syndrome? WALK. Get Up off the couch, WALK. Shoo, get out of here - go Outside. I want you all, this whole audience to get in a caravan and start walking around the theater." ...
*Is sid WALKING even 'power-walking' enough. (I'd thought he was at least a teacher.)
sometimes I suspect he's mr. French's alter-ego ... designed to provide the all-important Entertainment!
Back to the audience. "Ok stay seated!! You know in Europe each person on average still walks believe it or not five miles per day - in America .1 miles. What do you want to pop a pill?"
Enough of a teaser... you'll have to buy tickets and (walk) to see the show.
Craig, take a look at James Q. Wilson's work. Start with _Thinking About Crime_ (1983)
Sid, your long-winded irrelevancies manage to distort every discussion among authentic Chronicles folk.
"Irrelevancies"? Isn't the color of crime and its causes were what this page was about? Entries ##3, 7, 13, 25, 71 are "long winded"? The rest are replies to others, and one is James Q. Wilson's views of the real cause of crime.
If you don't like my ideas of crime, fine. You should say so. If you have evidence that J. Q. Wilson is wrong, offer it. Irrelevant (SUCH a trendy 60s word!) they are not. What have you been smoking? (another 60s' practice -- and with "smoking", I'm just speaking figuratively)
I also prefer to believe that "authentic Chronicles folk" aren't fans of the Klan and Alfred Rosenberg -- literally or by analogy. I also prefer to believe that those who are Catholic know the Magisterium's prohibitions of racialism, nationalism, Social Darwinism, and Judeophobia -- and thus aren't Faux Catholics.
I also know authentic League folk (as opposed to faux), who remember Stephen Mallory's religion, Judah P. Bejamin's ethnic identity, Gov. Wade Hampton's (of SC -- know him?) view of Jim Crow, and Lee's view of slavery. They also know of Edgerton's membership. They also know Lincoln's real view of "blacks" and Abolition.
Am I wrong about Chronicles and League folk? If so be so kind, sir, to tell me. And I'll enroll with Lew Rockwell or the Catholic Zentrum.
My question for Sid is this: if you have truly believed all along "that 'authentic Chronicles folk' aren’t fans of the Klan and Alfred Rosenberg" (a correct belief), why are you wasting so much breath freaking out over every word that's just a little too politically incorrect for your stomach? Why do you insist upon moralizing at us, telling us to do a better job weeding out the fanatical racists, nationalists, sociobiologists and anti-Semites, who, I submit, you already acknowledge are a marginal and trivial minority?
To conclude my remarks about the color of crime. Americans think that races exist and classes don't. The opposite is true. Crime is a class issue. The Lumpenproletariat has always had high crime. The man who SHOULD be our biggest enemy said so himself (see his _The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon_) and hated this class the most. And in the course of American history a whole group was forced into the Lumpenproletariat, as every American historian knows.
Were I writing to the First "Blacks" (the pre 1808ers) I would give them a tongue-lashing far worse than anything a stealth Klansman would give. NO ONE is forcing them into the Lumpenproletariat NOW, save for that Welfare Plantation called the Federal Government and their own repertory of behaviors which are self-defeating.
But I'm not writing to them, am I? And the sad course of this summer has made me wonder, Just to WHOM am I writing?
It would be superfluous to tell any Catholics reading this that the 5th Session of the Council of Trent, 17. vi. a.D. 1546, tells Catholics the EXACT color of crime: all colors possible, which is to say color has nothing to do with it.
"It would be superfluous to tell any Catholics reading this that the 5th Session of the Council of Trent, 17. vi. a.D. 1546, tells Catholics the EXACT color of crime: all colors possible, which is to say color has nothing to do with it.
"To conclude my remarks about the color of crime. Americans think that races exist and classes don’t. The opposite is true. Crime is a class issue." -sid
Americans don't 'think' for the most part, they believe. They believe that races exist and classes don't, true enough, I suppose. But the opposite isn't true as you suggest, they both exist. Sure, we are of one human race or species; and so are K9s, except for all intents and purposes, a german shepard is not a collie is not a poodle etc. Yes they can inter-breed. And these different types or 'races' or breeds of k9s have different characteristics or traits. Like human beings they are all more similar than different, but different as well. It's both. And similarly in terms of the nature v. nurture quandry - it's both.
As for the color of crime too it's case by case (in order to ascertain which colors are perpetrating it the most.) And it's epoch by epoch in terms of the simple Fact that everything happens on the time space continuum obviously at different times and thus in different epochs. And the same is true if including which classes commit the most crimes and what kinds as a consideration.
