(Systemic racial discrimination against white people, on the other hand, has never been worse (see here). But the epidemic of murderous anti-white racism is not the subject of this series.)

How do we know?

How do we know that white racism is dead? How can we show that something does not exist? By working backwards from the implications of its existence, asking: what do we observe that is unlikely to be true if there is systemic racial discrimination by whites and likely to be true if there is not?

The volume of evidence in our favor is staggering. None of the following should exist anywhere with systemic white racism.

1. laws banning racial discrimination against non-whites (e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and Title 42, Chapter 21 of the US Code)
2. laws requiring racial discrimination against whites (affirmative action, quotas, etc.)
3. government agencies that enforce this double standard* (e.g., the EEOC and the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ)
4. an epidemic of racially motivated mob violence by blacks against whites, which in general goes unnoticed and unpunished

*The US Commission on Civil Rights has found that the Civil Rights Division displays “open hostility and opposition” to pursuing civil rights cases “in which whites were the perceived victims and minorities the alleged wrongdoers” (Washington Times).

We can easily turn up more evidence in the news archives of American Renaissance. Again, if systemic white racism exists, we should expect to see none of the following stories, all from the past two weeks.

1. “Navy Seeking More Minority SEALs”
2. “Santaluces High School in Florida on Alert After 2 Teens Post Racist Video”
3. “Gainesville High School Students’ Racist YouTube Rant Forces Girls to Leave School, Apologize”
4. “Pat Buchanan Out at MSNBC”
5. “Teacher Suspended for ‘Go Back to Mexico’ Comment”
6. “LA County Supervisors Apologize for Repatriation of Mexican-Americans”
7. “Nearly 700 Haitian Convicts Released During Moratorium on Deportations”
8. “Baby Steps: Minneapolis Public Schools Work to Bring Back Somali Students”
9. “Old Barriers Gone, New Ones Rising?”
10. “Denied Jobs, Blacks in Iowa Test New Bias Theory”
11. “The Silly Panic Over a Minority White Nation”

To a reasonable person, this list, which could easily have been a hundred times longer, constitutes a proof by contradiction.

Absence of evidence

In parts 2 and 3, we considered negative evidence against white racism: the absence of evidence for white racism. Contrary to popular belief, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is particularly strong evidence against systemic white racism, because any evidence of said racism is extremely unlikely to go unnoticed. After all, racial discrimination is big business.

Our first example of such negative evidence was a curious reticence on the part of so-called “anti-racists” when called upon to state their case. These “anti-racists” are professional fabricators of almost unimaginably vast and complex conspiracies of white racism about which to complain (often very profitably). Why then are those few brave souls willing to oppose the white racist conspiracy — armed with nothing more than near-universal government, media and popular support — so reluctant to provide specific examples? Perhaps they’ve realized that their examples tend to fall apart under close scrutiny, as in the next case.

The Implicit Association Test

Researchers have tried and consistently failed to detect white racism in social science experiments, though many have nevertheless claimed success. Their failure constitutes more negative evidence against said racism. For example, in “Study seeks racism, finds it,” we looked at a hopelessly flawed study that claimed racial prejudice played a role in questioning President Obama’s citizenship.

Today, we examine the well known Implicit Association Test (IAT). Created by Project Implicit, “a Virtual Laboratory for the social and behavioral sciences designed to facilitate the research of implicit social cognition” (affiliated with Harvard University, the University of Washington, and the University of Virginia), the IAT is used to expose “prejudice” — our natural, unconscious preferences.

It is well known that people don’t always ‘speak their minds’, and it is suspected that people don’t always ‘know their minds’. Understanding such divergences is important to scientific psychology.

This web site presents a method that demonstrates the conscious-unconscious divergences much more convincingly than has been possible with previous methods. This new method is called the Implicit Association Test, or IAT for short.

According to Project Implicit, the IAT measures “implicit attitudes,” defined as

an attitude that can rub off on associated objects. Example: The company for which your spouse works is attacked in a legal suit. An inclination to believe that the company is guiltless could be a reflection of your positive attitude toward your spouse — your positive attitude toward the company provides an indirect (implicit) indicator of the positive attitude toward your spouse…. The word ‘implicit’ is used because these powerful attitudes are sometimes hidden from public view, and even from conscious awareness.

The IAT measures implicit attitudes through concept pairing.

The IAT asks you to pair two concepts (e.g., young and good, or elderly and good). The more closely associated the two concepts are, the easier it is to respond to them as a single unit. So, if young and good are strongly associated, it should be easier to respond faster when you are asked to give the same response (i.e. the ‘E’ or ‘I’ key) to these two. If elderly and good are not so strongly associated, it should be harder to respond fast when they are paired. This gives a measure of how strongly associated the two types of concepts are. The more associated, the more rapidly you should be able to respond.

At the IAT website, you can take a variety of demonstration tests, from an “Age IAT” to a “Weight IAT.” Many are said to “often reveal” an automatic preference: for young over old, on the Age IAT; for thin people relative to fat people, on the Weight IAT; for straight relative to gay people, on the Sexuality IAT; for light-skin relative to dark-skin, on the Skin-tone IAT; and for white over black, on the Race IAT. Others often reveal a relative link: between liberal arts and females and between science and males, on the Gender-Science IAT; and between family and females and between career and males, on the Gender-Career IAT.

Political correctness forbids us from mentioning the obvious common thread: all of these automatic preferences and relative links are quite valid. Thin is generally preferable to fat, heterosexuality is generally preferable to homosexuality, white people are generally preferable to black people, women are generally less interested in science, and so on.

Our interest is in the Race IAT, of course, and the automatic (and quite sensible) preference for white people over black people (on the part of people of all races).

Racial preferences

Several frequently asked questions at Project Implicit deal with the Race IAT.

Is the common preference for White over Black in the Black-White attitude IAT a simple ‘ingroup’ preference — for example, the same as liking members of one’s family or feeling connected to people who come from one’s hometown?

Answer: For White respondents, the automatic White preference may in some sense be an ingroup preference. However, the automatic White preference is more than that — it is observed with similar strength among Asian Americans, for whom neither Black nor White is an ingroup. In this sense, the IAT may reflect an attitude that is learned through experience in a culture that does not regard Black Americans highly. Moreover, if the IAT result represented an ingroup preference exclusively, then Black Americans should show for their group the same level of automatic preference. We know that that is not the case. 50% of Black Americans show automatic Black preference, but the remaining half show an automatic White preference. We conclude from such data that the IAT preference is some combination of an automatic preference for one’s own, moderated by what one’s [sic] learns is regarded to be “good” in the larger culture.

“What one learns is regarded to be ‘good’” — interesting (by which I mean insane). I suppose if for some reason one learns that the trait known as intelligence and the not-unrelated trait known as not exhibiting antisocial behavior are “regarded as good” — in other words, if it’s considered “good” to be smart and good — then one will probably display a preference for white (people) over black (people). But it would be more accurate to describe this as what one learns about white people and black people in the larger culture.

Do Black participants show a preference for Black over White on the race attitude IAT?

Answer: Although the majority of White respondents show a preference for White over Black, the responses from Black respondents are more varied. Although some Black participants show liking for White over Black, others show no preference, and yet others show a preference for Black over White. Data collected from this website consistently reveal approximately even numbers of Black respondents showing a pro-White bias as show a pro-Black bias. Part of this might be understood as Black respondents experiencing the similar negative associations about their group from experience in their cultural environments, and also experiencing competing positive associations about their group based on their own group membership and that of close relations.

Again, it would be more accurate to state that part of this might be understood as black respondents experiencing the dysfunctional, anti-social behavior of other black people (leading to “negative associations about their group”), and also — unlike white people — being allowed (indeed, encouraged) to express a preference for their own race (as part of a natural black racial consciousness).

Why do many Americans show automatic preference for White over Black?

Answer: Automatic White preference may be common among Americans because of the deep learning of negative associations to the group Black in this society. High levels of negative references to Black Americans in American culture and mass media may contribute to this learning. Such negative references may themselves be more the residue of the long history of racial discrimination in the United States than the result of deliberate efforts to discriminate in media treatments.

Or it could be because of the “deep learning” of perfectly valid negative associations to “the group Black in this society” brought about by that group’s insistence on displaying behavior that merits “high levels of negative references.” This seems like a more plausible explanation than either the partially fabricated “long history of racial discrimination” or the totally fabricated “negative references to Black Americans in American culture and mass media” (i.e., supposed “deliberate efforts to discriminate in media treatments”).

Tell me, do my explanations seem more or less plausible than Project Implicit’s? I wouldn’t know, because it’s hard to see racism when you’re white.

Do young children show automatic preference for White over Black?

Answer: It is obvious that children are not born with preferences for one group or another.

