This coming weekend marks the six-month anniversary of my fifteen minutes of worldwide fame. To mark the occasion, I shall give over this week’s and next week’s columns to some random ruminations on the event, its aftermath, and the race business in general, collecting my thoughts under a few general headings.
Truth… The first thing to be noted is the fuss you can make by telling the plain truth. To this day I cannot identify any statement of fact in my Taki’s Mag column of April 5 that was not true.
Yes, black schoolchildren cause a disproportionate number of disciplinary problems; yes, a disproportionate number of political corruption cases involve black politicians; yes, blacks are heavily overrepresented in government employment; and so on. I provided links to my sources in the original.
The facts are irrefutable. An opinion column of course includes more than facts: It has exhortations, rhetorical flourishes, a tone, and a diction, all of which may legitimately be objected to. But the facts I built my column around are true facts.
Now, from the point of view of social acceptance, we all know that the urge to truth needs restraining. Everyone’s least favorite neighbor is the one who responds to a cheery “How ya doin’?” with a comprehensive list of her physical ailments. All true, no doubt, but I’m trying to walk my dog here.
Airing of even the most unwelcome and unpleasant truths is justified, though, when untruth is being loudly, widely propagated. I opened my April column with links to several black writers whining about the need to tell their kids of the danger they face from evil white folk.
As is easily demonstrated from Department of Justice statistics, this is a lie, a vile and offensive slander on white Americans. Of every six acts of violent interracial crime in the US, five involve a black offender and a nonblack victim. Only one in six has a nonblack perp (and that includes self-described Hispanics) victimizing a black. Lies need to be countered. With truth.
Some zealous arithmeticians pointed out that since the “pool” of nonblack victims is much larger than that of blacks, of course there are more nonblack victims! OK, do the math.
Suppose a population of N persons has B blacks and W whites: B+W = N. Suppose the races commit violent offenses at equal rates, say one in M per annum. So every year B/M violent crimes are committed by blacks and W/M by whites.
Let’s suppose all such crimes are one-on-one. Let’s further suppose that both races choose their victims with perfect absence of racial discrimination.
Those B/M black crimes include (B/M) × (W/N) with white victims; number of crimes times white proportion of the population. The W/M white crimes similarly include (W/M) × (B/N) with black victims. Those two interracial numbers are the same: Both are (BW)/(MN). One to one, not five to one.
Blacks are far more dangerous to nonblacks than vice versa. It is rather easy to compile a list of hundreds of black-on-nonblack atrocities, many of them obviously driven by racial animus. Here is a website doing just that.
Is there a corresponding website logging atrocities against blacks by nonblacks? I don’t think so. The nearest approximation I can find is this one. In the spirit of those black journalists with whom I started off my April column, it exhorts readers to “Lock up your kids folks, a White man has been spotted in your neighborhood.” The crimes shown—there is a strong emphasis on pedophilia—are certainly awful, yet when I scanned a few pages at random, I couldn’t find any that involved a black victim.
Nonblack-on-black atrocities are so rare, the names of the victims are universally known: Emmett Till (1955), Medgar Evers (1963), James Byrd (1998), etc. They are so rare, news of a new one, however ambiguous the circumstances, dominates headlines for weeks.
Black-on-nonblack atrocities are so common, you’d need to be a mnemonist to know the victims’ names, even if the news media gave them prominence, which they don’t.
The narrative of present-day black victimhood is a lie—a gross and antisocial lie. Lies need to be countered. With truth.
…and Consequences. For reasons explained elsewhere, I don’t have much to say about National Review having dropped me.
As a matter of personal philosophy, I cleave to the despotic principle of business ownership and management. A private employer should be able to hire or fire anyone, at any time, for any reason or none. In my personal paradise, employment attorneys are all out of business. (Several other categories of attorneys are struggling, too.)
Leaving my own case aside, though, I must say I was shocked—I think I’ll go ahead and say disgusted—at the dropping, a day or two later, of Bob Weissberg from one of National Review Online’s auxiliary blogs. It was not the dropping itself that disgusted me (see above), but Rich Lowry’s thanking old Stalinist warhorse Leonard Zeskind for having brought Weissberg’s heresy to Lowry’s attention.
Is it eccentric or vindictive of me to bridle at the sight of America’s premier conservative magazine truckling to the hard left? I have been trying, for rhetorical purposes, to come up with a mirror-image situation involving the editor of, say, Mother Jones firing some contributor on information received from, say, Pat Buchanan, then thanking Pat for his assistance.
This speaks volumes about the left’s total dominance in our culture and the pathetic pussification of the official right.
When I commented thusly to a roomful of dissident conservatives in Seattle this June, the ever-fair-minded Jared Taylor observed mildly that Lowry may not have known Zeskind was the source. Pshaw. Lowry is the editor of a wealthy magazine with major investigative resources at his fingertips. It was his business to know. Bloggers found out fast enough.