Implicit Association Test: Are You Secretly Racist? (Hint: You Are)
    By News Staff | August 6th 2012 01:03 PM | 94 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    It's American election season and that means it is time for psychologists to introduce racism again - not whether you are racist, but how much.

    Well, only white people are, said a talk at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Even if they do not have any racist thoughts or lock their car door when they see a young, black man on the sidewalk and voted for Obama in 2008, white people still are; and their racial attitudes, both conscious and unconscious, may be a significant factor in this year's U.S. presidential election. A survey says so.

    "People may not even be aware that they have certain racial attitudes and that could be why, even with an African-American president in the White House for nearly four years, race continues to play a role in electoral politics," Anthony G. Greenwald, Ph.D., said in an interview. Greenwald was lead author on a paper about a survey of 15,000 voters. Surveys and statistics dressed up as science should make more than white voters nervous.

    The survey asked respondents about their political beliefs, how "warmly" they felt toward black and white people, and which presidential contender they preferred. The survey was done between January and April 2012, while the Republican hopefuls included Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. The research team also measured unconscious racial attitudes using the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which Greenwald developed more than a decade ago to measure thoughts and biases that people don't realize they have. Variations of the test measure implicit attitudes about topics such as race, gender, sexuality and ethnicity. It's a test designed to uncover racism, even if it is unconscious. Not surprisingly, it always does. 

    The IAT results showed a pattern labeled 'automatic white preference' among a majority of eligible white voters. The finding that some candidates are more attractive to voters with pro-white racial attitudes does not mean that those candidates are racist, Greenwald emphasized.

    Previous surveys  showed that both blacks and whites show explicit preferences for their own race.  This was clearly unacceptable so implicit racial bias and the IAT was created.  In these implicit, or unconscious, preferences, blacks don't prefer one race over another, whereas close to 70 percent of white Americans show an implicit racial bias using this new, fuzzy definition.  That should drive up votes for the candidate of the party 990 out of 1,000 psychologists vote for.

    They're out in force surveying people's attitudes about the 2012 presidential candidates as part of their Decision 2012 IAT study, with a survey modified to focus on voters' comparisons of Romney with President Obama. Summaries of the data will be posted on the site each month beginning in mid-August.

    Are you white and want to find out how secretly racist you are?  Go here.


    Gerhard Adam
    OK ... I took the test and got this result.
    Your data suggest a moderately stronger implicit association between Romney and Mormonism compared to that between Obama and Mormonism.
    I can't figure out which is more stupid.  The test ... or the conclusion ...
    Mundus vult decipi

    Are you serious?  Is that actually the result they gave for you?

    I took the "test", explicitly declining to answer questions that could be construed as identifying my "race" or political "identity" (since that could be similarly used to ascertain probable "race").  Then, I was finally given what I believe was the actual Implicit Association Test (IAT):  The rapid-fire identification of names of famous Black/White people, and the Black/White images.

    The result given for me was:

    Your data suggest little to no difference in implicit preference between famous Black and White people. 
    Your data suggest little to no difference in implicit preference between White People and Black People.

    Obviously, my IAT was of the "GOOD words with White faces compared to GOOD words with Black faces."  (Similarly for names.  So two tests.)

    The other IATs are, supposedly, "GOOD words with candidate faces or names, religious affiliations with candidate names, or American and foreign images with candidate names."

    It seems like yours must have been of the "religious affiliations with candidate names".  However, even that doesn't make good sense of the result you describe.

    Perhaps you would be willing to share more information about the IAT you were given?


    Thor Russell
    I just did the test and pretended to be a USA citizen, and got exactly the same results as Gerhard. I must have got the "religious affiliations with candidate names" test also.

    Thor Russell
    Gerhard Adam
    I don't know anything more about the IAT I was given.  I simply took what was there and obtained that result.  I didn't really investigate it much further, but I didn't decline to answer any particular question.

    Mundus vult decipi

    I make a distinction between the "survey" portion and the actual IAT (the portion where one must press the "D" or "K" keys as quickly as possible).

    The correct use of these two portions would be as separate pieces for additional research into how so called "Implicit Associations" relate to the information that can be gleaned from the "survey" portion.  Unfortunately, I am not trusting that they are not using the "survey" portion to "feed into" the IAT portion and the results they report.

    Now that I have received an unbiased report, I'm considering taking the test again, but, this time, with a fully answered "survey" portion.  I'll then see what difference that makes.

    Basically, I'm performing an experiment on their "test".


    Gerhard Adam
    I completely agree.  It sounds like they are simply assuming that if there are any delays, then they must be due to prejudice or bias. 

    It would be interesting to see what happens if one simply takes a long time or simply answers a large number of them incorrectly.
    Mundus vult decipi

    They do state that the results will be expressed as "indeterminate" if the results are "outside" the parameter range, of some kind, such as if there are too many errors.  (I don't remember exactly how they stated that, but that's the "gist", as I remember.)