That is not only not obvious, it’s probably false, as Jared Taylor explains in his latest book, “White Identity” (Chapter 4, (“The Science of Human Nature”). But Project Implicit decided to provide counterevidence of their own.

We showed that 6 yr old, 10 yr old and adult Whites show the same level of automatic preference for their ingroup. What changes over time is the lowering of explicitly expressed preferences, with 6 yr olds reporting the strongest ingroup preference, 10 yr olds more moderate preference, and adults reporting the least of all.

This suggests that the “automatic preference for their ingroup” is actually innate — that children are in fact “born with preferences for one group or another” — and the lowering over time of “explicitly expressed preferences,” which they admit does not reflect a lowering of actual preferences, is due to our “anti-racist” (anti-white) culture.

If my Black-White attitude IAT shows automatic White preference, does that mean that I’m prejudiced?

Answer: This is a very important question. Social psychologists use the word ‘prejudiced’ to describe people who endorse or approve of negative attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward various out-groups. Many people who show automatic White preference on the Black-White attitude IAT are not prejudiced by this definition. It is possible to show biases on the IAT that are not consciously endorsed, or are even contradictory to intentional attitudes and beliefs. People who hold egalitarian conscious attitudes in the face of automatic White preferences may able to function in non-prejudiced fashion partly by making active efforts to prevent their automatic White preference from producing discriminatory behavior. However, when they relax these active efforts, these non-prejudiced people may be likely to show discrimination in thought or behavior. The question of relation between implicit and explicit attitudes is of great interest to social psychologists, several of whom are doing research on that question for race-related attitudes.

Let me be clear on this crucial point. Racial prejudice — stereotyping — is rational and therefore good and therefore not racist (assuming of course that racism is, by definition, bad). There is no counterargument.

Next time, we’ll investigate further attempts to detect racism with science; specifically, by using names as a proxy (a lousy one) for race.

Obligatory slutty forest faerie

Here is a slutty forest faerie.

Here she is.

Until next time.

The flyer is available as a PDF file here, as a PNG file below (click for the full-size image), and as plain old text below that.

Introduction to Stereotypes

Everyone knows that men are more dangerous than women. They’re right, according to every National Crime Victimization Survey, ever.

The fact that some women are dangerous, and most men are not, does not change this statistical truth, also known as a stereotype. If you refuse to acknowledge it and act accordingly, you put yourself at risk.

Everyone knows that teenagers are more dangerous than toddlers. Or the elderly. They’re right, according to — seriously? You need a source? Fine: the NCVS again.

The fact that some old ladies are killers & arsonists, and most teens are all right, does not change this statistical truth, also known as a stereotype. If you pretend it isn’t true — not that anyone does — you put yourself at risk.

Everyone knows that blacks & Hispanics are more dangerous than whites & Asians. And they’re right about that too, according to the exact same NCVS data.

Every single year. It’s not even close. The crime rate gaps are staggering. And no, they don’t go away when you control for poverty and other non-racial factors.

For example, blacks are at least 13 times as likely as whites to be muggers,
8 times as likely to be murderers, 5 times as likely to be rapists, etc. [source].

The fact that some Swedes & Koreans are dangerous, and many Haitians are not, does not change this statistical truth, also known as a (terrible, awful, nasty, “racist”) stereotype.

If you ignore racial differences in violent crime rates, you put yourself at risk. And when it comes to buying a home or choosing a school for your kids, your put your family at risk. So please ask yourself which you would prefer: someone, somewhere, thinking you’re a “racist” (whatever that means), or you or someone you love getting assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered.

Thank you for reading. Best wishes from unamusementpark.com.

We recently had cause for celebration as Unamusement Park made the news (finally!) after an intrepid ‘Park reader ranger stapled our flyer on race and crime to copies of City Arts magazine (promoting “Black Power”) in Seattle.

Deluded “anti-racist” and disingenuous white liberal (DWL) Dave “Black Power Is Fantastic” Segal of the Seattle Stranger leapt into action (“White Supremacist Tampers With City Arts’ Excerpt of Listen, Whitey!”), noting that

1. celebrating black power and using racial slurs against white people is “fantastic,” whereas
2. citing the government’s crime statistics is not just “racist propaganda” but actually “white supremacy.”

Hijinks and shenanigans promptly ensued in the comments. The clear-headed, open-minded, right-thinking individuals (or “racists,” as they’re usually known) were out in force, causing such a ruckus, they even lured the author himself (Dave “History You Can Dance To” Segal) out of his damp cave and well beyond the safety of his Fact-proof bubble, where he was blinded by their white-hot white racial consciousness, then squished by a well-aimed Fact. Huzzah!

To preserve the commenters’ heroics for all time, in case (as usual) the comments themselves get purged by revisionist “anti-racists” afraid of reality’s racial bias, I’ve decided — in lieu of composing an epic ballad — to reproduce the highlights here.

Just look at those science numbers

Race denialist Zebes here is probably misrepresenting the arguments of racial realists, but it’s quite possible he’s simply unable to understand them. Which is it, Zebes? Lying or just plain stupid? I will accept “both” as an answer.

Honestly, if you look at the science numbers, in nine out of ten cases if you give knives to as many black people as you do white people the black people are 50% more likely to be black with knives than the white people are in half the cases reported. If you round up, that’s scientifici proof that blacks are always wrong. It’s just facts, people.

Maenalus pretty much covers both Zebes and Segal.

Holy crap, this Dave Segal is an moron. So celebrating the black power movement is good clean fun, but citing racial crime statistics is evil? Now let’s see Dave and the rest of you geniuses disprove anything in the “white supremacist” flyer.

And to the poster Zebes; are you aware of how absolutely stupid your lame attempt at a sarcastic put-down of the statistics is, and just desperately hoping that it will provide a brief mood of some kind of intellectual superiority for you and your fellow reality-denying liberal goons, or are you just a genuine, full-bore, 100 percent, completely cut off from logic and facts, convinced, true believing leftist moron?

Citing crime statistics: still “white supremacy”

A good comment by Penter:

A “white supremacist” is responsible for spreading “racist propaganda?” Come on you don’t have to be a supremacist to notice statistical patterns in crime, and the stats are the stats. If you have any problems with the numbers, Dave, come and leave a comment at the author of the flyer’s blog, here: [here]

One by MrX:

Celebrating black power and using a racial slur against white people is “fantastic” in book form, and if you put it on a CD, it becomes “history… you can dance to.” Citing the government’s crime statistics is white supremacy and racist propaganda.

From the linked article. I agree with this. This article and the writer come across as absolutely ridiculous if he/she is expected to be outraged by racism.

One by trololo:

Crime statistics = racist propaganda?

The white/black split in my county is more or less fifty-fifty, and, as a point to which I can personally attest, living in a county as dusky as mine ensures that the evening news is always jam-packed with “racist propaganda.”

And two by Steve Bloomberg, a little later:

The Unamusement Park flyer is simply a set of government statistics. Not sure how that is in any way supremacist?

Citing government statistics is racist propadanda, but racial slurs against whites and black power is fantastic?

I visited Unamusement Park and must say it is an excellent site.

I must say I agree!

Same as we always were: awesome

A typical “rebuttal” by one undead ayn rand: the adult equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “la la la I can’t hear you!”

We’re not so naive as to believe anything that comes out of your mouth is sincere.

White Supremacists in modern times are “never about hate!” it’s always about “heritage”, or “White Pride” or the Bell Curve, or uncontextual crime statistics, or fearing “white genocide”.

Give me a break, you’re the same racist scum you always were.

Black Power White Power handles this hatred of whites well.

Yes, white supremacists are exactly the same as they always were. Because historical white supremacists were also never about hate. It always has been about heritage, white pride, “the bell curve” (although they didn’t call it that), crime statistics, and fearing white genocide. White people are not irrationally hateful people and never have been.

By the way, the crime statistics for black people are the same for EVERY CONTEXT. Everywhere in the world, and at any time in history, black people commit more crime. It makes no difference which country you look at.

Here, for good measure, is Maenelus again.

You idiot. It’s you liberal “anti-racists” who are always citing uncontexual incarceration statistics. The context being the crime statistics.

Of course we all know what the “context” for the crime statistics is according to you leftist no-brains: “THEY CAN’T HELP IT! THE WHITE DEVIL MAKES THEM DO IT!”

The brain-dead undead ayn rand was unable to formulate a response to this comment by Yvonne.

Undead Ayn Rand, what “context” is it that you think is missing in this discussion?

Go read the flier – and then come back and tell me what you think is inaccurate or what “context” is missing.

Dave “White Supremacy” Segal lurches forth into battle

Stand your ground, men! The Segal awakens!

I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!

