I was aware of The Color of Crime, but I had not read it. That's why I didn't know of the 2005 update. I specifically considered reading it prior to writing this piece, but rejected the idea. I hold two graduate degrees from first-rate American universities, earned in the days when there was no social promotion. Rest assured that I am well aware of the prevailing custom for reference, quotation etc. – and don't need to be lectured on scholarly ethics.

I have now scanned the 2005 TCoC piece. Indeed, it's much more comprehensive than what I wrote, and it's evident that there was a pro who put it together, if not a whole team of them. It's a superb piece, and I consider it reliable – but for the doubting Thomases, the wholesale format of sourcing references for the statistical data would be inadequate. At any rate, I was aiming for something else; something more personal and experiential, not a forest of data but one narrow, individual path to one class of data only: violent crime, excluding even rape. And aimed not at regular AmRen readers, but at people who are on the right but have not yet taken the plunge into race-realist activism.

If you know much about Taylor, you'll know that he grew up in Japan, is a great admirer of the Japanese culture, and speaks Japanese probably better than I do. But he did make a mistake in allowing Duke and Stormfront, and other dingbats to attend AmRen gatherings, to intimidate and insult Jewish attendants etc. You are probably aware that this is why the Inverted World people split off. If you go to http://www.inverted-world.com/ you'll find more about it.

As for me, anything that I have read by Jared Taylor, or on the AmRen website – and it's not much – struck me always as a model of lucidity, restraint, and correctness far from the tone and demeanor of the Aryan loons. So I'll heed your advice and try to work in a reference in my next piece.

BTW, I am already it. The most to-the-point reax email I got so far, reads, reproduced here precisely: go fuck yourself, yellow monkey.

Ken P.

“I didn't want to do that. The average American who may read about a horrific crime committed by blacks , and decides to dig for some generalizeable meaning of it, is likely to know about the FBI crime stats, but not about AmRen. And if he knows of AmRen, he "knows" that it's a "white supremacist" outfit, if not worse, and he considers it tainted. The liberals have done their propaganda work all too well, for — from what I know about and of Jared Taylor — he is a man of integrity. Still, I wanted to use sources that may be deemed "objective."

Also, TCoC was issued in 1999; I wanted up-to-date stats.”

It’s funny that you should state that. Several years ago, Mr. Taylor was sort of in the same spot as you now are. AmRen, holds these bi-annual conferences where racial matters are discussed. At one of these conferences, he refused admission to David Duke on the flimsy pretext that Mr. Duke had not properly pre-registered. He later stated that the media would put him (Taylor) into a convenient box if he allowed the attendance of – and thereby supposedly endorsed the views of – Duke. From this box, said Taylor, his views could not be considered seriously by the general public.

I’m sure you understand. As you say, you personally believe Mr. Taylor is a man of integrity, yet you so much fear the average American might see AmRen to be “tainted,” that you would not reference TCoC.

You mention an additional reason of not referring to TCoC as being that the data there are old, from 1999, that is. My link was actually to the 2005, Second Expanded Edition, which uses data from at least as late as 2003. It’s not plausible, anyway, is it, that data from 1999 should be profoundly stale at this time? The analogy to improper conference pre-registration should be apparent.

Judging by your message, you were aware of TCoC at the time you composed your essay. You likely have read it and been influenced by it. Scholarly ethics requires attribution in a case such as this, even if one of your sources (your primary source?) is “tainted.”

You are correct when you state that the “liberals have done their propaganda work all too well.” One of their mottos is, “No enemies on the Left.” That is that they will not condemn, and are even reluctant to distance themselves from, any of their more racial members. It’s a principle that seems to have served them well – one from which we could learn.

Instead, those on the Right discussing racial matters are atomized individuals, each distancing himself from his “tainted” neighbors. This flawed impulse is collectively disadvantageous. Consider the case at hand. While your essay shows that you have an unusually strong grasp of the English language, your essay lacks the elaboration, analysis, and statistical rigor of Taylor’s 23-page TCoC. The reader may have been more impressed with your message if he had known about TCoC for two reasons. First, none of your readers will be so overwhelmingly inspired by your essay as to go off and plow through FBI documentation that you have already advised is deliberately obscured. Many readers would, however, opted to click on a link that leads to a concise, on-point discussion, and thus be better informed. Second, the reader would see that your message is made not just by you; it is made powerfully by at least one other qualified writer.

As well, the thoughtful reader would recognize and appreciate the selfless attribution to what could be seen as a rival exponent of the same general viewpoint. The nature of altruism is that its benefits do not immediately accrue to the benefactor. Nevertheless, groups that practice altruism amongst themselves are better off than those that do not. Practicing altruism encourages others in the group to do the same. Therefore, the practice of altruism can reward today’s benefactors in unexpected ways tomorrow.

But anyway, here’s the funny part. Now you’re It. If your work becomes at all influential, the Left will see to it that you are properly stigmatized, your careful avoidance of “tainted” individuals notwithstanding. It surely won’t do to call Takuan Seiyo a "white supremacist," but perhaps it will be “that crazy, mixed-up Japanese hybrid.” As silly as that sounds, I’m sure a talented propagandist could put a good pernicious spin on it.

Ken P.

Also, TCoC was issued in 1999; I wanted up-to-date stats.

I recently put up a post on my site about the closing of the Martin Luther King/Drew Medical Center in Watts. It was built in response to the Watts riots, offering what I believe was a form of reparation to blacks in the area after they savaged their city. When given a hospital to care for their community, they instead killed patients through incompetence and obstructed reform by charging racism. The post was taxing to write for all of the tragedy I had to read through to research the debacle, but it pales in comparison to your well written dissection of violent crime in America.

I have lived among too many African Americans to believe they conspire to such viciousness – but there are few that will admit to me that what we see and experience is anything other than a reaction to white racism. It breaks my heart.

Link to post: King/Drew Medical Center: Reparations Paid Back In Blood (http://politicalvindication.com/?p=1021)

Ken P.