    Gerhard Adam
    Yeah, I saw that later [error rate] ... I forgot about that.  However, I'm not sure about the time issue.
    Mundus vult decipi

    I can't be sure of the "time issue" either, without knowing more about the algorithm.  However, considering their "insistence" that the keys be pressed as quickly as possible, and how easy it would be to have no errors and statistically similar timing if one were sufficiently slow in responding, I think it is highly likely that sufficiently slow responses would lead to an "indeterminate" assessment.


    Thor Russell
    These tests cut both ways. I considered myself biased against a particular group, but a test like this said I wasn't. Can someone point to such a test result to say that they must then have been misunderstood when they say something potentially (or deliberately) prejudicial. Well I doubt it but doing such a thing may reduce the trust people place in these tests.
    Thor Russell
    Gerhard Adam
    That's what I love about tests like this.
    The test often reveals associations that are different than one's conscious beliefs. For example, even people who have no conscious preference between Black and White may still have implicit associations that White is better than Black.
    So, it doesn't matter what you believe or even what you think you believe.  This test will tell you what you believe. 

    This reminds me of other psychological "scientific" triumphs like the polygraph.  Yaaahhhh ...
    Mundus vult decipi
    Gerhard and all,

    I share some of your skepticism of the IAT, but the article completely misconstrues the meaning of the test and why it was developed. The test was developed because it was believed that over the course of the 20th century, it became less and less politically correct to explicitly share one's views about race. So, while people were filling out surveys and saying that don't have any biases, meanwhile, there was still a great deal of evidence of bias and tension between racial/ethnic groups - it was patently obvious that at some of the people saying they didn't hold bias actually do. The implicit bias was meant to get around the difficulty of self-report. HOWEVER, the test is not a test of RACISM. It is a test of NEGATIVE ASSOCIATIONS that people have about certain groups. So, for example, while I voted for Obama in 2008, this fact does not necessarily mean that I haven't picked up certain associations between, say black people and "aggression" - stereotypes that circulate around me in larger culture. If I exhibit such an association on the IAT, the researchers should not and typically do not conclude that this is evidence of "racism", but rather, that it reflects larger cultural associations that still persist about certain groups. This is an important difference. The question then becomes, what can the results of the IAT predict? In some studies, at least, people were given the test and then, unknowingly, watched as they interacted with a white or black person (within the lab setting). Those who scored "greater bias" interacted in different ways than those with "lower bias" for example, avoiding eye contact with a black person. Again, this is not evidence of "racism", but just that the test is measuring some kind of unintentional bias...

    Gerhard Adam
    Fair enough, but if the test is only measuring "unintentional bias", then what does that mean?  In addition, it seems strange to argue that there is a "negative association" when viewing the religious portion of the test which compares Romney and Obama using Mormonism and Christian.  At best, this should represent a completely neutral view, sort of like comparing pizza to spaghetti.  After all, if there's a "negative association" or connotation, then isn't the problem with the test and test makers rather than the individual taking the test?

    After all, it is the researchers that  have established what constitutes the connection, so almost any "bias" could be tailor made solely based on the word associations chosen.

    This suggests a less than rigorous approach and I would argue that not only can racism not be demonstrated, it isn't clear that any kind of bias can be demonstrated beyond the relationship that people try to put together to take the test without simply confusing themselves.
    Mundus vult decipi

    You make some good points. It is not at all clear what a connection between, for example, "Romney" and "Mormonism" is supposed to mean in this case, and it would hardly be indicative of anything deeper than the fact that Romney is Mormon and Bammer is not. So, I can't answer that. This cannot be taken as a negative association, only an association, I agree. And I have to assume that the makers of the test in this case, simply wanted to use that as confirmation that people's reaction times would be faster for a "true" connection than a "false" one and as a means of verifying that the test is able to pick up on true and false connections using reaction times. I agree that anything more than that seems silly.

    However, those who originally developed the test were not willy nilly picking out associations to suit their every whim. They were (attempting, at least) to come up with a plausible measure of the negative associations that exist in broader culture with respect to minority racial groups. By differentially pairing black/white faces with positive/negative words, the theory is that if you have some kind of bias, it will take you longer to pair "positive" words with black faces and negative words with white faces and comparatively less time to pair positive with white and negative with black. The same has also used pairings of images such as a black face with a weapon for example. These tests were developed in part because it was hoped that if psychologists could identify unintentional biases, they could intervene to reduce that bias. For example, there have undeniably been numerous cases in which white (and maybe even black) police officers have shot unarmed black men because they thought they saw a weapon and reacted as police officers sometimes do in threatening situations. Those officers may or may not have been "racist" in individual cases, but there is a plausible case to be made that in some cases they were not racist at all, but instead were simply reacting, in part, on a pre-existing negative association between young black men and violence and mistakenly perceived there to be a weapon when there wasn't one. Psychologists hoped that simply by making people aware that they may have such associations, they could potentially train themselves to pay closer attention to their immediate perceptions and possibly avoid the tragic mistakes that have been made.

