Mobs are all-black; Tribune: we won’t report race until all blacks are in mobs
Jun 23rd, 2011 by Unamused
Chicago is under attack by “packs” (source) of “wild” blacks (source), and the Chicago Tribune thinks you’re racist for noticing. Reporter Mary Schmich wonders, “When a news story omits race, do we really know any less?” (June 8). If you think the answer is “yes, obviously,” you’re not alone: readers gave her a one-star rating, just like they did her editor.
You probably know the basic facts.
It happened Saturday night.
A dozen or so teenage males went on the prowl near North Michigan Avenue in Chicago’s toniest shopping district. They attacked five people, ages 20 to 68. Their loot included a backpack, a wallet, a bike, an iPad, a BlackBerry and an iPod Touch. The cops quickly arrested five alleged assailants, at least three of them from the South Side, and vowed to find the rest.
Right. A dozen — or was it 15 to 20? — young black people went “on the prowl” for “loot” (accurate and obnoxiously unserious phrasing) and attacked five people, four apparently white (so difficult to find out, when reporters like Ms. Schmich won’t do their job) and one visiting Japanese oncologist (CBS Chicago, June 5 and June 6; Chicago Tribune, June 6). The police have charged five blacks for the attacks; a sixth has been charged with mob action, and at least 20 arrested, in connection with the attacks.
Well done, Ms. Schmich. You got the “basic facts” — well, not right, but close.
If you’ve followed the story — and who hasn’t? — there’s another fact that you also know, but it’s one you haven’t read in the Tribune or seen explicitly stated by most of the official media: The young men were black.
Quelle surprise.
The reader response gives me some hope for the future of America:
“Shame on you and the Chicago Tribune for your politically correct crap when doing these type of stories,” one reader emailed several Tribune writers. “This is a diverse city and when you don’t physically describe them, we don’t know who to protect ourselves from.”
I’ve omitted the portion of his note that referred to “them” in ugly language.
God forbid someone should use “ugly language” to refer to these savages! (That’s “people who are savage.”) Why, that could hurt — no, not someone’s face, that’s what baseballs and fists do — no, not Chicago’s economy, that’s what packs of wild blacks “prowling” around robbing people in rich neighborhoods do — but it could definitely probably hurt someone’s feelings!
Another reader wrote: “I can’t imagine that if a gang of white teenagers went to the South Side of Chicago and began attacking African-Americans including a 68-year-old that the race card would be left out of your coverage. … I see a media double standard here.”
You are absolutely correct, anonymous reader: the news media are thoroughly biased in favor of black people.
So why would a news organization avoid a fact? This fact?
It’s a reasonable question, even if many of the people asking it on Internet comment boards have wrapped it up in irrational, irresponsible venom.
You mean they dared to notice the black crime epidemic destroying American cities — destroying their city — and reacted like rational, responsible people should react (namely, with venom)?
I’m ambivalent about the omission of the attackers’ race in the news accounts, but I think I would have decided to leave it out too.
As an editor pointed out when I asked about it, the crimes don’t appear to be racially motivated. There’s no sign the criminals picked victims because they were of a certain race. They picked them because they had certain stuff.
Well, sure. No racial motivation here. It’s just gangs of blacks, and only blacks, crossing the city to attack whites and Asians (mostly whites), and only whites and Asians — well, as far as I can tell. It’s not like reporters in Chicago are actually reporting this story.
“People see it as a media conspiracy,” he said of the decision to leave out their race. “It’s a media quandary.”
How could anyone be so irrational and irresponsible as to see this universal media censorship of the race angle as a “conspiracy”? Why, that’s no different from believing the government is controlled by lizard men from the center of the Earth!
Here’s the quandary, for editors, for cops, for all of us:
Race alone doesn’t predict or explain behavior. Just because this mob was young and black hardly means that all young, black people in groups are a violent mob. Knowing the race of these attackers is no form of protection.