Hi there! I’m Dave Segal, a disingenuous white liberal trying desperately to score points with racial minorities I secretly fear and disdain. To be honest, guys, I have no counterargument to anything you’re saying. In fact, I myself know perfectly well that blacks are more criminal than whites, and I live my life accordingly. I’m pretty sure I’ve still got the readers brainwashed, though, so I figure if I switch to talking about “racial purity” out of nowhere and then tell them you can’t get laid (little bit of projection, there), they won’t notice that you’re right about everything. Hey, what’s that falling from the sky in the direction of my three hideous arachnoid heads?

And then squish. That was the subtext, anyway. Here is what he actually wrote:

Shouldn’t all you guys who are so gung-ho about racial “purity” be reproducing with other “pure” whites to ensure that your future is “pure” and “superior,” instead of trolling a liberal newspaper’s music blog? Oh, wait, it takes social skills and a modicum of charm to get laid. Never mind…

Good grief. Pathetic even for this drooling idiot, whose 200-word article about “white supremacists” on the loose in Seattle amounted to “numbers bad, white people bad, black power good — please like me, black people!”

The drooling idiot himself.

Now, this was the first time anyone mentioned “racial purity.” As Steve Bloomberg notes:

Who is gung-ho about “racial purity”? Maybe you are thinking of some of the comments you find on Asiasfinest? Anyway, I think Unamusement Park is mainly concerned about crime rates, human biodiversity and unfair blaming of europeans for underachievement by some groups (obviously by those who are unfamiliar with HBD research).

We can only conclude that Dave “Social Skills and a Modicum of Charm” Segal believes that citing the federal government’s own crime statistics is not just “racist propaganda,” nor even merely “white supremacy,” but actually an obsession with racial “purity.” If any of you still thought the word “racist” meant anything at all to these so-called “anti-racists,” well… now you know better.

Flying the race realist standard (it’s just a big not equal sign), Black Power White Power engages the enemy.

What is your argument with the flyer?

Do people here disagree that black people are more criminal than white people?

If you do disagree, then what makes you think that black people are no more criminal than white people?

Dave Segal (yes, the real Dave Segal, who really writes for the Stranger) counters as follows.

Guys! How are y’all doing on that impregnating “pure” white women front? Please keep us posted [(send pictures or I won't believe you)]. So much hangs in the balance.

Once again, I am powerless. I simply cannot make Dave Segal look any more ridiculous and stupid than he already does. My satire spells reflect off his chitinous shell and strike a nearby shrub, making it appear quite silly to other shrubs.

So I guess it’s a good thing Black Power White Power dropped that Fact on Segal’s distended abdomen from the back of his gryphon.

You’re confusing us with black people. White people have actual families and look after and raise their children, and pay for the costs of their children themselves. Impregnating lots of women and abandoning them and the children, while the white tax-payer picks up the bill, is the black reproductive strategy.

But you are right, the existence of the white race, and the kinds of societies that only the white race has created, does hang in the balance. So unless you’d enjoy living in Africa or Mexico, you need to preserve the white race for future generations.

You didn’t answer my question about whether you disagree with the statement that black people are more criminal than white people. I assume that means you agree with it.

The spindly legs of the Segal-thing twitch feebly — that is, whichever ones ‘Park rangers haven’t already hacked off and cruelly (but amusingly) jabbed him with. (“Why are you jabbing yourself? Why are you jabbing yourself?”)

Keep painting everything in obtusely broad strokes and looking at life in reductio ad absurdum ways, if it helps you to sleep at night, BPWP. Reality is way more complicated and nuanced than you’re making it out to be.

Thank goodness we had Dave “Please Send Me Pictures of Pregnant White Women” Segal to point out that reality is sooooo complicated and nuanced.

Black Power White Power bashes Segal’s one remaining hideous arachnoid head with his flail.

In what way is it more complex? Have you found some context in which black people don’t commit more crime? Have you found some rare case where white people discriminated against non-white people for some reason that had nothing to do with protecting their own heritage, taking pride in themselves, the differences in intelligence distributions, avoiding crime, or preventing genocide?

Why don’t you enlighten us with some nuanced and complicated explanation of what is happening in the crime statistics?

The irrepressible Maenalus tramples Segal’s corpse with his destrier.

You hear that everyone?! Dave here sees all the complexity and nuance of reality and doesn’t paint issues with broad strokes! That’s why the flyer gathering the nations crime statistics by race inspired him to write this intelligent, thoughtful look at crime and race in America! And why he totally did NOT respond by farting out a stupid little squeal against “white-supremacy”, calling the statistics “racist propaganda” and leaving it at that! Because he’s so nuanced! And complex! And doesn’t paint issues with broad strokes! Yay!

Dave, like every single other liberal who has disgraced humanity with his presence, you have the self-awareness of a beach ball.

You miserable idiot.

And Natassia heralds their victory…

Maenalus,

I haven’t laughed so hard in a long time. Thanks for that! It seems like every day that I read leftist swill on the Internet I become even more convinced that leftism leads to mental retardation.

… while craig J provides light refreshments. I don’t know — mead? Venison?

Thank you Maenalus that was hilarious!

This Dave guy is a tool who states that white racial slurs and black power is “fantastic” but labels verifiable facts in a flyer as “racial propaganda”.

Please come back and debate your ridiculous opinion Dave instead of leaving a stupid vague comment about how everything is soooo complex.

Cheers

Great, now I’m hungry for venison.

Grant “Broad Stroke” Brissey wades into the fray

Another slimy Stranger staffer, roused by Segal’s dying shrieks, slouches onto the field of battle and is promptly poked in the eye by a sharpened Fact.

I see in your eyes the same fear — oh, forget it. I bid you just squish it already, Men of the West. You hardly need to brace yourselves against the feeble, clammy slaps of the gelatinous Grant Brissey beast.

Hey racist fuckwads. Here’s a broad stroke for you. Eat shit, and next time you want to spout the bullshit you’ve been eating all your life, leave your real name.

Black Power White Power stands his ground, sharpened factual eye-poker in hand.

Why?

What’s so wrong with pointing out an obvious pattern in the crime stats, that someone should have to eat shit because of it?

And why do you need their real names? I’m guessing it’s not so you can send them a thoughtful letter after you’ve gone over their stats and found some flaw in them. What violence are you planning on inflicting on people who point out inconvenient truths, that you need to know their real name for?

Sir David Hollister is clearly a student of human biodiversity.

Grant Brissey ought to know that blacks are far more likely to eat shit than whites. The Cholera rates for black countries prove this overwhelmingly. Your pathetic attempt at an insult won’t change that either, nor will calling facts bullshit.

“There are innate race differences in shit-eating” — my next flyer?

Doesn't Brissey look COOL?

Yvonne returns to distil the irony of the situation, mix it with boiling oil, and fling it in Brissey’s face, finishing him off.

“Eat shit”

And with that, Grant singlehandedly demonstrates the intellectual superiority of leftism.

Gotta love it.

Suddenly, the mysterious Steve Bloomberg… mixes up my metaphor.

Grant Brissey, perhaps you could try playing the ball instead of the man (as the expression goes)?

Couldn’t he have said something about jousting instead?

“I bid you stand, Men of the West.”

The battle is won. The war is far from over. But do not despair — well, do not despair too much. Always remember the kitties.

bubo despairs a little.

Well you can’t blame a bunch of childless hipsters for conforming to the accepted views of the day in regards to the declining white population and the future of the country. Meaning that thinking it’s a very bad thing is normal but saying that it’s a bad thing makes you as bad as Hitler, in 2012.

uh despairs a little more.

These statistics fail to impress the faithful because they are given as a symbolic threat; whereas only personal threat, if anything, can bring people around to the truth of race.

At the symbolic level, anyone pushing statistics or the like is the threat to group norms.

Even when they’re “mugged by reality”, as we say, their threat perception is so impaired that interpretations are available to them to avoid cognitive dissonance; clear-cut pathology of denial.

But I suppose any attempt at kulchur-jamming is better than none.

Gunshots may be despairing just a touch, albeit poetically.

Interesting, though all on here are willing to hack at the fliers, not one is willing to refute the contents.

Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession,

much less to work for their own interests.

Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage,

and giving away to others its place in history,

only whites have been tricked into thinking that love for their own people is somehow “hatred” of others.

I leave you with the moderately despairing words of King George.

The great multi-racial American empire where facts are racist? No wonder we are headed for third-world nationhood. The truth is:

Immigration, tolerance, assimilation and especially DIVERSITY are being used against the white race.

This immigration and intermarriage is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries.

Anti-white is called anti-racist, but it leads to the disappearance of one race and only one race, the white race.

It is genocide.

And also another kitty.