    That said, I do agree that the test has problems in that one could set out to find certain connections that have little meaning and attempt to make a mountain out of a mole-hill as it were. But the more responsible developers of these tests are indeed concerned about real world problems and are attempting at least to use the test to help those people in the kind of meaningful situations I described above. Those who use the test to argue - "See, white people are all racist" or something like that are clearly abusing the test. Besides, there is good evidence that even people from racial minority groups hold negative associations about their own group - part of the perniciousness of racial stereotypes is that they are internalized not only by the majority racial groups about others, but by minority racial groups about themselves.

    Cheers, mate.

    I don't need a test to tell me that I'm racist for voting my conscience, rather than what sounds good to a group of young idealists who want to assuage their guilt for attending college in the lily-white town of Boston.

    I don't know. I think there something appealing about the IATs, if you cautious and don't assume it does things it can't actually do. It gets away from self-report measures and it's very hard to 'cheat' the AIT. I think the test is likely to be useful for measuring some things, although I get the impression that the "Project Implicit" group have discovered a 'hammer' (the IAT) and now every problem they see is a 'nail'.

    The AIT has been around for a while - I did one of these a few years back in which the test looked at male and female names, and occupations. It was extremely difficult (even when you knew exactly what was going on) to produce results that did not align themselves with common stereotypes (reaction times to stereo-typical pairings are faster than non-stereotypical pairings). I think this is interesting and may help explain how 'memories' (whatever they are) are constructed.

    That said, it is a stretch to suggest that these tests can say anything about sexism or racism. All it tells us is that a lifetime of experience has somehow organised these words in our memories in a particular and predictable (efficient?) way.

    I'd be worried if they feed demographic information into the algorithm that analyses individual results, as that should be irrelevant.

    Psychy person:

    "I'd be worried if they feed demographic information into the algorithm that analyses individual results, as that should be irrelevant", as well.  In fact, I would go even further to say that such would make the "assessments" quite suspect.


    Oh absolutely. I was being subtly sarcastic.

    To me, the test exposed that I'm at least a bit out of touch with American current political events (I'm too busy with the joys of summer and science!) and then came to the following conclusion:
    Your data suggest a moderately stronger implicit association between Obama and American compared to that between Romney and American.  
    "Your data suggest a strong association of Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts compared to Female with Science and Male with Liberal Arts."

    Damn straight.

    Anthony G. Greenwald, PhD, yet another racist Democrat.

    Gerhard Adam
    Hmmm ... I wonder what bias your IAT would show?
    Mundus vult decipi
    this is interesting research. I believe it does, in fact, show associations in our minds between two concepts. In my case it found a slight association between "Native Americans" and "Americans", along with "White Americans" and "Foreign". That makes a tiny bit of sense, since I have friends and family members who are Inuit, and I do think of them as being historically American.
    That said, an association is neither a "bad" thing nor a surprising thing. There is a classic computer science experiment where a program that made associations posited: "all humans are noteworthy". This is because its database was full of noteworthy humans, and void of humans who were not noteworthy. The point is, we make associations, correct or incorrect, based on our experiences. That is the nature of our brains. The nature of our biology, our programming.
    The key is: what do we do with our associations. It may be more comfortable to always hang out and converse with individuals of your same family, gender, race, etc. But do you sometimes find yourself interested in those your brain associates with "different". Ask someone in the travel industry. People make associations, and then proceed to test and redefine them. There is nothing wrong with associations, unless you use them to harm others.

    I completely agree, stereotypes exist for a reason and people who walk into every situation 'open' are out of their minds; if I open my garage door and see a tiger sitting there, I do not wander out child-like to get to know the tiger, I close the garage door.

    But this study is designed to prove people are racist; unsurprisingly it does, in that 'if your only tool is a hammer you tend to see a lot of nails' way that psychology studies of 'social cognition' do.
    White Americans are "Native Americans". White people created the USA - not Land Bridge Asians.

    Denise, just because in my mind there is a non-association between Inuit people and "Foreign", that does not invalidate the work that your (and my) European ancestors did to build this nation. Not every mental association is an affront. It seems like a pretty obvious association, actually. You see Europeans and words like 'France' and 'Italy', and then Inuits and words like 'Ohio' and 'Miami', that association is easier than the reverse.
    It is foolish to ascribe every association as racism. For example, If someone were to ascribe 'basketball' and 'boxing' to Africa, or 'ping-pong' and 'rice' to Asia, I doubt that would be shocking or surprising. But does it deserve to be labeled racism? The answer is this: if racism is intended to imply an insult, then rice and Asia is not racist. If racism is simply an association of a face with a word, then rice and Asia is racism, but racism is not a bad thing.
    On one side of the argument you have foolish people telling you that associating any human feature to any word or thought is bad and racist. These people are wrong, because the human mind works through word association. You see a white guy wearing purple and yellow with a hat that says 'vikings' on it, you may talk football with him--that's association.
    On the other side of this argument you have equally foolish people claiming that they do not associate any words with any human features. These people are acting reflexively, but they are buying into the lie that you can be human and not associate any human traits with other words and concepts.
    I say: embrace the fact that all of us associate human traits and words and concepts. Accept that this is a reality, but act in a way that does not make any negative associations in your own mind cause you to mistreat others.