Your theory that the lack of money is the root of all evil in so far as one need only to look at crime on a class basis - and not look at crime on a color or 'race' basis, and also within the context of a particular timeFrame to perhaps get a snapshot of the cultural milieu for a basis - is simplistic. That's just like suggesting we all pretend to be LESS conscious than we are about what exists, since that's according to your *theory* 'better'. It's just like suggesting on the other hand the love of money is the root of all evil. That sort of absolutist position or belief is truncated as well, or too incomplete, if one were to learn anything... And not merely rely on one's memory of historical details, valuable as that may also be, though as only just another Variable, and not an answer to the equation itself.
And to make a rhetorical statement like you don't know anymore who you are writing to, or for - when you post at this site so as to chastise or arbitrarily admonish the other posters is condescending. DON'T post here anymore then. Why not find another site on which to post where you feel like you know to whom you are writing and 'what for.' Maybe you are only writing to yourself. So then just put it into a bottle and toss out upon the waters of an ocean if you live near to the shore... it could be valuable in epochs to come.
Isn't that rational? Remember the 'rational' has to also include the appropriate amount of the irrational as well (since it exists too) or it's NOT rational. Sid are you Able to hold two apparently conflicting thoughts in you head simultaneously without say short-circuiting or perhaps suffering some kind of personality disintegration? How's your i.q. ... are you sure you're Up to posting at this site and it's not too much of a stretch. We're all imperfect; everyone's reach exceeds their grasp...But most of the other posters neither blame the site for this fact of life nor lecture the other posters in such a condescending fashion as does your royal hindness.
Remember a. hamilton may have won for a couple hundred years, but he lost the duel to a. burr.
p.s. - why do I say americans don't think for the most part, they 'believe'. well, beliefs are easier they're open-ended like wishes and ideas - like, say 'all men are created equal.' And that kind of almost prayer gets a lot of endorphins going - the human brain's natural painkillers. It's happier, and that's good. While a thought is more difficult or tougher on us albeit it has its place. A thought is something complete in itself -and- something you can Do. Like for example don't confuse motion with action. You see sid, it's complete in itself and something you Can do. Now there's something to work on, no?
i apologize i've been condescending...so as to mirror how you come off to us.
______________
"And the sad course of this summer has made me wonder, Just to WHOM am I writing?"
I think that fairly obvious, Sid. I think it's more a WHAT than a WHOM.
You are writing to that swollen tumor attached to the side of your psyche.
You know, the one which is slowly devouring your brains, along with your dignity -- all the while assuring you that everything shall be alright so long as you can invoke the names of various intellectuals and studies, clinging to them like so many security blankets.
"Your theory that the lack of money is the root of all evil"
Mr. Springer: You're hardly to be blamed for the above quote. Most Americans think as you do about class (_Klasse_), when they mean "strata" (_Stand_). Class isn't a function of money. Most Grand Bourgeois ("Old Money" to Gringos) and Nouveau Riches, each a different class, in the 19th C had more money than the Nobility. I know Petty Bourgeois (the Lower Middles") who are better off than some Bourgeois Professionals (the "upper middles"). Indeed I know some rich are are very, very Middle-Middle Bourgeois. One could argue that government bureaucrats are a class unto themselves. (By the way, class also not a function of the relation to the means of production, Marx notwithstanding.)
Class is a whole "mindset", if not culture. Each even has its own art. Impressionism was really the first art of the Bourgeoisie since the 17th C Dutch school.
For "class", Real Conservatives used the term "estate". Cicero called it _ordo_.
See John Lukacs' essay on the Bourgeois. Paul Fussell's _Class_ is dated (he mistakenly thought there was no more Petty Bourgeoisie), but still useful, and a delight to read.
And read up on the Lumpenproletariat and get back with us.
Thanks for at least for something other than ad hominem.
sid we're kind not ad hominem and you're kind, except when you don't realize you're doing ad hominem. you can't change possibly. ok.
the lumpenproletariat is like a drop in the bucket to which you give all of this 'import' as an idea. ? when you say get back to us, it's a 'tell' - To whom... your handlers-?-or financiers? who? who is us? I hope it means that which i suggested... and not you and your tapeworm... Then i'm concerned, on both levels physical & psychological, as G.S. seemed to suggest, really.
I'm not General Patton - i'm not going to slap you soldier ~ If not to me - then won't you defer to clyde wilson? or are you above the fray? and counsel of our own?
Sid, you prove my point. You suggest that those who dont accept your view are guilty of race hatred, antisemitism, anti-catholicism, etc.. Likening those of Chronicles folk or the League who disagree with you to Alfred Rosenberg and the Klan is the lowest form of Leninist agitprop and unacceptable in any honest debate. There is a vast room for understanding for good people between your fantasies and the Klan. Your posing of the false alternatives reeks of leftist propaganda. May I suggest that you need to look at the real world for understanding, with the help of books. You are fitting reality to theory rather than theory to reality.
