- Counter-Currents Publishing - https://www.counter-currents.com -

Dems R (Also) the Real Racists

1,698 words

[1]The American South provides all kinds of excellent demonstrations for the white liberal’s suppressed, smug, victim-blaming attitudes towards marginalized peoples for their own poor outcomes and problems. Let me be clear: I’m not talking about the idea that rural “white trash” are the one group liberals feel free to openly stereotype and scapegoat, which Jim Goad explored in his Redneck Manifesto [2] almost 20 years ago now.

No, I’m talking about liberals literally being racist towards blacks . . . and literally being too damn stupid to even realize it. 

For whatever reason, liberals consistently seem to think that the primary distinguishing feature of the American South is that its white population is skewed towards conservative policy preferences compared to whites elsewhere. This is an extremely shallow oversimplification of the situation.

For instance, any liberal who explicitly or implicitly believes this would most likely be surprised to take a serious look at the role that whites in different regions of the United States played in the election of Donald Trump [3]: “In Ohio white men made up 38% of voters, the same as 2012, but 68% of them chose Mr. Trump, an improvement of six percentage points over Mr. Romney. White women accounted for 42% of voters in Ohio and 56% plumped for Mr. Trump, up by three points. In Michigan whites accounted for 75% of voters, slightly lower than 2012. Mr. Trump only took two percentage points more of the white vote in Michigan than Mr. Romney did..” A majority of American whites have actually voted Republican in every single election over the past 50 years [4], and regional differences simply are not as pronounced in that pattern as these people would like to believe. (Interesting note for the margins: Jimmy Carter actually received the largest white percentage of the vote recorded over this period of time—at 48%).

No, what these liberals repeatedly fail to recognize is that the truly significant distinguishing feature of the South is its concentrated black populations. Looking at a map of the United States as a whole, the American South is literally where all of the black people are.

According to the 2010 census [5], a full 55% of America’s black population resided in the South. This is compared to 18% across the while Midwest, 17% in the Northeast, and 10% in the West. All in all, the report notes that of 317 counties in the United States where blacks make up 25 to 49% of the population, only 17 of these counties were outside of the South. Outside of the South, you simply don’t find locally concentrated populations of blacks. It should be obvious that the split between liberal and conservative whites inside and outside of the South is nowhere near this stark and dramatic.

Thus, it is quite simply an empirical truth that many of the differences in regards to overall outcomes in the American South are explained not by its concentration of conservatives, but by its concentration of blacks. So when liberals are too stupid to understand this, they frequently end up engaging in quite literal, blatant, victim-blaming racism while being too stupid to even comprehend that that is what they are doing. This doesn’t just provide us with a case study like Jim Goad’s in how liberals will scapegoat and stereotype rural whites in ways they never would any other demographic. It provides us with case studies of how liberals are literally racist as Hell against blacks themselves at any time where it hasn’t been made explicitly salient to them that race is part of the question they’re answering.

Recently, I saw the CDC’s report finding that the U.S. state of Georgia was ranked among the worst states for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis rates [6] nation-wide shared online.

The top-rated comment blamed Georgia’s conservative whites for their own predicament with a smarmy, condescending attitude that I’ll summarize like so: “How’s that abstinence-only education going for you now, religious dipshits? You deserve all the diseases you get.”

To be clear, the actual evidence on abstinence–only education is interesting, and the case in favor of it is far more credible than you’d believe listening only to the mainstream media. Or comments like this one. The Heritage Foundation’s overview of the evidence here [7] does an excellent job of summarizing it and interpreting it in light of the whole:

This paper discusses 22 studies of abstinence education. Sixteen studies examined abstinence programs that were primarily intended to teach abstinence. Of these 16 studies, 12 reported positive findings. The other six studies analyzed virginity pledges, and of these six studies, five reported positive findings. Overall, 17 of the 22 studies reported statistically significant positive results, such as delayed sexual initiation and reduced levels of early sexual activity, among youths who have received abstinence education. Five studies did not report any significant results.

In addition to these 22 studies, five other studies have been cited in various reviews of abstinence program evaluations. However, these five studies are not fully discussed in this paper for several reasons.

Whether abstinence programs are the most effective policies to support in schools or not, these results rather definitively show that there is no reason whatsoever to think that they increase STD rates.

So why does Georgia lead the nation in chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis rates?