    Scott - thanks for your wonderful and thoughtful reply. I treat each person I encounter, or interact with, in a respectful and courteous way, unless I'm given a reason to do otherwise. I have friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I must admit the "tone" of this article ticks me off; the article slanders Whites. The "test" itself is biased against Whites. The anti-White demonization is so relentless........I'm sick of it. I agree with your basic position. Thanks, again.

    Racism is a healthy mindset. Favor your family over your race and your race over your nation.

    Is Obama supposed to be black and the other git white or something?  Yanks all look the same to me, fake tans and false smiles.

    Derek, since you are a Brit, you are forgiven. You are confusing Yanks(Americans)

    with some shady New York Yankees :)
    (Of course, since you are a Brit, you are probably oblivious to baseball, and my joke has failed miserably!)
    So if your White, your automatically racist? Then what's the point of even taking the test? I thought making blanket statements about people was bad? If I've observed all Blacks as being violent and unruly, why am I "racist" for stating that all Blacks are violent and unruly, but they wouldn't be if they threw out the "But all Whites are racist!" blanket statement?

    And why is it that it's ONLY wrong for Whites, in majority-White countries, to prefer White people? Why can Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics around the world prefer their people over others, in their own countries and other countries, and it's not racist or wrong?

    They say they are anti-racist, but in reality they are just ANTI-WHITE.

    Did any Negroes take this test? Has this Greenwald grifter ever spent significant time, alone and unarmed, on a day-to-day basis, in Detroit, MI, Elizabeth, NJ, Birmingham, AL, Tuskeegee, AL, Atlanta, GA, East St Louis, MO, etc? This is simply yet ANOTHER mind-numbingly specious attempt to demonize Whites.

    Real world, direct experience credentials must be established, by circus carnies like this Greenwald clown, before they are permitted to pollute and endanger impressionable minds, and influence public policy.

    Gerhard Adam
    You obviously have no idea about what you're talking about.  As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in those cities [and quite specifically Detroit], I find your view to be naive and childish.

    Also, when I talk about having spent time there, I'm not talking about a few days, but rather years of living in those cities.  So your foolish comments demonstrate that you're already harboring a racist agenda and are playing to stereotypes that you are comfortable with.

    BTW ... I saw your Native American comment earlier, and thought it was about the stupidest thing I'd ever heard.  You clearly are a moron.
    Mundus vult decipi
    So tell me about the crime stats in those cities, Adam. Are the official DOJ crime stats "naive and chidlish"? Are crime stats "racist"? FYI - I am referring to Detroit proper, not West Bloomfield, Bloomfield Hills, or Farmington Hills....

    Re: Native Americans - your ad hominen attacks is clearly the stupidest, and lamest, thing on this Comment board. Those types of Stalinist slurs don't work anymore. Do try to keep up with archeological and genetic data. American Indians ARE Land Bridge Asians. All kinds of ethnies have been running around the North and South American Continents for thousands of years. Inclusing Caucasians. Some of the oldest "finds" have been Caucasoid. (Information that Race Hustlers have been trying to hush up, with diminishing success. ). Never-the-less - Modern Anglo Saxons and Celts founded the USA. The Land Bridge Asians did NOT. Thus - Whites, of Western European extraction, ARE Native AMERICANS.

    Factual reality frightens your sort, doesn't it?

    Gerhard Adam
    Oh ... so now it's statistics?  As I said ... you're an idiot.  You know nothing and understand even less of what you're exposed to.

    As for Native Americans ... your comment is stupid, because you want to deny them their ancestry because they crossed a "land bridge" but then credit Europeans with being native ... what a moron.

    There's nothing factual in your comments.  You speak from ignorance.  You're lame attempts at demonstrating some kind of racial superiority are embarrassing ... go away ...
    Mundus vult decipi
    Oh Mr. Brain Trust - you have yet to offer one single shred of legitimate information. Your posts are repetetive, and dull.

    Do you plan on refuting a word I've written with any legitmate rebuttals, or are you going to keep typing specimens that prove you are a mentally stunted ADD sufferer?

    Gerhard Adam
    White people created the USA


    ... before they are permitted to pollute and endanger impressionable minds

    Those types of Stalinist slurs don't work anymore.


    Archie Bunker has been vindicated by time.

    Adam is a Jew? Ahhh....that explains his comments. Note that he never answered if Negroes, or any other ethny were tested for "racism".