HUZZAH

What a lovely day. Yes, Unamusement Park has racis’ flyers. Feel free to distribute them in a suitably sneaky way. See Appendix A (“Suitably sneaky ways to distribute racis’ flyers”) below. Now, I have previously expressed my disappointment that, despite the valiant efforts of loyal ‘Park readers rangers, said flyers had consistently failed to make the news. This, however, is no longer the case. My disappointment has been replaced by rainbows and kittens!

Not exactly, but... okay.

The Gratuitous French Girl just asked me “what ze damn hell shit” I am talking about, so allow me to explain. My popular and sexy flyer, “Black People Are More Criminal Than White People,” was recently featured in the Seattle Stranger! Well, okay, on one of their blogs, LineOut (“Music & the City at Night”).

The article, by… I dunno, some idiot named Dave Segal, is brilliant in its stupidity. It’s called “White Supremacist Tampers With City Arts’ Excerpt of Listen, Whitey!” (February 14, 2012 — as if to say “Happy Valentine’s Day, Unamusement Park! Keep on being awesome!”).

Beyond parody

As I’ve said before, the official, state-sponsored doctrine of diversity inches ever closer to the Beyond Parody Event Horizon. With their article on “white supremacists” run amok in Seattle, LineOut has tumbled into the Satire Singularity itself, like a gullible child into a grain thresher.

Let’s see what’s on Dave Segal’s mind, such as it is.

On Feb. 13, a white supremacist with quite a lot of time on his/her hands removed copies of the current City Arts magazine from a box in Wallingford and stapled some racist propaganda to the pages where it had excerpted local author Pat Thomas’ forthcoming book, Listen, Whitey! The Sights and Sounds of Black Power 1965-1975, a perceptive overview of the Black Power movement and the music it influenced.

Picking up a copy of City Arts from a box on N. 45th near the Guild 45th Theatre, a reader tipped off City Arts that someone had attached a photocopied article titled “Black People Are More Criminal Than White People” with a handwritten note: “To hell with the music of Black Power! Read this!” The lowlife also provided a link to a site pushing anti-black sentiments, unamusementpark.com… in Seattle, in 2012.

In other news, Thomas’ book is fantastic; you should read it, and also pick up the accompanying CD issued by Light in the Attic, Listen, Whitey! The Sounds of Black Power 1967-1974. It’s history, and you can dance to it.

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

1. Celebrating black power and using racial slurs against white people is “fantastic” in book form, and if you put it on a CD, it becomes “history… you can dance to.”
2. Citing the government’s crime statistics is “white supremacy” and “racist propaganda.”

I apologize, ‘Park rangers, but I am powerless here. I simply cannot make Dave Segal’s article look any more ridiculous and stupid than it already does.

Facts are racis’ now

Let’s get one thing out of the way: black people (and Hispanics) are, in fact, more criminal than white people (and Asians), meaning they commit every violent crime and pretty much every other crime at much higher rates. See Appendix B (“Yes, black people are more criminal than white people”) below.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, please do read the flyer in question, if you haven’t already done so. The first thing you’ll notice is that it’s absolutely chock full of horrible “white supremacy”:

• criminal victimization data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics
• arrest data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program
• one statistic from the Society for Police and Criminal Psychology
• a reference to an article by Janet Lauritsen and Robert Sampson called “Minorities, Crime, and Criminal Justice”
• a reference to an article by Stewart D’Alessio and Lisa Stolzenberg called “Race and the Probability of Arrest”

Okay, those were bad examples, but how about this “racist propaganda”:

• “For every crime, whether you ask the victims, read police reports, or check arrest records, you find almost the same percentage of black offenders. This shows that the police are doing their jobs: arresting criminals, not picking on minorities.”
• “The victims of black violent crime are mostly white: black criminals chose white victims 54% of the time. White criminals chose black victims only 4.6% of the time.”
• “Asians are arrested at lower rates than whites for every crime except gambling.”

Alright, I give up. But there’s probably some “anti-black sentiments” in there somewhere, mixed in with all the… um… facts.

More good news

There’s one great line in Segal’s article:

The lowlife also provided a link to a site pushing anti-black sentiments, unamusementpark.com… in Seattle, in 2012.

The author seems surprised that anyone would hold such awful opinions — probably because, living in 70% white Seattle, he has never had to take the Diversity Challenge himself. See Appendix C (“Seattle takes the Diversity Challenge”), which I promise is the last one, below.

It is (pleasantly) surprising. But why, you ask, is it so great? Because this was in notoriously liberal Seattle. It was in 2012, three years after the inauguration of our supposedly “post-racial” half-black President.

This was not supposed to happen. “Racism,” meaning race realism, was supposed to be extinct by now. (And hopefully white people themselves, the source of all “racism,” would have been wiped out in the process.) The race denialists, the Stupid Liberal Anti-White Bigots (SLAWBs for short), have had them on the run for decades.

Damn it, we are supposed to be living in a perfect world of Equality (read: special privileges for minorities), Diversity (read: displacement of white people), and most of all Tolerance (read: ruthless thought control). Yet “racist” websites like American Renaissance, VDARE.com, Stuff Black People Don’t Like, the infamous Council of Conservative Citizens, Nicholas Stix, Uncensored, Steve Sailer’s and Lawrence Auster’s blogs, and yes, Unamusement Park (to name a few) have never been more popular.

Does Dave Segal realize what this means? Can he see past his own sarcasm? Race realism has gone mainstream.

Yes, even in Seattle.

Appendix A: Suitably sneaky ways to distribute racis’ flyers

1. Leave them at people’s houses.
2. Tape, staple, or glue them in public places.
3. Pin them up on bulletin boards. College campuses are full of them.
4. Put them between the pages of free newspapers and magazines. College campuses are full of those too. They are also full of hot white girls, but DO NOT BE DISTRACTED by their nice-smelling hair and stretchy pants and curvy bits and other things. There will be plenty of time for those after you finish with the flyers.
5. Leave them on seats where someone is likely to sit and read: buses, coffee shops, libraries, classrooms, and auditoriums are good choices. The deck of an aircraft carrier is probably not.
6. If you do leave flyers in a classroom or auditorium, make sure one ends up on the podium or wherever the lecturer is most likely to see it.
7. You can also link to them from other websites. Lots and lots of websites.

Appendix B: Yes, black people are more criminal than white people

Let’s review the facts about race and crime. They can be summarized as follows: blacks are more criminal than whites.

Now, this is something everybody knows. They know blacks are more criminal than whites. They know that the “bad” part of town is the black part of town. They know they need to be more careful around a young black male than any other kind of person — a discrimination trifecta (sex, age, and race). They know all these things, but they will not admit them, and they will call you a “white supremacist” if you try to point them out.

Because they will not admit what we all know to be true, I volunteer my time to demonstrating, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that blacks are in fact more criminal than whites, thereby making the race denialists look stupid, which is fun. Here is how I do it.

First I get data on criminal victimization from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Then I get data on arrests from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program (Federal Bureau of Investigation). My flyer used data from 2008 only, but I recently obtained more accurate results by combining all the data from 2004–2008, the five most recent years for which it is available. Finally, I calculate per capita offending and arrest rates for blacks as a multiple of the corresponding rates for whites and Hispanics (sample calculation available here).

You may have noticed that none of these steps can fairly be described as ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced, racist, hateful, discriminatory, white supremacist, white separatist, white nationalist, National Socialist, socially maladjusted, or even particularly mean-spirited. The problem, for race denialists, is not that the methodology is unsound; the problem is that the results make them uncomfortable. To put it bluntly, the results make certain races look bad — and no, it’s not the Koreans.

Of course, the same methodology will show you that men are more criminal than women (which we already knew). And it will show you that teenagers and young adults are more criminal than toddlers and the elderly (which we also already knew). Somehow very few people can muster up much outrage over these facts. But when you point out that blacks are more criminal than whites (which we already knew as well), you get called all sorts of mean names.

I’ve grown accustomed to it.

I. Black offending rates: Blacks are

1. at least 2.9 times as likely as whites and Hispanics (W&H) to commit simple assault,
2. at least 3.6 times as likely to commit aggravated assault,
3. at least 4.6 times as likely to commit rape and sexual assault,
4. at least 13 times as likely to commit robbery,
5. at least 4.0 times as likely to commit violent crime of one of these types, and
6. at least 5.7 times as likely to commit completed (not attempted) violent crime of one of these types.

Again, that’s commit, not be arrested for, and these are lower bounds.

II. Black arrest rates: We can now compare arrest rates to offending rates to see that arrests are actually biased in favor of black people.