Wrong, Ms. Schmich. You moron. First, race alone does predict and explain behavior. It doesn’t predict or explain it perfectly, but it’s better than nothing. Knowing that the animal outside your front door is a tiger doesn’t predict or explain its behavior perfectly either, but it’s useful information if your objective is to not get eaten. That’s why stereotyping is justified. The potential benefits of learning, from further contact with the tiger, that this particular tiger is not dangerous (e.g., the benefit of leaving through the front door of the house, rather than the back) are outweighed by the potential costs of learning that it is, in fact, dangerous (e.g., the cost of getting eaten).
Now how can skin color predict and explain behavior? Trick question. Race isn’t just skin color; it’s in your blood, it’s in your bones, and it’s in your DNA. You see, race is genetic, and every human behavioral trait is heritable (Eric Turkheimer’s first law of behavior genetics). That’s why there are innate race differences in intelligence and criminality.
Second, everyone knows that not all groups of young blacks are violent mobs. You moron. On the other hand, a lot of them are. The same cannot be said, at this time and in this place, of groups of young whites or young Chinese or young Eskimos. Do you see any reason for reporting the race of these mobs yet?
Third, knowing the race of these attackers is absolutely a form of protection. You moron. (See my example of the tiger, above.) We get it, black-apologist cretins: not every group of two or more blacks is a violent mob. How about groups of two or more blacks at night, in a (formerly) safe — meaning white (and/or Asian) — part of town, dressed like — well, like ghetto black thugs? How about then, when race is part of a more complete profile? Oh, wait, the cretins demand that race alone predict criminality with 100 percent accuracy. Otherwise they won’t report it. And you’re racist for noticing it.
Unless of course the races are reversed.
And yet race is an aspect of what happened Saturday night.
This oughta be good.
It’s a piece of the story simply because we notice. Young men from poor black neighborhoods create mayhem in a wealthy, predominantly white, touristed neighborhood? In the image capital of this historically segregated city? Of course we notice. By “we,” I mean everybody.
Yes, certainly, the real problems here are historical segregation (“historical” meaning “it’s over now, you whiny brat — and how’s that working out for white people, anyway?”) and people noticing black crime.
A friend recounts talking about the attacks with two of her friends. All three are black. One of their first thoughts was: “Oh my God, are they black kids?”
My friend wondered about their race because she worried about how their acts will reflect on all the good black kids.
Oh, those poor good black kids (wherever they may be). They’re being reflected upon by black criminals! That must be… agonizing.
The mother of one of the accused attackers noticed the racial aspect too. The Sun-Times quoted her as saying bails would have been lower if the crimes were on the South or West sides.
“If it’s black-on-black crime,” she said, “nobody cares.”
Look at that, we’ve identified another real problem: racism in the justice system! Except there isn’t any (Unamusement Park’s first law of race and crime). Still, it’s good we brought it up. It distracted everyone from black criminals, preventing any horrific, disfiguring reflections on “good black kids.”
So, yes, the attackers were black. We notice. But how to measure the relevance of the fact?
Here’s a thought, Ms. Schmich: measure it in white victims. You moron.
I think it’s a good article, not because of the content, but because of the fact that it was written at all. It was written in response to readers’ feedback. Because of the internet, black crime is exposed everywhere, the most visible being in YouTube videos and blogs like these.
Before easy access to unsanitized media, would your average white person have written emails like the ones above in response to these types of crime stories, before access to unsanitized internet media? Some, but not many. Would newspapers have responded to those types of emails? No way. Though I’m not sure if the article was written in response to actual emails, or just website comments. Comment systems on news websites are great, because HBD’ers can get their voice out. I’ve noticed on Yahoo! News, for instance, on black crime stories, comments that point out the race of the attackers get voted straight to the top, and so are read first.
Also, I love how you’re linking back to old posts. This blog is starting to look like an HBD encyclopedia.
It’s happening people are waking up maybe not fast enough for some but better late then never.
I really believe that blogs like this one are important and when we look back we’ll see that information stated intelligently was the deciding factor.