    Why do you have a problem with admitting that you are a Jew?
    There's nothing to comment on.  Your stupidity is self-evident.  Anyone that reads this will recognize exactly what kind of a poor excuse for a human being you are.  So ... by all means... keep typing.  I'm sure that the idiocy that you are capable of has few bounds.
    Mundus vult decipi
    So - the answer to my question is "No". You are going to keep typing out the same repetetive, nonsensical, wholly inaccurate, and boring ad homin pathetically lame crap.


    P.S. - Everything I've written is TRUE,

    Gerhard Adam
    Everything I've written is TRUE,
    You're written nothing that's true.  Everything you've written is truly stupid.  I have no problem leaving it as evidence regarding the kind of worthless opinions you hold.

    Mundus vult decipi
    Deleting posts and engaging in baseles ad homin attacks proves you are wrong.

    So all those statistics showing how blacks commit most of the crime in the US, including rapes,robberies,murders and hate crimes is false and the insane amount of high crime in black areas as compared to whites is apparently all lies then?
    If that is the case, I have ocean front property on the sun to sell you.
    After all, Harlem was a prosperous white neighborhood till blacks moved in and then it became the ghetto capital of the US. Run down and so much crime, the police are afraid to go into areas. Along with detroit,chicago and other high black areas.. You try so hard to be politically correct that you will call proven statistics and the people quoting them as liars.
    I too have been to these places and guess what?!? You are a complete moron to say its safe for whites..

    Statistics can say anything.  London has a higher crime rate than Detroit and fewer black people so you will contend any place with any black people has more crime - as if there is a crime gene people with a different color than you have. Yet Cameroon does not have a high crime rate, it is lower than North Dakota.
    Who are committing the majority of the crimes in London? The Muslims Asians?

    No, white skinheads. 
    Now that is just an easily refutable flat out lie. For SHAME.

    That is very true. But we're talking about a US test, with US demographics and biases. However if we consider that black crime rates are higher in the US we also have to consider that most of that crime is black on black. So should blacks fear other blacks more? That's one of the problems I see with the test. It can't separate (what could be called) legitimate biases vs. illegitimate ones. I'm not convinced that this test is anything other than a fun little game to play. I'd like to see more data... separate out results by state, or locality, or even by personal information. Do whites who are married to blacks have stronger or weaker biases? What about hispanics who are self identified as white? Or non-white hispanics?

    Dave - this is very true.

    FYI - your reply is a legitimate response. You are obviously aquainted with the fact of Black on Black crimes rates. (NO-ONE treats Blacks worse than other Blacks do). You don't deny the reality onthe ground - like so many do. FYI - you can't solve a problem by denying the problem exists. You'd think this would be obvious, but in these deranged times.....

    The reason I have a huge problem with the topic of this article, and the "test" itself - it's obviously completely un-scientific, and COMPLETELY biased, in pursuing a political agenda. Why on Earth would an alleged member of the medical profession concern himself with ONLY researching White "racism" - and then concluded that ONLY Whites are "racist"? Especially considering that 90% + of the Black electorate are planning to vote FOR Barak Obama BECAUSE he's perceived As "Black". (Technically he's a mulatto). So that's not "racism"? Why isn't this briliant PHD studying this aspect of "racism"?

    This isn't a fun little game. This is a part of a whole social meme, to demonize and disposses Whites. If this WERE done to any other ethny - H#ll would be breaking loose.

    Why on Earth would an alleged member of the medical profession 
    Not that you care about facts, given the other crazy things you are wrong about, but he is a psychologist, not an M.D.
    Great! So you are admitting that psychologists are not really physicians. Agreed. some are excellent, but alas - most are shysters and grifters, and equivalent to VooDoo practitioners. Wityh due respect to VooDoo shamans,

    Nothing I've written about is crazy or wrong ( Lame attempt at shaming language.) I thought this was a "science" website. Really austere scientific methodology going on. here......

    Yes, just like I admit the moon is not the sun.  Who, in the entire world of science, has ever once claimed that psychologists are physicians? 
    It is, that may be what is confusing you, since you think psychologists are physicians and that statistical gibberish infers that there is a racial gene for crime.
    Why don't you move to Detroit and see how that works out for you Hanky Panky! You are a far more dangerous individual than any "neo nazi" can ever hope to be. Tool...

    Gerhard Adam
    As an individual that spent many years in Detroit [and not just the surrounding area], I find your fear-mongering comical.  There's nothing like a scared nitwit to raise the ante about what constitutes "danger".

    Such rampant fear tells me all I need to know about you.  I suspect that anything short of Disneyland makes you apprehensive.  Also, spare me how you don't have such fear among white people.  If you don't then not only are you naive, but you're stupid.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Right, the sociopaths who shot up the theater and the Sikh temple were both white - and the latter was a White Supremacist.  How am I safer around those people than in any poor neighborhood, regardless of the color of the people walking toward me?
    Firstly - the Theater shooting is DEFINITELY some kind of "false flag" - Holmes had been under psychatric care for a very long time, underr heavy duty psychiatric meds (many of which have never beern properly vetted.), di Daddy is deeply involved inthe Libor scandal. He can name heavy-duty names. There's been witness surpression - there was another person in the theater, seen using a cell phone, and then getting up and lettng Holmes IN. Also - where does an unemployed med student get 20k worth of heavy duty military gear, and bomb-makng materials, which are NOT readily accessible at the local Army Navy store?