1. For robbery, blacks make up 56% of arrests and at least 60% of offenders. The black arrest rate (as a multiple of the W&H rate) would have to be at least 48% higher to match the black offending rate (also as a multiple of the W&H rate).
2. For rape and sexual assault, blacks make up 33% of arrests and at least 35% of offenders. The black arrest rate would have to be at least 37% higher to match the black offending rate.
3. For aggravated assault, blacks make up 34% of arrests and at least 30% of offenders. The black arrest rate would have to be at least 1% higher to match the black offending rate for that crime.
4. For these three crimes combined, blacks make up 39% of arrests and at least 42% of offenders. The overall black arrest rate would have to be at least 39% higher to match the overall black offending rate.

I know, I know: “white supremacy” (trollolololol).

Appendix C: Seattle takes the Diversity Challenge

According to the US Census, Seattle is “one of the whitest, least diverse big cities in the nation” (Seattle Times). Some people have a problem with that.

One radio host suggested the news may have made liberal whites feel guilty. As in: Aren’t we supposed to be more metropolitan than this? Instead we’re, what … Idaho?

The thing about the census, though, is that in the end it’s a batch of statistics. And you know what they say about those.

Everything in the story was true. Seattle really is the fifth whitest big city in America, and, judged by the diversity index, the eighth-least diverse.

But it’s also true that Seattle is the least white, as well as the most racially diverse, that it has ever been. Today it’s 66 percent white. In 1960, by contrast, Seattle was 92 percent white. In 1980, 80 percent white.

And that’s something we’re supposed to celebrate. Yay, fewer white people.

It just so happens that hopelessly white Seattle has a per capita murder rate of only seven per 100,000, which is a lot better than New Orleans (60% black, murder rate 72), Atlanta (54% black, murder rate 47), Baltimore (64% black, murder rate 46), St. Louis (49% black, murder rate 44), Detroit (83% black, murder rate 43), and Birmingham (73% black, murder rate 42).

I wonder what Seattle will look like when it’s majority minority. I suspect the “color” of current racial hatred provides a clue. For instance, in May 2010, Shane McClellan was held hostage and tortured for hours by a black man and an Asian man, simply for being white. They beat him, robbed him, whipped him with his own belt, threatened him with a gun and a knife, burned him with cigarettes, and urinated on him (West Seattle Herald, the Herald again, Seattle Times, Sound Politics, KOMO, Seattle pi, ABC, and WorldNetDaily.) This is not at all unusual, as racially motivated crimes are overwhelmingly black-on-white.

By the way, the SPLC, widely considered to be the preeminent authority on “hate crime,” reported this crime as an act of “vandalism.” This too is not unusual, as the SPLC exists solely to crusade against the civil rights of white people in America.

In 2009, Nicholas Stix covered race murders in Seattle extensively in American Renaissance. I encourage you to read the whole thing.

If you don’t know what that is, have no fear: Unamusement Park is here to help.

Black Alternate History Month, or National African American Revisionist History Month, is “an annual [compulsory] celebration of [fictitious] achievements by black Americans and a time for [our Minority Occupation Government to strong-arm and brainwash white Americans into] recognizing the central role of African Americans in U.S. [black revisionist] history” (History.com).

Now you know!

2012, being a leap year, poses a special challenge for black racial grievance groups, not to mention the anti-white radical scum that pollutes our government, media, and universities. As I wrote on the occasion of Unamusement Park’s two-month anniversary:

Sadly, one of those months was February, the shortest and therefore gayest month. Why do you think we let black people have it? Twenty-eight days of black history is enough, thank you. And don’t even get me started on leap years. Last time I swear they tried to come up with a new civil rights hero to fill in the extra day. Her name was Posa Rarks and she refused to sit on the back of a tandem bicycle.

Wise words. Wise, clever, stalwart, sexy words.

How indeed will they concoct an extra day’s worth of fictitious “achievements by black Americans”? How will they inflate the relatively minor “role of African Americans in U.S. history” until it has been sufficiently centered in a 3.6% longer month? How, in short, will they manage to scrounge up enough black alternate history to fill all twenty-nine white-hating days of February?

I don’t think they’re up to the task. That “Posa Rarks” trick is not going to work twice. Someone is going to have to lend them a helping hand. But whose flows are sufficiently fresh for Black Alternate History Month: the Extended Remix?

Once again, it’s Unamusement Park to the rescue! Yes, Unamusement Park — that enormous, overflowing vat of creative juices with thick greasy chunks of history floating in it — is delighted to offer its services in the form of a new series celebrating black history.

I call it: Celebrating Black History. (See how creative I am?)

Let’s begin with a man whose flows are far from sufficiently fresh — the freshness of whose flows utterly fails to suffice: one David A. Love, author of “Debunking the 10 biggest myths about black history” (The Grio, Feb. 1, 2012).

Alexander Stephens had some damn fine ideas

The first of “the 10 biggest myths about black history” is that “[t]he Civil War was not fought over slavery.” In a move that may surprise ‘Park regulars, I’m actually going to concede this one to the author: the Civil War was in fact fought over slavery. And the South was right.

Well, sort of.

“If you want to know whether the Civil War was fought over slavery,” writes David Love, “just read the words of Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederate States of America in 1861:”

The prevailing ideas entertained by… most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically…. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error… Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.

Talk about what we used to know about race! Would that the average white American understood today what Vice President Stephens was saying 150 years ago. (Ignore that part about “his natural and normal condition” for now and just concentrate on the bold.)

Let me be clear: I don’t want to bring back slavery. For one thing, slavery is how blacks got here in the first place. If it wasn’t for slavery, they’d still be in Africa, and we’d be far better off for it. That to me is reason enough to oppose slavery. Also, slavery is bad — which, of course, is why white people eventually abolished it. (Somehow, black Africans never got around to it…)

But given the choice between

1. the prevailing ideas still entertained by our leading idiots — I mean, statesmen, which are as fundamentally wrong as ever because they still rest upon the assumption — the lie — of the equality of races, and
2. a government founded upon exactly the opposite idea, which we call human biodiversity (or “white racism”) today, and which in 1861 should have been common sense,

the choice is clear: God bless the Confederate States of America!

To a certain extent!

The best thing that ever happened to black people

The second, third, fourth, and fifth “biggest myths about black history” are not worth my attention. The sixth is that “[b]lack Americans are better off (versus Africans) because of slavery.”

We will never know what Africa would have been today without the disruption of slavery and colonization. To argue, as conservative David Horowitz claims, that African-Americans are better off because of slavery — and should be thankful they are the most prosperous blacks in the world — is to ignore the high price that black people have paid.

Remarkable — the sheer inanity of that first sentence, I mean.

The reason “[w]e will never know what Africa would have been today without the disruption of slavery” is because all it takes to create black slavery is black people. They’re still enslaving each other, for crying out loud — not to mention robbing and raping and torturing and killing and hunting and eating and dismembering each other.

Recall, if you will, Unamusement Park’s Short History of Black Civilization.

1. Black people have had ample opportunity to create a civilization of their own, but have never managed to do so.
2. This is probably due to their relatively low racial levels of intelligence and conscientiousness, and relatively high racial levels of violence and other anti-social behavior.
3. Many civilizations — quite nice ones — have been built for blacks by whites (e.g., in Rhodesia, South Africa, the Belgian Congo, Haiti, Jamaica, and the USA).
4. Such efforts by whites toward civilizing blacks (including colonization and slavery) have invariably and dramatically improved life for blacks. Blacks should be profoundly grateful to whites. Of course, they never are.
5. Left to their own devices, blacks invariably destroy civilization of any kind.

Harsh, I know, but it needed to be said.

Now allow me supplement that Short History of Black Civilization with a Short History of African Slavery. It too is harsh, and will probably offend some nice black people who don’t deserve it. But it too needs to be said.

African blacks were a bunch of half-naked cannibal savages living in mud huts throwing spears at one another. They had no written language. They had no science or technology or industry. They had no culture in the usual sense of the word. They lived like wild animals. It’s called r-selection.

Millions of African blacks and as many as a million European whites were captured by Arabs and other African blacks and sold as slaves to Arabs and other African blacks and whites and American Indians.

Eventually, white people got around to freeing their black slaves, which was obviously a huge mistake. Every “racist” prediction about black indolence, incompetence, illegitimacy, criminality, general lack of morals, etc. would soon prove true — in spectacular fashion. Those predictions, of course, were why virtually everyone who wanted to free the slaves back in the day, including Lincoln, also insisted on shipping them all back to Africa: because of exactly what has happened in America since we let loose the blacks on white society.

Still, whites felt that abolishing slavery was the right thing to do. None of the other races involved in African slavery came to that conclusion: not the Arabs, not the African blacks, not the American Indians. They were quite happy with their slaves.

So how did that work out for black people? Well, look at the descendants of those slaves, the African-Americans. Compare them to Africans, who are still mostly a bunch of half-naked cannibal savages living in mud huts throwing spears at one another. Slavery was the best thing that ever happened to blacks.