Let’s take a closer look. According to the Georgia Department of Public Health’s 2012 STD report [8]:

The total white rate in Georgia for chlamydia is 112 per 100,000.
The total black rate for chlamydia is 841 per 100,000—7.5 times higher.
The total white rate in Georgia for gonorrhea is 20 per 100,000.
The total black rate in Georgia for gonorrhea is 329 per 100,000—16.4 times higher.
The total white rate in Georgia for syphilis is 2.5 per 100,000.
The total black rate in Georgia for syphilis is 14.7 per 100,000—5.8 times higher.

These numbers fit the approximate pattern in STD rates that appears nation-wide, according to CDC reports [9]:

Rates of reported cases of chlamydia were highest for blacks aged 15–19 and 20–24 years . . . The rate among black women aged 20–24 years was 4.1 times the rate among white women in the same age group . . . The chlamydia rate among black men was almost eight times the rate among white men (771.1 and 99.4 cases per 100,000 males, respectively).

. . .  58.4% of reported gonorrhea cases with known race/ethnicity occurred among blacks … The rate of gonorrhea among blacks in 2013 was 426.6 cases per 100,000 population, which was 12.4 times the rate among whites (34.5 per 100,000). … Black men aged 20–24 years had a gonorrhea rate of 1,734.5 cases per 100,000 men, which was 13.0 times the rate among white men in the same age group (133.7 per 100,000).

. . . 37.3% of all cases reported to CDC were among blacks. The overall 2013 rate for blacks was 5.6 times the rate for whites. In 2013, the rate of P&S syphilis among black men was 5.3 times the rate among white men; the rate among black women was 15 times the rate among white women.

So why does Georgia outrank other states in the nation in STD rates? That’s because 30% of its population is black [10], compared to a nation-wide average black population of 13%.

Now, can anyone imagine a top-rated comment on any mainstream website—or for that matter even a conservative one—that said, “How’s that indiscriminate promiscuity and infidelity going for you now, black America? You deserve all the diseases you get?” The second we plug an actually accurate comprehension of the phenomena this commenter is addressing, his comment becomes blatant racism of the most simplistic kind. Except that it doesn’t really “become” that, because that is exactly what it is already.

A similar thing happens, of course, when liberals—especially often European liberals—condemn the United States’ high murder rates, and feel free to make statements condemning those stupid, inbred hicks for causing them because of their support for Second Amendment rights.

In any comparison of the per capita murder rates in the United States and elsewhere, it obviously has to be kept in mind that [11] “The offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher the rates for whites.” As the chart from this Bureau of Justice Statistics on pp. 11–12 shows, the per capita rate of murder among American whites between 1976–2005 was 4.8 per 100,000. The rate among American blacks was 36.9 per 100,00. This 7.6 times disparity is larger than any disparity in murder rate you’ll find ever between whites in places where guns are widely available, and places where whites have practiced extensive gun control.

As it so happens, the murder rate among American whites still might be just a little bit higher [12] when compared to the white rates found in various Eastern European countries. This isn’t an entirely unexpected finding even if human biodiversity is true.

But now we’re talking about, for example [13], 2.1 white murderers per 100,000 in America versus 1.7 white murderers per 100,000 in Belgium or 1.4 per 100,000 in Italy or 1.0 per 100,000 in Denmark or 1.2 per 100,000 in Germany or 1.7 per 100,000 in France [12].
That’s a far, far cry from the 36.9 murders per 100,000 people we find in places in the United States with concentrated black populations. And the areas with the highest murder rates inside the United States are often places that have extensive gun control policies in place already. Baltimore, Maryland is a city which is 63.3% black [14]—and it makes the list of top 50 most violent cities in the entire world [15]. Honduras, previously the murder capital of the world with 86.5 murders per 100,000 people in 2011 [16], saw its rate decline to about 60 per 100,000. Baltimore’s per capita murder rate in 2015 was 55.3 [17]and since 2015 those numbers have been rising drastically [18]. Yet, Maryland has some of the most sweeping gun control laws in the whole country already [19].

So the point of all of this is not just to ask rhetorically, “You think these people we hear talking about dumb, inbred white hillbilly hicks when American violence comes up will turn around and start talking about dumb, inbred[1] black thugs when they realize that’s where the actual gun murders are coming from?”

The point is: they already are.

They’re literally just too stupid to notice the fact that they’re already doing it.


1. Somewhere between 400,000–600,000 blacks were brought to the United States as part of the transatlantic slave trade overall; and there were no new slaves imported from Africa after about 1810. Approximately 30% of these are believed to have died before having a chance to produce children. Therefore, not accounting for racial admixture, the current population of 38 million American blacks is inbred from a founding population bottleneck of no more than ca. 420,000 black individuals at most.