    You meay have noted that the calls to ban guns begin IMMEDIATELY after the shooting. I mean that very night. Don't you know a gun grab attemptm when you hear it?

    The Sihk Temple shooting is dicey as H#LL, also. There's no motive. Gunman died on the scene (where's the body?). The US is not at war with Sikhs. Most folks don't know anything about Sihks vs Muslims. So - the Army Psy Opps shooter doesn't know the difference? Also - the media IMMEDIATELY began howling White RAAAAAAAACIST!!!! Grab guns!". Well -that happened with "White racist" George Zimmerman, too - the Mestizo Brown Diversity man.

    Wake UP.

    Finally - even is all this crap was on the level - there FAR more shootings and killing EVERY day of the week, in the "Urban Youf" regions, than all the vitctims of "Crazed White Supremacist Racist Killers" added up. So I don't know where your need for self-delusion, and your seemingly bizaare racism against Whites comes from - but why don't you go to Birmingham, AL, or Atlanta, GA, or Elizabeth NJ, or DEE-roit, this coming Saturday night? Go to the club sections, 'round 1:30AM, when the clubs are letting out. Report back, later. Mmm'kay?

    Gerhard Adam
    See ... my initial assessment was right.  You're an idiot.

    I've never seen someone so scared in my life.  What a pathetic life you must lead.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Spare me. You live in a rich, predominantly safe Jewish area. As is typical of your tribe you talk trash to everyone else and tell them how to think or live but never practice what you preach. Good bye Mr. Anti White...

    Say hello to the Rabbi...

    Gerhard Adam
    Again, your stupidity apparently knows no bounds.  What is clear is that your racism is so complete that you spout off idiocies without regard for reality.  You know nothing. 

    As I said, this is evidence about what a poor, scared, pathetic individual you are.

    What is so laughable is that you think that by leveling Jewish claims at me that somehow you're making an impression.  Oh yes you are .... namely how utterly stupid you are.   Think!  Perhaps you might catch a glimpse of what makes you so pathetic.

    Mundus vult decipi
    Go with your buddy Hank, to the clubs. MMM'kay?

    FYI - you are a liar and a fraud. You are really despicable. YOU are the blithering ,moron. You DENY the reality of escalating Black crime. This means you are willfully participating in the supression of knowledge which could PREVENT people from being harmed. STOP calling me names. YOU are stupid,. and EVIL, and SICK SICK SICK. Get the help you need.

    Gerhard Adam
    ... and so we get to the heart of it.  You're just some poor, dumb, scared white person that thinks they can be protected by forming some sort of "gang".  You're a deluded fool.

    The white people you think are all united to be your racial friends, will kill you in a heartbeat when it suits their interests too.  You're a fool if you think otherwise. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    Palestinians would agree with you there! lol Oh wait. The Jews tend to shift whether they're really White when it suits them.

    Gerhard Adam
    Ahh yes, the Jewish thing again.  If you had a brain, you'd realize how silly you sound.

    However, you are useful in demonstrating how such blind hatred leads to idiocy and closed thinking.  After that, you can't even see the errors.  Life starts to resemble the delusion that you've constructed for yourself.

    Get help.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Ahh yes, the Jewish thing again.
    At least it's original.  Most people show threads are pointless and dead by invoking Gerhard's Law and going after the hat.
    The WHITE hat, of course.

    For once I agree with you. What a crap thread this is.
    "I have ocean front property on the sun to sell you".
    Interesting, how did you manage to get real estate on the sun?

    The problem with statistics is that they are simply numbers that describe something.
    They don't explain anything.
    hey don't tell us WHY anything happens.

    If you are a simpleton you might think like this:
    Harlem was a prosperous white neighborhood.
    Blacks moved in.
    Neighborhood becomes the ghetto capital of the USA.
    Ergo, black people rapists and murderers.

    Someone who has a slightly better grasp of logic and reasoning might conclude that the real explanation is probably for more complex.

    Why do the same patterns of behavior manifest themselves WHERE EVER large quantities of Blacks congregate?

    "You got some 'splaining to do, Loo-cee".

    Any-one who dismissess statitics simply because stats are "simply numbers that describe something" doesn't live anywhere near "The Diverse" - and has their head jammed so far up their anal tract that they have to use toilet paper to brush their teeth.

    Gerhard Adam
    You see, that's why we think you're stupid.  THEY DON'T.  Unfortunately, when whites do it, you find an excuse as to why the did it and why that criteria shouldn't apply.  When it comes to non-whites, then you simply want to include them all in a general catch-all classification.