As Fred Reed brilliantly put it:

[B]lacks ought to be grateful that their faster ancestors caught their slower ancestors — which is exactly what happened — and sold them to the slavers. American blacks would otherwise be somewhere on the Slave Coast of Africa, barefoot, illiterate, blankly ignorant, wearing loincloths, living in stick huts that would give Eeyore the willies, and shuddering with malaria. That’s what Africa is: primitive, hopeless, godawful. I’ve been in Masai hutments, spent time in the outback of Cuando Cubango. It’s not Stone Age. It’s more like Stick Age. No country in Africa today comes close, or ever has, to the culture of Fifth Century Athens, 2500 years ago.

Slavery brought our blacks into contact with a vastly superior civilization from which they benefit enormously, and without the slightest gratitude. Everything blacks enjoy in this country today — air-conditioning, writing, automobiles, television, medicine, welfare, medicine, everything — they enjoy only because they were brought here. Further, they have contributed almost nothing to the industrial and technological flowering that has provided the benefits they enjoy.

I begrudge them none of this. I am, however, tired of endlessly being blamed for their problems.

Whites, it seems to me, and not blacks, suffer the deleterious effects of slavery. The crime, AFDC, Section Eight housing, the other costs of supporting illegitimate children, the burned cities, the enormous hidden cost of affirmative action, the constant lowering of standards for blacks, the cost of police forces: Whites bear this burden. It is not light.

Please do read the whole thing.

It is entirely obvious that the descendants of slaves in America are much better off because of slavery. But I’m actually willing to concede this one as well — just as soon as all the blacks go back to Africa, starting with David Love.

“Badges? We ain’t got no badges”

The seventh of “the 10 biggest myths about black history” is that “[s]lavery was not a dehumanizing institution — it was just work for free, so blacks should get over it.” I’m not surprised that a man who makes a living complaining about how hard it is to be black should so strongly oppose other black people “getting over” something that happened over 150 years ago to other, long-dead black people to whom today’s African-Americans may or may not be related.

Let me begin by noting that the abuse of black slaves by white masters is wildly exaggerated. Why would you damage an expensive piece of property, let alone the source of your livelihood? Claims of sexual abuse of slaves are particularly absurd — as if whites have ever been remotely interested in raping blacks! Such fables are a fairly transparent attempt to deflect attention away from the realities of race and crime. Oh, and one other thing: lynching “victims” — black and white alike — generally deserved to die, because they were either rapists or murderers.

But let’s focus on the “myth” that “blacks should get over it.” It isn’t long before the author hauls out the “legacy of slavery” — oh, wait, it’s a “badge” this time — to make gullible white people feel guilty and give black people more free stuff.

[T]he badge of slavery continues to haunt African-Americans today in the form of economic discrimination, higher interest rates for mortgages, redlining and employment practices. …

Moreover, blacks continue to suffer disproportionately in the bad economy. The wealth gap between whites and blacks [more than quadrupled from 1984 and 2007. In addition, the] slashing of public sector jobs has plunged many blacks into poverty, and the recession wiped out black wealth and with it the black middle class.

There are two key points here. First, there is no such thing as a “legacy” or “badge” of slavery. There is no mechanism by which the history of slavery — let alone the modern mythology of slavery with its “evil white slavers” and “poor innocent blacks who built this country and didn’t even get paid waaah” — could make blacks such spectacular failures today.

Second, disparate impact does not imply disparate treatment. All of these things that “haunt African-Americans today” are better explained by race differences in intelligence and other behavioral traits, such as conscientiousness and aggressiveness — in short, by human biodiversity — than by discrimination.

Some, like “higher interest rates for mortgages,” are directly caused by race differences in behavior: to a bank, the average African-American represents a bigger gamble than the average European-American — or the average Chinese-American, for that matter.

Others, like the disparate impact of slashing public sector jobs, are only indirectly caused by race differences in behavior: since we are not allowed to talk about race differences in behavioral traits, the only remaining explanation for the race differences in economic outcomes they create is mythical “white racism,” an explanation which has led to (among other things) affirmative action in government hiring and thus a disproportionate number of blacks with public sector jobs.

So remember:

1. There is no such thing as a “legacy” of slavery.
2. Disparate impact does not imply disparate treatment.

Black invention myths

The eighth and tenth “biggest myths about black history” are also not worth my attention. The ninth is that “American innovation was exclusively white.” It is not clear who actually believes that American innovation was exclusively (meaning 100%) white, but let’s be generous to the author and assume he meant something like “American innovation was almost exclusively white, and we could easily do without the minor contributions of black Americans.”

That happens to be true.

Despite Pat Buchanan’s belief that “this has been a country built, basically, by white folks,” African-Americans have made invaluable contributions to this country through inventions, exploration, and all fields of endeavor.

Have they really? “[I]nvaluable contributions… through inventions, exploration, and all fields of endeavor”? Alright, let’s hear it.

As Randall Robinson noted in his book The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks, the U.S. government requested 100 slaves to construct the Capitol in Washington. Masters who agreed to lend their slaves to the government received $5 per month per slave. Subsequently, forced labor helped clear the land for the rest of the District of Columbia.

Well, sure. I concede that blacks are capable of manual labor under white supervision. Is that the extent of their “invaluable contributions”?

But black people helped build America in other ways as well. Benjamin Banneker, an African-American inventor, astronomer, mathematician, urban planner and farmer helped survey what would become the city of Washington, DC.

He “helped survey” the land? Is that the best you can do?

Oh, it actually is. Never mind.

Dr. Daniel Hale Williams performed the first successful open heart surgery operation…

Myth.

… while Dr. Charles Drew was a pioneer in blood banks and the storage and processing of blood plasma.

Myth and myth.

George Washington Carver was a renowned scientist and educator who reportedly found hundreds of uses for peanuts, soybeans, pecans and sweet potatoes.

Myth.

Lewis Latimer worked with Thomas Edison, and invented carbon filaments for incandescent lamps.

Myth.

Garrett Morgan invented the traffic light and sold it to General Electric, with his design becoming the basis for modern traffic lights. He also invented the gas mask.

Myth and myth.

Marie Van Brittan Brown invented the home security system.

She filed a patent for a closed-circuit television security system.

Black explorer Matthew Henson was the first person to reach the North Pole…

Well, congratu-fucking-lations.

… and the list goes on and on.

Indeed, the list of black invention myths goes on and on, and the disingenuous or just plain deluded people, like David Love, who promulgate those myths do themselves go on and on and on and on…

… and on and on and on and on …

"Did you put us here to distract everybody from your raciss-ness with our cuteness?"

… and on and on and on and on and on and on and on…

These should not be confused with Unamusement Park’s Laws of Race and Crime:

1. There is no significant bias against black people in the justice system.
2. The news media are biased in favor of black people.
3. Black people are more criminal than white people.

We emphasize that the Laws of Race and Crime describe and explain the reality of race and crime, whereas the Laws of Black Crime According to Black People describe and explain black people’s reactions to black crime. (To be precise: how the reactions to black crime of a large percentage of black people differ from their reactions to non-black crime and from the reactions of most white people to any sort of crime.)

Last time, we covered the Second Law of Black Crime According to Black People: More to the Story. This law holds that any time a black person commits or is accused of a crime, there must be — can you guess? — more to the story. However horrific the crime and however obvious the black person’s guilt, there simply must be some mitigating factor to justify or at least excuse what happened. The criminal may not be the hero of the story, but he is certainly among the victims — provided he is black.

Today, we unveil the Third Law of Black Crime According to Black People. If you have any examples of this law in action, feel free to leave a comment.

Third Law: Only Victims Are Black

The Only Victims Are Black law holds that (a) the race of a black victim is always relevant, and (b) the race of a black perpetrator is never relevant. When the two clauses of the Third Law are applied in quick succession, the results can be humorous.

We take as an example the shooting death of Shaquille Jones of Brooklyn, as reported by the website Your Black Gossip in “17 Year Old High School Basketball Player In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time Shot To Death” (Nov. 20, 2011).

Shaquille Jones wasn’t a kid who was expected to die at such an early age. He wasn’t even involved in the situation that got him killed. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time can often lead to a death sentence for young black men in America.

A situation got him killed? He was in the wrong place at the wrong time? It sounds as though he was hit by a bus or struck by lightning, but we already know he was shot to death. A hunting accident, perhaps — but in Brooklyn? And how can situations, times, and places discriminate on the basis of age, sex, and race? How can they preferentially target young black men?

Of course, Shaquille wasn’t shot by a situation or a place and time. He was murdered — gunned down in the street for no good reason — by a gang of black thugs. This is not unusual.