One of things you’ll notice on social justice blogs is that they will talk in BROAD generalizations while decrying other people generalizing them. So they’ll say something generalizing about white* people (always negative) and someone will object saying they don’t do such and such (because of course most people aren’t doing the thing claimed, which makes sense, but the commenters don’t realize that). So the person writing the blog will say something like “If it ain’t about you don’t make it about you….”
Alright. Well though that completely ignores the broad, negative and usually false generalization you just made, I can accept that. Someone at work harasses you by avoiding eating lunch with you because they saw you flip out on someone else and get in their face, sure, that racist doesn’t apply to me. I’ve never refused to eat lunch with you…
In any case I say the same thing now. If you are talking about statistics, intelligence, job rates, crime rates, single motherhood rates, if these things don’t apply to you, THEY DONT APPLY. So if a mob of young black men (over 20 = ABOUT a dozen, WTF Tribune..) is attacking white people in an obviously racially motivated hate crime, and YOU are NOT attacking people violently, then hey, DONT MAKE IT ABOUT YOU.
This isn’t about GOOD black kids, or GOOD white kids or GOOD, albeit incredibly whiny and irritating French kids. We don’t need to report in the news that these kids came home and did their homework and made dinner and took a bath. We report on things that have an IMPACT ON OTHER PERSONS LIVES. Things such as groups of persons attacking other people. If you’re not in those groups, stop whining about reporting on those groups.
It leads one to wonder WHY are you ACTUALLY objecting to reporting these crimes AND THEIR FACTS?
* Disclosure, I am NOT white. I am Irish. (As my feckin’ gorgeous gravatar demonstrates.
And what the hell is HBD? Can’t we stop this talking in acronyms?
Human Bio-Diversity.
Aoirthoir,
As always I enjoy your comments. I do have to disagree with you about being Irish, Irish are so White they get moon burns.
One major tactic of the Left is the ability to be incredibly hypocritical when it suits them. It is perfectly acceptable for them to say, “Whites behave this way!” or my favorite The White Power Structure as though all Whites are given conference call on things to do with laws or governance.
But blacks must always be treated as individuals even when they vote en mass of over 90%. Or are polled and have a super majority opinion on something.
It is the control of language that the Left was given and this must be wrenched from their control. The N-word being maybe the first word that Libs were allowed control. By the way the word is “n*gger” if you didn’t know and of course it is a variation the Spanish Negro or meaning black hardly something to get shot over but does happen with too much frequency.
Fantastic article. My brother is moving to Chicago. I fear for his safety and sanity.
An honest liberal explains the triumph of “science”: http://comm.colorado.edu/~jacksonj/cephalic_index.pdf
Fuck you Aoirthoir,I’m Irish too,so you don’t fool me with that Irish MOPE shite(Most Oppressed People Ever)that Irish losers like to indulge in.
Not only are you white arsehole,but skin cancer rates make you a member of THE whitest people on earth.
Not only moonburns Muay Tyson,I once got badly burned when Venus was particularly bright one morning.
Edwood,
Your brother will be fine if he sticks to certain neighborhoods and watches his back at night. I’m obviously biased as I think Chicago is the greatest city in the world, but I live in a far northwest side neighborhood that is almost all white and as a result has an awesome public school and is safe at night.
Meanwhile, a family friend lives in a condo in the Hancock Building on Michigan Avenue and won’t take walks at night for fear of the black mobs (she used to go out all the time at night as the lights on Michigan Avenue, our equivalent to Fifth Avenue in New York are beautiful at night). Sad and unacceptable.
If you want any advice about Chicago ‘hoods or things to do, I’m your guy. Just stop by my blog and drop me a line and I’d be happy to help out.
It is really annoying when they call criminal black juveniles “young men.” It makes the reporter sound like he or she has maternal or amorous feelings for them. Can journalism please at least bring back “hooligans”?
BINGO!!!!!
Argh! Someone told me that on this blog before. I will forget again. :D Danke Clar!