SID-AS-YODA:
Guilty of imposture, some responders here are.
Not Real Conservatives, are they.
Their political coloration?
Brown, it is.
(hhhhrrrrrmmmm)
Fussel's *Class* (though dated it is), and James Q. Wilson, read you must -- before you face Vader.
Know that Judah P. Benjamin was a Jew, did you?
----------------------------------------------------------------
[We all have our own favorite "Classic Sid-Moments".
For posterity's sake I've recorded just a few of mine.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SID: "Would all columnists, responders, and readers who have been to Harlan County, KY, please raise their hands?"
MR. HIGDON: "Mr. Cundiff, I’ve been to Harlan County, KY a few times since I have relatives from there."
SID: "Sorry Kirt, you don’t know much about Harlan County or its history, nor about Appalachian whites and their history, or the Borderer Backcountry and their history...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Yup, nothing shows clear-cut, razor-keen reasoning than asking a yes-or-no question, "Have you been to Harlan?", gloating over the expected "no"...
.... and then responding to the surprise "yes" with, "Uh, well, sorry, Kirt, I don't really give a rat's ass whether or not you've been to Harlan.
Yeah, I know I asked that question but ... doesn't matter. I only asked it because I figured the answer was 'no'. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SID: "... to verify your claim, tell me in what towns in Harlan County your relatives live, and I’ll do a white pages search for 'Higdon'."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even better is implying that someone has to prove their honesty to you.
Yeah, those sneaky KKK-sympathizers who are always coming to the Chronicles weblog & trying to pass themselves off as having been to Harlan, Sid.
Man, but I do hate those sly Brown bastards.
Keep your keen eye out for them.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SID: "Kirt, I found Higdons in Harlan. You're clear."
MR. HIGDON: "Glad you found some Higdons in Harlan, Sid, but the cousins I was in touch with down there were named either Tooms or Lusk."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
["Doh!"]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. HIGDON: "... Once I suffered from dog-on-white violence, a slight nip from my second cousin’s German shepherd..."
SID: "... And your own anecdotal experience is not evidence."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Wow. The Self-Important Twit-o-Meter just went off the scale.
Sid, anybody with a functional social intelligence can tell that "dog-on-white violence" was an attempt at a little levity, Mr. Higdon's effort to combat "the slander of German shepherds that they are especially hostile to blacks".]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. WILSON: "Sid, your long-winded irrelevancies manage to distort every discussion among authentic Chronicles folk."
SID: "Isn’t the color of crime and its causes were what this page was about?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Why, you're right, Sid. The color of crime and its causes were what this page was about -- in theory, anyhow.
Of course after 83 posts I haven't drawn much of anything from you except that Hitler was on the wrong track, the Church loves Mexicans too, and that blacks are not orcs pre-programmed to evil.
Thank you so much, Sid, for helping me with all that, with my growth and development.
I'm sure I can speak for Red Phillips, Nick Moses, Allen Wilson, Dr. Wilson, Kirt Higdon AND Pat Buchanan and Jason and all the rest of the participants in the Sid Cundiff Booklog in saying .... we're damn grateful to you.
Of course Mr. Buchanan's argument -- that black racism toward whites is a bigger problem in America than white racism against blacks -- has gone utterly untouched, except for a few feeble subversive stabs at relevancy in, say, posts #49 & 50 -- but that's OK.
Is Buchanan's argument correct, or incorrect?
Ah, well, who knows?
Who cares?
Since, after all, we don't read Chronicles columns to discuss the position of the columnist, Sid.
Ohbutno.
We read Chronicles columns so we can all discuss whatever thesis for which YOU happen to have an erection at the moment -- be it the Brown conspiracy, or the nonexistence of race, or the New Venusian Age.
Teach us, Sid.
Mentor us.
Make us strong in the ways of the Force.
re #88. This is much more responsible criticism, Clyde, and I can profit from it. Thanks. Matters are indeed not black/white (so to speak) but rather shades of gray. Certainly with respect to crime.
Clever GS, and ad hominem.
I fear Sid may be pulling the Old Jedi Mind-Trick on me and clouding my reasoning. So somebody correct me if the real point we should have been debating for the past -- oh, 80 posts-- should not have actually been:
"The real repository of racism in America—manifest in violent interracial assault, rape and murder—is to be found not in the white community, but the African-American community.
In almost all interracial attacks, whites are the victims, not the victimizers."
Am I on crazy-pills?
Does the preceding assertion -- whether true or false -- have *anything* to do with what we've been talking about?