    Sorry, but you're still an idiot. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    YOU are a stupid retardate because the same patterns of behavior DO manifest themselves again and again. Negroes detroy EVERY society that is stupid enough to introduce them. Hey Poopyhead - why are Israelis tossing OUT the Africans they brought in to Israel, to serve as drudge labor, as fast as they can? The Israeli Jews are heaving the Africans out be the THOUSANDS? Why, feces for brains? FYI - I haven't wasted my time replying to you because you repeat the same sub-moronic pro-forma drivel, in every post. You are stupid, obnoxious, and obviously mentally impaired. You are a poopy-head. Neiner neiner neiner. Go away and beat off.

    Gerhard Adam
    Finally a post that reflects your maturity level.  As I thought, you keep repeating the same wrong ideas and information.  However, with each post your racism becomes more apparent as do your feeble explanations to try and rationalize your faith in white supremacy.

    Keep going.  You can call me names, but it changes nothing.  Other readers can judge for themselves, but the more you talk, the more you invoke the same lame racist ideas that have always existed among the feeble-minded.  You're an embarrassment to the white race.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Oh- I'm simply relpying to you to the way YOU reply to others, your stupid poopyhead. You are a moron. Really idiotic and immature, You are a poopyhead.

    Now comment on those stupid, frightened, immature Israelis, attacking Africans, and deporting them as fast as they can throw them out of Israel, poopyhead,

    Gerhard Adam
    ...I'm simply relpying to you to the way YOU reply to others...
    Oh let's be fair.  It's not how I reply to others.  It's how I specifically address YOU.  Israel is not my problem, but I suspect you know even less about that than you do the U.S., so there's not much point in replying.

    Mundus vult decipi
    But what Israelis are doing is RACIST.They are Jewish Supremacists. Aren't you all about fighting racism, and denouncing the stupid, moronic, frightened, pathetics RACISTS?

    Gerhard Adam
    I don't have anyone from Israel on here spouting off, so I'm not inclined to go off on them.  My concern is the attitudes in this country and you've expressed that bigoted sentiment quite clearly.  You weren't talking about Tel Aviv nor the West Bank.  You were talking about Detroit.

    That's also a pretty weak argument to point to someone else's bigotry and racism and attempt to justify your own view by that [or at least deflect the argument].  I fully recognize that many people in other countries are racists and bigots.  So what?  Do you think that justifies it?  Do you think that makes things better when you simply want to argue that if they're racist, then you're going to be even more racist than them?

    Mundus vult decipi
    I think that there are solid reasons why Israel is kicking out the Africans they imported. They are doing this to protect their own people - which is normal and HEALTHY. One of your cohorts asserts that behavioral patterns have NOTHING to do with Race, or genetics. Real world reality proves this to be false.

    Your fanatical devotion to an ideology that has been PROVEN and wrong, utterly unsustainable, and grotesquely dangerous, while you hold your self up as some type of intelligent and moral being - well your position is utterly incomprehensible, You are either hopelessly clueless, mentally ill, or absolutely EVIL. Or al of the above. Regardless of your motivations - you are WRONG. Calling people names, and trying to denounce, like a TRUE Communist apparachik, dissenters the Holy Racial Utopianist See - it's not workng anymore. You are flying in the face of REALITY - and in doing so you are aiding and abetting the destruction of civilized Natons. Yet you position yourself as a man of Science. You are not. You are an ideologue, engaged in the distortion and destruction of scientific methodology.

    Why are you doing this? What's your agenda?

    Gerhard Adam
    This is a completely irrational point of view.  Who are these "people" to whom you refer?  Do we divide them by race?  By nationality?  By city?  What becomes our "tribe" that we will use as a lever to "protect" ourselves against all outsiders?

    It's complete rubbish.  The lie is given when you don't recognize that there is as much "protecting" white people from other white people as there is.  Instead you want to paint this as some kind of race related issue, which it is not.

    Europeans managed to kill each other in significant enough numbers "protecting" each other from others that it doesn't require any other race to drive such nonsensical behavior.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Adam cannot go against his tribe sweety! What would the Rabbi say? I mean the Jews make their money off of us not themselves...

    Gerhard Adam
    If you only realized what a moron you are.  Keep talking though ... for people that know me, your comments are keeping them in stitches.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Denise, you're kinda proving my point with that comment.
    Even if your claim is true (which it isn't), it still doesn't tell us anything.
    I could come up with all sorts of explanations (or rather, guesses) as to why the stats may show this.
    However, until we start testing some of those guesses (and with social issues that is EXTREMELY difficult to actually do) we know nothing, so anything is pure speculation.

    You'll notice that I don't make any claims of "good" or "bad". I am not dismissing the statistics (necessarily), just that the interpretations of those statistics is difficult. Therefore your comment about heads and anal tracts and toilet paper is irrelevant to the discussion.

    I agree with you Doc!!! I mean you're Jewish and only go with Jewish beliefs and interest and vote for Jewish people! Right? Oh no, I am now "anti semetic"!!!

    You mean anti-semitic, and it's not too late to catch some old reruns of All in the Family.