Of course you do, everyone does. So what other nuggets of obviousness do you have in store for me? :D
Listen you! Don’t try to confuse me with the facts. I know it’s something you rightists like to do a lot. FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, like facts are so fuckin’ important.
ridiculous, hypersensitive, audacious liars, fantasy world livers… I could go on.
Very easy to do. See, the left has set up the rules WHICH THEY WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE FOLLOW. They have a nasty habit of calling people out on behavior, and they DESPISING when they are called out on the same behavior. They will state for instance that MOTIVE and INTENT DO NOT MATTER. What matters is WHAT YOU SAID and that IT HURT SOMEONE, so therefore YOU MUST apologize, kick yourself in the chins and so on. Of course if you DO apologize they don’t actually accept that either. But the MOMENT THEIR behavior is pointed out to be -ist, then SUDDENLY INTENT matters. So…
CALL THEM OUT ON THEIR BULLSHIT.
WHENEVER they use an -IST to defend against another -ist, I CALL THEM OUT: http://netsplit.com/2009/10/11/on-sexism/
WHENEVER they use the terms something-phobia, (homo-phobia, islamophobia etc) I point out that their statements ARE ABLEIST. Would we tolerate refering to gay-hate (if someone ACTUALLY hates gays) as homo-retard? Would we tolerate calling someone who ACTUALLY (or even purportedly) hates Muslims, islamoretards? OF COURSE NOT. So then why is it that the non-neurotypical get to be thrown under the bus and have VALID MEDICAL SYMPTOMS ***CONFLATED*** with hate?
Now notice what I did there. I did NOT CO-OPT their language. Instead what I did was HOLD THEM TO THEIR ****OWN***** paradigm.
Now are you going to CONVERT any of these people to REALITY? Probably not. Certainly not any more than I am going to convert you ridiculous rightists to reality. BUT, what you will do is EXPOSE THE DEPTHS OF THEIR DEPRAVITY. I don’t mean some “oh gosh someone just doesn’t like my morals which harm no one depravity…” Fuck whomever you want. The depravity I am talking about is their duplicitous lying nature: http://pthree.org/2010/09/09/ramadan-week-4/
Now you’ll notice in the tech community (of which I am a part) accusations of this or that -ist get tossed around QUITE A BIT. In particular persons who were opposing THREATS OF MURDER for mere DRAWING a STICK FIGURE, were called islamophobes. I objected at every instance. But notice in the preceding link, a monoculturalist says PLAINLY that ME and PEOPLE LIKE ME (poly-sexuals, poly-theists) DESERVE TO DIE…. As you will note in the article NOT ONE PEEP from those accusers, to accuse the person that ACTUALLY things people should die FOR BEING DIFFERENT. The community IS SILENT. But god help a Christian Blogger who objects to Muslim death threats for drawing stick figures, that person HATES HATES HATES Muslims! Is FULL of HATE…I mean for fuck sake…
Disclosure: I am a PAGAN, a POLYTHEIST and mostly a self-worshiper cause all the almighty gods when they got together to make me, DAYUM they put together a nice package!
Yes I know about negro, as in El gato de negra. Or, El Irish de negra. As in, I’M NOT WHITE ARSE HAT :D
Pics, or it didn’t happen.
No you’re not.
Who said I was oppressed?
However, SINCE YOU DID GO THERE. Facts are that the number of African slaves brought to these United States in the trans-atlantic slave trade amounted to about 300,000. The Irish slaves brought over MORE THAN ONE AND A HALF MILLION. The Irish slaves were as a fact treated worse because their cost was FREE or A MERE PITTANCE compared to African slaves. But there are some people who agree with you: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/28/irish-apes-tactics-of-de-humanization/
Sorry WRONG AGAIN. I have mighty freckles which protect me. Plus I won’t die of skin cancer cause I avoid doctors.
What are you a pussy? This venus is from mars bullshit is for Harpores.