12.6% of Americans are black alone; another 1% are black in combination with some other race (2010 Census). Yet blacks commit the majority of homicides: 50% in 2004, 53% in 2005, 55% in 2006, 54% in 2007, 52% in 2008, 52% in 2009, and 53% in 2010 (FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program). The black murder rate is consistently about 8 times higher than the white murder rate, meaning blacks are 8 times as likely (700% more likely) to commit murder as whites, on average. From 2004 to 2008, about 84% of their victims were black, while 16% were white and Hispanic.

Now you know. So let’s read on.

Being in the wrong place at the wrong time can often lead to a death sentence for young black men in America. Jones, who lives in Brooklyn, ran into a group of other teenagers who were armed and seeking to settle a fight they’d had with some other young men.

Jones and his friends argued with the armed men, but were not involved in the fight that had the men so upset in the first place.

It doesn’t get any clearer than in these three sentences. The victim and all four perpetrators (not to mention whomever they were arguing with) were (a) young, (b) male, and (c) black. The victim is duly described as (a) young, (b) male, and (c) black. The perpetrators, on the other hand, are described as (a) young and (b) male.

Hmm. Some information appears to have been lost.

The victim isn’t just a person or a young person or a man or even a young man. He’s a young black man, and this is clearly very important to “Your Black Gossip.” Indeed, it is the article’s raison d’être. That’s clause (a) of the Third Law in action: the race of a black victim is always relevant.

Not only is the race of a black victim always relevant, but the race of a white victim is irrelevant at best, and cause for obscene celebration at worst. Most blacks don’t seem to care one bit about the white victims of black crime, despite the little-known fact that blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against other blacks and often delight in harming innocent white people. But that curious attitude is a law for another day.

Meanwhile, Shaquille’s killers are merely young men. That’s clause (b) of the Third Law in action: the race of a black perpetrator is never relevant.

You see, drawing attention to black criminality (while technically not racist, as long as the reporter is black) could lead to “negative stereotypes,” meaning uncomfortable statistical truths about racial minorities.

It could also lead to “racial profiling,” meaning the exact same principle that makes you pet a kitty but run from a tiger.

It could even “reflect on all the good black kids” and “render invisible the young black guys who are strivers and law-abiding,” meaning waaaaaaah blacks are dangerous and those mean wacist white people want to protect themselves and their families waaaaaaah.

Well, some of them want to protect themselves. Not all.

… slutty forest faeries…

… gratuitous French girls…

… and racial hatred…

… turns ONE YEAR OLD. Huzzah!

A bold new direction!

On this very special occasion, I am pleased to announce that in exactly one week, Unamusement Park will cease to exist in its current format. At that time, we will permanently switch to a monthly print publication, which we will hand-deliver to each of our subscribers.

Unamusement Park will also change its name. To Radish.

I see that some of you have questions. Very well. Yes, you there. The gratuitous French girl dressed as a slutty forest faerie, holding the silly kitten.

Gratuitous French Girl: Radish?

Unamused: Yes. Radish.

Gratuitous French Girl: What ze damn hell shit does zat mean?

Unamused: Glad you asked. “Radish” is, of course, the root word of “racist.” Are you beginning to comprehend? No? What if I told you that, in addition to being the root word of “racist,” “radish” is the root word… of “root”? Do you see now? “Radish” is the root word of both “racist” and “root.” Or, as I like to say: “radish” is the radish word of both “racist” and “root.”

Gratuitous French Girl: I was led to believe zat “radix” was ze root word —

Unamused: Ze radish word.

Gratuitous French Girl: — was ze radish word of “racist” and “root.” And, for zat matter, of “radish,” which is a root vegetable, you silly goose.

Unamused: A radish vegetable, I think you’ll find, you silly pear. The radish is a radish vegetable. And no. This is a common misunderstanding, like the urban legend that putting a dog in the microwave will give you hairy palms.

Gratuitous French Girl: [unintelligible]

Unamused: Don’t make me tickle you. In truth, it is “radish” that, besides being a delicious root — I mean, radish — vegetable, is the root word of “radix,” “racist” and “root” alike. Or, as I like to say: it is “radish” that, besides being a delicious radish vegetable, is the radish word of “radish,” “radish” and “radish” alike.

Gratuitous French Girl: Ooohhh… so dizzy… ze radishes… so many radishes…

Unamused: No, just one, so far: issue 1, volume 1, available January 29! Only $199.99 per issue. Why settle for Radix, when you could have Radish instead? Or, as I like to say: why settle for —

Gratuitous French Girl: Yes yes yes, we all get it now.

Vote for Unamusement Park’s new official site motto!

By overwhelming popular demand (by which of course I mean: I just now decided to do it, and I don’t much care if you like it or not), Unamusement Park is choosing an official site motto. Vote now (preferably from the rooftops), and make your voice heard!

Here are your options.

1. “I’m not racist. Some of my best friends are niggers.”
2. “We don’t hate all non-white people. Wait, yes, we actually do.”
3. “There’s only one race: the human race. And blacks aren’t included.”
4. “I hate all the niggers, they look just like chimpanzees, why won’t they go back to Africa and keep their chimpanzee paws off my big-screen TV.”
5. “There are innate race differences in how much I want to exterminate you.”
6. “Race realism, human biodiversity, positive white identity, and kill all the Jews.”
7. “We’re not saying Hitler was right. Wait, yes, we actually are.”
8. “The Internet’s #1 source for silly kittens, slutty forest faeries, gratuitous French girls and racial hatred.”
9. “SLUTS! SLUTS! SLUTS!” (In honor of the all-time most popular search term leading to Unamusement Park, besides “Unamusement Park.”)
10. “It’s cheaper than Radix.”

Gratuitous French Girl: Zis is an outrage! You forgot number eleven: “I am ze Queen of Croissants.”

Unamused: Oh, for the love of — you know the rules, Gratuitous French Girl. No croissant-related write-ins.

Gratuitous French Girl: Tra la la, I shall do it all ze same. Ah, les croissants… comme je t’aime…

Unamused: Please don’t encourage her.

Gratuitous French Girl: Tra la la!

These should not be confused with Unamusement Park’s Laws of Race and Crime:

1. There is no significant bias against black people in the justice system.
2. The news media are biased in favor of black people.
3. Black people are more criminal than white people.

We emphasize that the Laws of Race and Crime describe and explain the reality of race and crime, whereas the Laws of Black Crime According to Black People describe and explain black people’s reactions to black crime. (To be precise: how the reactions to black crime of a large percentage of black people differ from their reactions to non-black crime and from the reactions of most white people to any sort of crime.)

Last time, we covered the First Law of Black Crime According to Black People: Police Be Racis’. This law holds that the entire justice system — police, prosecutors, judges, juries and all — is hopelessly, utterly biased against all black people, even though that makes absolutely no sense.

Today, we present the Second Law of Black Crime According to Black People. (It too makes absolutely no sense.) If you have any examples of the second law in action, feel free to leave a comment.

Second Law: More to the Story

The More to the Story law holds that any time a black person commits or is accused of a crime, there must be — can you guess? — more to the story. However horrific the crime and however obvious the black person’s guilt, there simply must be some mitigating factor — some missing piece of evidence, some fresh perspective — to justify or at least excuse what happened. The criminal may not be the hero of the story, but he is certainly among the victims — provided he is black.

It is not necessary to actually provide such a mitigating factor, even (perhaps especially) if its existence is implausible or indeed inconceivable to the rational mind. Still, it may be helpful to fabricate one.

We take as an example the murder of Hester Scott, a black veteran of the Chicago Police Department, by her adopted grandson, Keshawn Perkins, also black (Daily Mail, Nov. 7, 2011).

A veteran police officer, 55, was beaten and stabbed to death by her 15-year-old grandson after she came home to find he had skipped school, prosecutors said.

Keshawn Perkins was so incensed at being shouted out by Hester Scott, who was on the Chicago force for 25 years, that he ‘hit her with the lamp until she shut up’ then stabbed her repeatedly with two kitchen knives, it is alleged.

The ninth grade student, who had been adopted by his grandmother, wrapped her dead body in a blanket and dumped her in a backyard sewer trap before fleeing with her purse, a court was told.

We may observe the Second Law in action at MediaTakeout.com (link not recommended). Here are a few comments from their article on the murder.

Theres another side to this story i can feel it!

At this point, we should recall the passages I highlighted in that Daily Mail article: “beaten and stabbed to death by her 15-year-old grandson… so incensed at being shouted out [for skipping school]… ‘hit her with the lamp until she shut up’ then stabbed her repeatedly with two kitchen knives… wrapped her dead body in a blanket and dumped her in a backyard sewer trap before fleeing with her purse.”

That comment again:

Theres another side to this story i can feel it!