    Ahhh yes! Ham-handed (oops - is that Anti Semitic?) social engineering via "entertainment". Norman Lear, the creator of "All inthe Family" was a viciously Racist, White hating, American hating, Christian hating Jewish Supremacist, and attempted to slander normal White Americans using various caricatures - invariably resulting in portraying all Non-Whites as flawless shining innocents, and traditional Conservative Americans as hopelessly retrograde bigots.

    "Archie's" home was in Queens, one of the borough's of NYC. Queens was 91% White, as of the 1960 census. Whites are now down to 39%. Queens is chaotic polyglot of ethnies, from all over the world. For **** and giggles -why don't you while away a little time researching 1960 data from Queens, vs the 2012 data re: literacy, Welfare dependency, crime rates, employment, physical infrastructure, crime rates, marriage vs. divorce vs/ "single motherhood" illegitimacy rates, crime rates, social cohesion (surely you are familiar with the craven Robert Putnam's landmark study "Bowling Alone"? ) , crime rates, savings vs debt, crime rates and crime rates sometime. Do a breakdown of which Queens neighborhood does what.

    Get back to us.

    Archie Bunker has been vindicated by time.


    "Are you white and want to find out how secretly racist you are"

    Whoopsie! The Racist Castigation "Tests" and Relentless Psychological Brain Washing Campaign are meant for Whites, and Whites alone.

    Hey - wanna take odds on how fast he invokes "The Klan" and the Knaaaazzzeees"?

    Gerhard Adam
    Adam is a Jew?
    Go ahead ... pursue it.  Demonstrate that you're an even bigger idiot than I'm already stated.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Are you a Jew? Why would you call some-one an idiot for noting a fact? Why do you have a problem with admitting that you are a Jew?

    Why would that inspire yet another ad hominum attack?

    Gerhard Adam
    Like I said ... the more words you type, the dumber you sound.  Also, while I realize that this may be your opportunity to use bigger words than you're used to in the trailer park ... you really should learn how to spell.
    Mundus vult decipi
    You're feeding the troll. I find it best to ignore them.

    I'm very offended by this anti-white pseudo-science trash.

    Greenwald hates whites - and he is white!  And he hates irony!

    Actually, he doesn't hate whites, his gig is finding racism.  So he does.  Implicit association of itself is not a bad idea, just what is done with it is promoting racism under the guise of exposing it.
    Greenwald is White? Are you certain of this? So he's a Gracchite, then?

    Race is a component of our genetics. Genes are the material blueprint for what we are we are made of . Our literal matter. Race is in the DNA. Race is simply extended family. Other people, that are made of our same building blocks. All human social orders organize around familial relationships. I believe this is a natural biological survival mechanism. Need I explain why?

    The Prime Religious Doctrine of the Globalist Era is "Anti Racism" Do research the goals of the destruction of the West, by the exclusive ethnic Tribe of the Frankfurt School. Their FIRST strategy, to destroy the West (Formerly known as Christendom AKA Whitey World) was to make "racism" a crime. Of course -the sole target of this goal was, and remains, members of the White Race. Whites, and Whites ALONE, are demonized for preferring our own kind. No other ethny is expected to dis-associate themselves from their natural affinities, and actively participate, and applaud, our dispossession and genocide. Yes - genocide. The tactics deployed against Whites,and Whites alone, conform with all definitions of genocide. If you think I am engaging in outrageous hyperbole, I suggest you research global demographic numbers. Whites are on the precipice of extinction. "Psychological" traps like this specious "test" are part and parcel of an Anti White genocide campaign.

    Why are Whites and Whites ALONE slurred, relentlessly harrassed, persecuted, and punished for natural and healthy "racism" - when all other ethnies are lauded, encouraged, and rewared for innate "racism"? Why would the Frankfurst School (the creators of Cultural Marxism) seek to use "racism crimes" against White societies?

    Anti-Racism is not about enlightenment, or fairness - anti-Racism IS Anti WHITE.

    this article makes it sound like it is a bad thing to be racist.

    Oh come white folk, don't tell me you don't wake up in the morning and think to you yourself, "Who can I oppress today with my mighty whiteness?"

    Gerhard Adam
    I prefer to delete your ass. [posted to explain a particular annoying anonymous user's missing spot]. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    For deleting my post "Jewish Involvement In Shaping American Immigration Policy" I won't be reading this site ever again. There are plenty of other places to spread the word

    Gerhard Adam
    Bye ... and thanks.  The quality of the site just went up [even though you were only an anonymous jerk anyway].
    Mundus vult decipi
    No scientist should ever think that black skin has anything to do with race,religion,politics or lawlessness,it's simply to do with science.Black people evolved black skin in hot climates because black bodies when heated become perfect radiators and therefore get rid of heat faster;white bodies when heated up being poor radiators retain their heat better and so white people evolved white skin in colder climates.For reference see link for John Leslie[physicist] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/john_leslie_[physicist]