“a monoculturalist says PLAINLY that ME and PEOPLE LIKE ME (poly-sexuals, poly-theists) DESERVE TO DIE”
A MUSLIM is the monoculturalist in question. While other monoculturalists have their control games that we polyculturalists are always getting caught in the middle of, the facts are that I can live in every christian nation unmolested. I can LIVE in NO muslim nation as a Pagan. The DEATH penalty is ALIVE AND WELL for people like me there. I don’t even get the option, like christians and jews, to live as a dhimi (second class citizen with no rights). DEATH or CONVERSION. Those are my pagan options in a muslim world.
“I have mighty freckles which protect me.”
This made me cackle. Clear vision of little freckles with swords and shields and bows and arrows.
Nice post.
“This made me cackle. Clear vision of little freckles with swords and shields and bows and arrows.”
:D
On a side note over at feministe they wrote an article claiming a Republic John McCain campaign manager met, dated and fell in love with a 17 year old high school student. It’s labeled: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/06/21/here-read-the-yuckiest-wedding-article-in-recent-memory/ the Yuckiest wedding…
Several (including me) pointed out that um NO he didn’t date, fall in love with and marry a 17 year old high school student. He MET her when she was 17, FOUR DAYS AWAY from her 18th birthday. I pointed out how, as typical, the article was MISLEADING and one could expect NO retraction. (While I despise you rightists as much as I despise leftists, at least rightists will own up to fuck ups, unless it involve abortion of course, shitfarts). But a leftist will almost NEVER retract an article. Men have been accused falsely of rape, it will be demonstrated that they weren’t even in country at the time of the rape, and STILL the article will stand.
So should we expect an article which lyingly claims that a man married a 17 year old and that he is a PREDATOR and CREEPY (yes they said that) to be retracted? Nope. BUT you can bet your sweet ass that COMMENTS POINTING OUT THE NEED TO RETRACT such claims, WILL be “retracted”. So yes they deleted my comments and now my comments don’t even go into the comment queue. And remember ALL I said was, the article was dishonest and needed to be retracted.
But that’s a common thing on leftist blogs. So what happens is people read them and they think that most people agree with the article. Even if they disagree they think something’s wrong with them. When they aren’t realizing that the blog SKEWS the responses to be more in their favor.
(I posted that they needed to make a retraction on their article about that supposed kidnapped Syrian lesbian blogger, who turned out to be a man. But that won’t be noted in the article either.)
Here’s the thing: blacks have no problem in holding whites accountable collectively for “crimes” such as slavery and segregation. Even when these things have been long dead, and whites today had nothing to do with them (and these things were legal at the time, for better or worse). If blacks can hold whites collectively for “crimes” against blacks, then why not the converse? Why suddenly do blacks believe in holding individuals accountable?
In fairness to blacks, much of the problem comes from white liberals, especially those in media and academia, who run the propaganda machine. They provide the ready made excuses for black pathologies at home and abroad. Thus, crime in the rainbow nation of new South Africa can be blamed on apartheid, or the dysfunctions of a Haiti on two century old economic boycotts. In the USA, black violent crime, black illegitimacy, black school drop-out rates, ad nauseam, can all be blamed on segregation or slavery or something.
The question is, when will these liberal excuses cease? Because when blacks become a majority in a city, these make it impossible to get anything constructive done. It’s easier to play the scapegoat game, and whites are now becoming the sacrificial victims. Look at Detroit. Rather than getting proactive and rebuilding the city, the dysfunctions become urban policy.
In the bigger picture, the anti-white liberal propaganda machine not only justifies but in all likelihood motivates black-on-white violence. If one is “oppressed” and being “denied opportunities” by whites, are you then not justified in taking violent action against them? Do these pack attacks have a political component?
The problem here is not simply the black-on-white crime. It is the liberal propaganda machine behind it. One thing that race realists need do is derail it. If nothing else, the internet gives a forum in which the prevailing liberal party line can be discredited. Look at it as an information age insurgency.
So you’ve discovered for yourself that rightists care about the truth, whereas leftists don’t. You care about the truth. You’ll be a rightist soon enough.
Well said, Californian. Especially:
Liberals have given Black criminals the perfect excuse to do what they want to do anyway: “Help, help! We’re being oppressed!”
