Black mobs hit Chicago; Tribune: why aren’t you worried about Seventh Day Adventists?
Jun 26th, 2011 by Unamused
Chicago is under attack by “packs” (source) of “wild” blacks (source), and the Chicago Tribune thinks you’re racist for noticing. This will be my sixth and final post on the subject. Previously:
- “Chicago under attack by packs of wild blacks; Tribune: you’re racist for noticing” (introduction)
- “Black mobs attack white people; Tribune editor: race is not a factor” (race denialist article 1)
- “Mobs are all-black; Tribune: we won’t report race until all blacks are in mobs” (race denialist article 2)
- “Tribune: ‘black’ is to ‘criminal’ as ‘Muslim’ is to ‘terrorist'” (race denialist article 3)
- “One week in Chicago” (all the crimes, in detail)
I’ve saved the best — by which I mean worst — race denialist article for last. Steve Chapman’s “Race and the ‘flash mob’ attacks” (rating: 1.5 stars) is fully dedicated to shaming white readers for noticing black criminality. It is almost beyond parody.
Almost.
Here’s my question about the teenagers who have been attacking and robbing people on North Michigan Avenue in recent days: Were they Christians? And if so, what denomination? Baptist? Catholic? Seventh Day Adventist?
Those may sound like ridiculous questions. But so is the question raised by many Tribune readers about our coverage: Why aren’t we mentioning that the culprits are black?
Mm. Let us delve into the thought process at work here.
- observation 1: black people, and only black people, are responsible for the assaults and robberies
- observation 2: they target white people
- observation 3: the attacks are characterized by extreme, senseless violence
- observation 4: none of Propositions 1–3 are true if you replace “black” by “Christian” — let alone “Baptist,” “Catholic,” or “Seventh Day Adventist” — or replace “white” by anything* but “white”
- proposition 5: observations 1–4 are (further) strong evidence for an ongoing epidemic of racially motivated black-on-white violence
- observation 6: people, including Tribune readers, want to be safe from violence, racially motivated or otherwise
- proposition 7: being aware of observations 1–4 would help White readers avoid racially motivated violence (by proposition 5)
- observation 8: the Tribune refuses to report observations 1–4
*The criminals are not targeting the old or the young, men or women, the rich or the poor; they’re not attacking whoever happens to be close by (no “crimes of opportunity” here); and they’re sure as hell not coming after some other racial or ethnic group.
Given observation 6 and proposition 7, Mr. Chapman is astonished to discover that white readers are complaining about observation 8. Why aren’t they complaining about Seventh Day Adventist mobs, a problem which clearly doesn’t exist (observation 4), rather than a problem which clearly does exist (observations 1–3)? “Ridiculous,” he says.
Chapman is full of it: you can’t be a reporter and be stupid enough to believe the parable of the Seventh Day Adventist mobs. (Not unless you’re an affirmative action hire.) The real reason the news media refuse to report observations 1–4 is that they inevitably lead to Proposition 5: the recognition of an epidemic of racially motivated black-on-white violence. Now why would that recognition that be a bad thing? Well, here for comparison is the Tribune’s argument:
- observation 1: black people, and only black people, are responsible for the assaults and robberies
- observation 2: they target white people
- observation 3: the attacks are characterized by extreme, senseless violence
- observation 4: none of observations 1–3 are true if you replace “black” by “Christian” or replace “white” by anything but “white”
- proposition 5: observations 1–4 are (further) strong evidence for an ongoing epidemic of racially motivated black-on-white violence
- assumption X: black people couldn’t possibly be more criminal/more racist/less intelligent/etc. than white people
- assumption Y: racism against black people is the worst thing in the whole world
- proposition 6b: if the Tribune reported observations 1–4, readers would believe there is an ongoing epidemic of racially motivated black-on-white violence (by proposition 5)
- proposition 7b: believing negative things about black people is racism, because it can’t possible be true (by assumption X)
- proposition 8b: the Tribune must not report observations 1–4 (by propositions 6b and 7b, and assumption Y)
The rest of Chapman’s article may now be efficiently rebutted.
There are good reasons not to identify the attackers by race. It’s the newspaper’s sound general policy not to mention race in a story, whether about crime or anything else, unless it has some clear relevance to the topic.
My rebuttal: observation 6 and proposition 7.
If a reporter goes out and interviews people about the weather, would it make sense for the story to say, “Joe Smith, who is black, is hoping for a cool front”? If a pedestrian gets run over by a bicyclist, should the story mention that the rider was white?
My rebuttal: proposition 5.
In the attack coverage, what difference does race make, unless police are putting out descriptions or sketches in hopes of getting tips from witnesses? Getting beat up for your iPad, I suspect, feels about the same regardless of the color of the thieves. Police don’t seem to think victims were targeted because of their race.
My rebuttal: propositions 5 and 7 and observation 6, plus the following maps, showing how far some of these “thieves” — these senselessly violent packs of up to 20 “thieves” — had to travel to find their victims: map 1 (five mob attacks, by 15–20, around Streeterville; felony robbery and mob action), map 2 (two mob attacks, by 15–20, downtown; felony aggravated battery in a public place and mob action), map 3 (same).
Also, how surprising that in a city where asking why the newspapers won’t report the race of black criminals is considered racist, the police aren’t saying that blacks might be targeting whites because of their race. Who could have predicted such a thing?
And what good would it do to trumpet the skin color of the thugs? So pedestrians on Michigan Avenue can run away when they see two or more African-Americans? Lots of black adolescents and young adults can be found on the Magnificent Mile on any given day. I’d guess at least 95 percent of them are harmless.