Can you feel it too?

yall need to take this post down, unless yall are willing to post the entire story

It’s always more to a story than what is initially reported to the public

people focus on how ‘grateful’ the orphan should be for being taken in

If by gratitude the commenter means not beating her with a lamp and stabbing her with a couple of kitchen knives until she dies, then robbing her corpse before dumping it in a sewer, then yes, I think the orphan should have exhibited more gratitude toward his adoptive grandmother. But maybe I’m focusing too much on the beating/stabbing/corpse-robbing/sewer-dumping angle.

Is only 1 side to the store who knows history between 2 people we should stop getting into we know the facts

“Since I broke up with Stacy, all our friends are taking her side, but they don’t know the facts. They haven’t heard my side of the story. You need to understand the history between two people, y’know?”

“Tell me about it. I stole my grandmother’s purse, which sounds bad, right?”

“Right…”

“See, but you don’t know the history between us.”

“Okay, I guess I can see —”

“Oh, and I beat her head in with a lamp, stabbed her a whole bunch of times and pushed her down a sewer trap. I should have probably led with that… Still, couldn’t be helped. History and stuff, y’know? Hey, is Stacy seeing anyone now?”

Just one more:

but while yall talkin do yall kno she was a cop that abused him nd broke his arm nd gave him black eyes no yall dnt yall dnt care at all what yall say aint no black child finna jus up nd kill somebody 4 getting yelled at nd yall kno dat if more people did research on him they would have known that yall dnt kno what yall talkin bout he was a good kid nd nice lookin they wanna get 1 of his bad pics man yall can quit it like 4 real every child go threw sum no matta what it is.. she used 2 beat him 4 no reason he was terrified of her until he couldnt take no more. THE THINGS BLACK PEOPLE SAY IS JUS SHAMEFUL REAL TALK

Allow me to translate.

But while you all talking do you all know she was a cop that abused him and broke his arm and gave him black eyes?

PO Scott was cleared of those charges by DCFS investigators.

No. You all don’t. You all don’t care at all what you all say. Ain’t no black child gonna just up and kill somebody for getting yelled at and you all know that.

I assure you, we all do not “know that,” and until quite recently, neither did anyone else.

If more people did research on him they would have known that you all don’t know what you all are talking about. He was a good kid and nice looking. They want to get one of his bad pictures.

More on that later.

Man, you all can quit it. Like, for real, every child go through some no matter what it is. She used to beat him for no reason. He was terrified of he until he couldn’t take no more. THE THINGS BLACK PEOPLE SAY IS JUST SHAMEFUL. REAL TALK.

Again, it is not necessary to actually provide the supposed mitigating factor, but it may be helpful to fabricate one, as in the sad case of Hester Scott and Keshawn Perkins. Either way, one thing is certain: when the perpetrator’s black, there’s always More to the Story.

And that’s the Second Law of Black Crime According to Black People.

What did we know about “the negro” in 1910?

Mentally the negro is inferior to the white.

Race differences in intelligence, which in the age before political correctness were considered uncontroversial scientific facts (and do indeed favor Europeans over Africans), have since been confirmed by modern science. They are once again uncontroversial scientific facts. For an introduction, I will refer you to Chapter 4 (“Intelligence and Brain Size,” pp. 22–27) of J. Philippe Rushton’s “Race, Evolution, and Behavior” (2000).

[T]he arrest or even deterioration in mental development is no doubt very largely due to the fact that after puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negro’s life and thoughts.

Here, I will refer you to Chapter 3 (“Sex, Hormones, and AIDS,” pp. 18–21). Yes, this racial stereotype — just like all the other ones — reflects a statistical truth.

[H]is environment has not been such as would tend to produce in him the restless energy which has led to the progress of the white race; and the easy conditions of tropical life and the fertility of the soil have reduced the struggle for existence to a minimum.

This is addressed in Chapter 7 (“Out of Africa,” pp. 39–41), under “Geography and Race.” The section begins:

Climate differences also influenced mental abilities. In Africa, food and warmth were available all year round. To survive the cold winters, the populations migrating northwards had to become more inventive. They had to find new sources of food and methods for storing it. They needed to make clothing and shelters to protect against the elements. Without them the people would have died. Both parents had to provide more care to help their young survive in the harsher climates.

Rushton’s r/K-type life-history strategies elegantly explain the observed racial differences in so many physical and behavioral traits.

Moving “Out of Africa” meant moving into a K-type life-history strategy. That meant higher IQ, larger brains, slower growth, and lower hormone levels. It also meant lower levels of sexuality, aggression, and impulsive behavior. More family stability, advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity were needed.

Back to Britannica:

[T]he mental constitution of the negro is very similar to that of a child, normally good-natured and cheerful, but subject to sudden fits of emotion and passion during which he is capable of performing acts of singular atrocity, impressionable, vain, but often exhibiting in the capacity of servant a dog-like fidelity which has stood the supreme test.

For more information on this (perhaps more than usually) controversial subject, I will refer you (not for the first time) to the outstanding essay “Morality and Abstract Thinking” by Gedaliah Braun (author of “Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit”) in the February 2009 issue of American Renaissance.

[I]n the southern states in 1890 there were about four and a half times as many negro prisoners to population as white prisoners, and in 1904 about five and a half times as many; … in the northern states in 1890 there were about six times as many negro prisoners to population as white prisoners, and in 1904 about nine times as many.

Elevated crime rates? No kidding.

The author of this hilariously “offensive” (meaning truthful but tactless) entry: one Walter Francis Willcox, LL.B., Ph.D., Chief Statistician for the Census Bureau, Professor of Social Science and Statistics at Cornell University, Member of the American Social Science Association and Secretary of the American Economical Association.

Gee guys, I don’t get it. How could such a smart, well informed, science-minded individual be so ignorant when it comes to race? Why on Earth would he believe those awful things about black people?

It is a mystery.

We at Unamusement Park spend an awful lot of time enumerating the unique, uh, challenges (not to say weaknesses) posed by racial diversity; specifically, any large number of Sun People let loose in a historically white-majority nation.

Call it the Diversity Challenge. That makes it sound fun, right?

The Diversity Challenge in America revolves around the fact that blacks and Hispanics (and American Indians and Pacific Islanders, for that matter) are generally less intelligent and more criminal than whites; in the case of blacks, much less intelligent and much more criminal.

The Diversity Challenge in Europe revolves around an eerily similar fact concerning Africans and Arabs, but let’s focus on America for the moment.

We have demonstrated the truth of those (fairly obvious, inexplicably “offensive”) propositions about human biodiversity so many times that now I need only refer you to the Essentials page or to the relevant categories, Crime and Intelligence. So, given that they are true (albeit “racist”)…

What can we do about it?

Unfortunately, we cannot fix the lower overall intelligence of the black and Hispanic populations already in America, because it is largely genetic. This is not a pressing concern except insofar as a relative deficiency in abstract thinking contributes to a relative surplus of antisocial behavior, which of course it does, in at least two ways. As always, the African races provide the most spectacular examples (American Renaissance).

1. Lack of future time orientation: why large numbers of blacks, whether in Liberia or Chicago, will defecate on public beaches if left to their own devices.
2. Lack of empathy: why large numbers of blacks, whether in the Congo or, uh, pretty much any American city with a significant black population, can actually delight in inflicting pain on innocent victims, especially if they’re white. (“Knockout King” ring any bells? No?)

We cannot fix the higher overall criminality of the black and Hispanic populations either, because it too is largely genetic. All we can do is survive it: defend ourselves, our homes and our families. With that limitation in mind, today we consider one effective solution to the Diversity Challenge in America:

The Springfield Armory XD 9mm

You can buy one here.

Ooh, shiny.

Some of you may recall from our New Year’s celebrations that the Springfield XD 9mm is the weapon of choice of wildly popular blogger and commenter The Man, who gets the Official Unamusement Park Gun-Cat Seal of Approval for wearing it while walking the cats. (He should also fix his f*#$!@%& comments already.)

It is also the weapon of choice of one Rudy Kearney at the survivalist blog Preparing Your Family. In “Three Critical Self Defense Considerations,” he writes:

I’m going to be blunt here, and some of you may not like it. If it is legal to carry a concealed weapon where you live, there is no excuse for you not carrying. You are putting yourself and your family in jeopardy if you don’t.

A handgun is the best option you are likely to have in any sort of life threatening situation outside of your home, and is hands down the only reasonably effective self defense weapon when your life is on the line.

…

Be sure you get training. This is not negotiable. You should look for a class similar to this one, or this one. Every region has good training facilities, or you could go to one of the national schools. But I’m not kidding. This is non negotiable. If you are going to carry, get professional training. …

Are you paying attention, America?

Are you ready to take the Diversity Challenge?

Don’t you want the Official Unamusement Park Gun-Cat Seal of Approval?

Gun-cat!

Yes you do!