“So you’ve discovered for yourself that rightists care about the truth, whereas leftists don’t. You care about the truth. You’ll be a rightist soon enough.”
No. I’m an Aoirthoirist. I’ve known for plenty long the penchant of the right to insist on truth, or at least not delete comments contradictory to their claims. This isn’t to say the right doesn’t make shit up, they certainly do. But if I disagree with the right, my posts aren’t deleted from their blogs.
Alright here we go again. LOOK, there have been FAR MORE slaves brought over from Ireland than were brought over from Africa to these United States. Elsewhere is a different story.
Yes and practiced by every nation of people. Folks will attempt to distinguish slavery practiced by Africans from other forms…”they could own property…” or “they could buy themselves out of slavery…” or…”it wasn’t FORCED..” or or or. The facts are first, that the same facts apply the slavery in MANY places historically. It was not unheard of for slaves to EARN MONEY and to SAVE it to purchase themselves. Including in these United States. And sorry, but slavery in Africa WAS MOST CERTAINLY forced.
Because we’re not liberals. We don’t hold people accountable for things THEY HAVEN’T DONE or are not RESPONSIBLE for having done.
It’s called CONVENIENT.
They WONT! Look this isn’t an ACCIDENT here. I am a Pagan living in a CHRISTIAN nation. I’ve heard liberals and fellow Pagans cry ceaselessly about the EVILS of Christianity. I can AGREE with some or even MANY of the complaints. But in the long and short of it all I get to LIVE. Christianity is mostly NOW grown the fuck up.
Yet, any time someone draws attention to ACTUAL EXISTING MODERN DAY EXTREME VIOLENCE, they’ll be accused of racism, hating this or that group…etc. WHY? Because the goal is not ACTUALLY to protect us from Christian VIOLENCE (which hardly exists anymore in most places…). But to FREE evil men and ENSLAVE good men.
To quote the feminists, the personal IS POLITICAL. If a woman is attacked, raped, beaten, sexually harrassed, passed up for a date for someone actually pretty, ignored for being groteque in conduct, or explained the ramifications of certain conduct, ALL of these acts are SEXIST and MISOGYNISTIC.
So how can it be anything BUT POLITICAL when ANY group from a specific demographic attack others from ANOTHER demographic CONSISTENTLY?
EXCELLENT.
You do realize that we are well into the Age of Aquarius right? The last age of mass communication was the Age of Taurus. Both these ages are supposed to be marked by a SUDDEN and RAPID EXPLOSION of communication. And sure enough…
[...] “Black Mobs Attack White People; Tribune Editor: Race is Not a Factor“, ”Mobs Are All-Black; Tribune: We Won’t Report Race Until All Blacks Are in Mobs“, “Tribune: “Black”is to “Criminal” as “Muslim” is to [...]
If a black mob attacked me and I was armed I would be justified in killing as many of the black vermin as I could kill. The black is the very lowest rung of evolutionary apedom and you need to control the creature or it will try to dominate and control you. I believe in segregation and I believe that the last fifty four years or so of insipid liberalism, moral relativism and political correctness have provided irrefutable proof that different human races can NOT live together period. This spiraling downhill degeneracy so apparent in contemporary America and Europe, Australia, Canada and other jurisdictions offers ample proof of my contention.
“When a news story omits race, do we really know any less?”
Could be a better question than she knows, depending on who “we” denotes. As you’ve pointed out numerous times, race realists have sussed out the meaning of euphemisms like “teens” and “youths” in any news report describing the perpetrators of antisocial behavior. With so many of these stories now accompanied by photos and video, some behind the vanguard are making the connection. Give them, in turn, the ability to append their comments to the story and another rock behind which to hide is removed.
If nothing else, you’ll get plenty of work trying to calculate funny/sad ratios for blacks when they attempt to maomao media outlets into even more ridiculous obfuscatory contortions.
[...] ‘When a News Story Omits Race, Do We Really Know Any Less?’ [...]
[…] […]