My response: observation 6 and proposition 7. Also, mentioning race is not the same as trumpeting it.
My question to readers accusing us of political correctness is: Why do you care so much about the attackers’ race? If you fear or dislike blacks, I suppose it would confirm your prejudice. But otherwise, it tells you nothing useful.
My response: go fuck yourself, Steve Chapman (by proposition 7 and observation 8).
This is good. I hope this is getting some hits in Chicago.
The depths they’ll sink to.
Of course, if we were to find out a group of violent thugs that had been terrorizing a city were all professed Christians, or more so, if all of them were of the same denomination, or more so still, if all of them were congregants at the same church, THAT WOULD BE FUCKING NOTEWORTHY!
His article gets stupider the longer you think about it.
Another attack in Philly. Seems some freelance (?) writer for ‘The Onion’ got seriously hurt in the attack.
Guess what isn’t mentioned in the report: Race. So Philly.com can’t state the race of the attackers, but they have no problem telling their age range and gender of the attackers. If they can’t, or won’t, state the race, why even state the age range and gender? Hypocrites.
She has been on Twitter writing about it.
One other thing to point out is that the Streeterville area is NOT one of the easier areas in Chicago to reach by subway. This means that the Mahogany Mobs have to go to some effort to get to Streeterville and then back home.
This is willful intent to destroy line of communication by Whites. Delete facts change the story build Strawman arguments are all designed to obscure the truth.
I wrote this on OneSTDV about people upset that Whites have not yet retaliated:
I see a lot of anger at White males but please think of two things.
Number one MSM kills these stories not only to protect the offenders but to destroy any type of mobilization of Whites. Most people still use traditional sources of media for news even if that is changing. If you only hear of one story and that story is vague it is easily seen as a one time incident.
Two: there is a cost benefit analysis to actions people who have standard intelligence weigh their actions. Whites not only realize that if the defend their selves physically they will be incarcerated. They also realize they will be sued and lose home, car, savings, and any wealth accumulated.
This is a very unfair situation blacks have no fear of jail many see it as a positive street cred thing. They also have no fear of losing a job or accumulated wealth as they are subsidized by the government.
MuayTyson
Unamused, this is terrific work. I live in Chicago, which is how I found your site, and I really appreciate that there are people like you telling the truth.
I also wanted to let you know how much of an impact it’s had on me to realize that outright racists and fig-leaf crypto-racists are the only people telling the truth about racial matters in America. It induces vertigo to realize that you’ve been lied to all your life about racial issues.
I felt that vertigo just a few days ago when I read that mainstream newspapers openly admit that they are covering up racial angles to make blacks look better. After coming here, I went back and read your coverage of the “flash mob” phenomenon in Philly and elsewhere. You’re telling the truth about everything, and the newspaper is trying to deceive me. The obvious question is what else are they lying to me about?
Since you read anti-racism blogs, I was wondering if you’ve noticed anything about the Trib’s cover-up on them, or if they’ve got anything to say at all beyond the usual boilerplate about poverty causing violence, racist whites, etc etc etc ad nauseam. I understand if you’re busy and don’t have time for their crap, obviously, but if not, I’d love to hear what you found.
Thanks again and best wishes,
s.n.
Unamused,
The encryption for this site has been compromised. You’re moving up in the world.
Don’t try to mention any of this on the Tribune’s site…they conveniently keep closing comments threads on all these stories, claiming too many violations of their commenting rules.
@ J.D.: Great catch.
@ thayer: Good info.
@ s.n.: I’m very glad to hear it. The “racism” accusation is the greatest lie of our times, and realizing that the “racists” (well, some of them) have been telling the truth (or something closer to it) all along is a profoundly strange experience.
As for anti-racists around the Web, I’ve been focusing on big media outlets, not blogs, but I do get to see a lot of reader comments — at Fark.com, in particular. It’s nothing new: people who don’t actually know anything about the ongoing black mob violence, or about any of the other recent waves of black mob violence, or indeed about crime statistics in general, are announcing that (a) blacks aren’t at fault (often citing the absence of race in the news and police reports), (b) even if blacks are at fault, the problem is sooooooo insignificant, only a racist would mention it (citing… their own ignorance of recent black mob violence, really), and/or (c) even if black mob violence is a real problem, well… here’s one example of some white people being mildly unruly, or maybe a peaceful white flash mob that sort of looks aggressive if you squint and turn your head.
These are the people who need to be referred to mah blog — this post and this one, especially.
@ Chuck: First I’ve heard of it.
@ JTB: Yeah, no kidding. Closing threads and deleting any mention of race (while preserving the “rebuttals” — see above). Making black people look bad (i.e., noticing when they are bad) is against the rules in liberal America.
Terrific post. I availed myself of your logical flow which I hope is ok with you.
http://igst.blogspot.com/2011/06/newspaper-logic-revealed.html
I am absolutely OK with that.
[…] – “Black Mobs Hit Chicago; Tribune: Why Aren’t You Worried About Seventh Day Adventists?“, “Black Flash Mob in Cleveland Heights; Cleveland.com Refuses to Report Race“, […]
Wasn’t Mr. Chapman’s the one who wrote in the 1996 American Spectator that he wished the White population be replaced by nonwhites?
He wrote that nonsense under the title, “Dark Women Rule” in July or August 1996 issue of the American Spectator, a neoconservative rag.
racerealist71
[…] ‘Race and the “Flash Mob” Attacks’ […]