And SUCH a valuable contribution from G.S. on the color of crime! ##53, 54 were better.
hey look purge sid... i've been purged. just stop his inanity based on name and e-mail address (for his own good - tough love) - make him have multiple i.d.'s (and e-mail addresses) like me.
it helps. for example i gave up finally the identity that got hemorrhoids - i once got one as big as a tail ... sid would say - see i told you so. (ad hominen)
giving up that 'identity' i got rid of it. purge sid, for his own good. wake up call. let sid know, yes evolution Can happen, in reverse. sid, get rid of that tail. serious'Bro. it ain't a halo...oh, no.
"Clever GS, and ad hominem."
Yes, yes, I realize it lacks the laser-tight argumentative skills of:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HIGDON: “… Once I suffered from dog-on-white violence, a slight nip from my second cousin’s German shepherd…”
SID: “… and your own anecdotal experience is not evidence.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After all, what would the fact that you converse like a self-important, lobotomized parrot have to do with anything?
Why, heavens to Betsy, GS, you're right! We've overlook the basic logical error and unproven minor thesis! Thank you so much for pointing this out. So to work:
“The real repository of racism in America—manifest in violent interracial assault, rape and murder—is to be found not in the white community, but the African-American community.
"In almost all interracial attacks, whites are the victims, not the victimizers.”
First, let's set up the syllogisms that are true:
1. There is more crime now in general population (#41 above)
2. "Blacks" are part of the general population
3. therefore, it is reasonable to assume that "black" crime is up too
1. The Lumpenproletariat commits a larger percentage of crime for its class when compared to other classes (#83 above)
2. "Blacks" historically were forced into the Lumpenproletariat
3. Therefore "Blacks" commit more crime.
1. Certain ethnic groups are violent than others because of the cultural values of such groups
2. "Blacks" and Backcountrymen have such values
3. Therefore "Blacks" and Backcountry men are more violent (whether Sowell's thesis that "Blacks" learned this from the Backcountry is another matter)
1. The larger the population, the more it is likely have have more crime victims
2. There are more "white" people than "blacks"
3. Therefore, "white" people are more likely to be the victims of crime.
QED
Now let's look at Buchannan's non sequitur:
1 "In almost all interracial attacks, whites are the victims, not the victimizers.” [not in every case, but reasonable enough: there are more "white" people, and there is a lower percentage of them in the Lumpenproletariat]
3. Therefore "“The real repository of racism in America ...] [is to be found [...] African-American community."
Now what's the missing minor premise? THE PROOF THAT BLACK ON WHITE CRIME IS MOTIVATED BY "BLACK" RACISM AGAINST "WHITES". Simple enough.
Moreover, how often are "blacks" (historically and at present) the victims of "white" criminals? More importantly, how often are "blacks" themselves the victims of "BLACK" criminals. If if they are MORE OFTEN the victim of "black" than "white", then what motivates "blacks" to victimize their "black" bro's? I submit that to attribute a significant "racist" motive for any crime is, at best, not proven and misplaced.
Black "supremacists" are out there (go read about Leonard Jeffries and Frances Cress Welsing), and save for "white" Cultural Marxists, nobody "black" or "white" reads them.
Still unquoted are the crime rates broken down for various "white" ethnics and the various "black ethnics"; i.e. are German-American more or less violent than Czech-Americans? are West Indians more or less than the First Blacks (pre 1808?), or "blacks" from east Africa? Such a breakdown is needed before any serious discussion of the color of crime can take place. Also stats are not offered to show the breakdown of crime among such groups either by class or strata. I know it requires more effort to find these stats than to bash Sid or just throw a tantrum. (The heritage of emotionalism from the Dissenter Churches is a topic for itself. )
and i thought i had diahrrhea of the mouth...
sid (~swipe) - you take the BOWL. ... g.s. why am i picking up that (invisibly) you and sid, g.s. are a tag-team? ah, the folks in this country are so sweet... all they deserve is a principled nirvana not you two. wow. g.s. now i'm not convinced in your s--t. that means a bad vibe. sorry.
sorry.
... What G.S. says (post #89).
(quote) "What G.S. says (post #89)." -MOSES .. (end quote)
screw you moses, you know me - aren't you overseas yet?
otherwise i figure YOU for one of the invisible? No? I 'got' the goggles...stead'of a seeing EYE dog.
_______________________________________________
"otherwise i figure YOU for one of the invisible? No? I ‘got’ the goggles…stead’of a seeing EYE dog. "
Jeff Springer
Jeff are you locked in a cell with SC or are you SC? I mean really, a reference to an '80's direct to video stinker like "They Live"...and including "Hoffman Goggles" no less. This entire thread is pure gold...
Correct me if I'm wrong of course. I don't mean to get rough with you Jeff but that's just too weird to let pass if I'm not. Nor you Sid. It's just Jeff thinks I'm you or some such. If this thread hadn't gone south from the get-go I wouldn't even mention it at all. Really.
Can we all agree that playtime is over and have some respect for ourselves and others? I hope so.