Most sentient Americans have recoiled from the racially charged content of newsletters issued under Ron Paul's name in the 1990s. But not WorldNetDaily columnist Ilana Mercer. In her Dec. 29 column, she totally agrees with the Paul newsletter's contention that blacks really are more prone to criminality than whites:
Faithful to this legacy, the media monolith has been fulminating over the reference in the Ron Paul newsletters to African-American men as the instigators of the L.A. riots. The "Ron-Paul-Report" quote that has caused consternation is this: "The criminals who terrorized our cities – in riots and on every non-riot day – are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are."
Wikipedia all but seconds this characterization, writing that the "disturbances were concentrated in South Central Los Angeles, which was primarily composed of African-American and Hispanic residents."
The reality, as detailed in this writer's book, "Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa," is that young, white and poor Americans are more likely than any other age group to be well-represented among the reported victims of hate crimes. (They are also disproportionately victimized by the racial-spoils system of affirmative action across American universities, in corporations and government.)
On the other hand, as revealed by investigations conducted by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCV) and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR), blacks "are less likely than both whites and Hispanics to be targeted for reasons of racial hatred."
In fact, "A significantly higher percentage of victims of violent racial hatred say their attackers were black. Nine out of 10 of them identify their race as the reason blacks targeted them." More materially, "The number of black hate crime victims was so small – as in statistically insignificant – that it precluded analysis of the race of persons who victimized them."
Mercer goes on to portray "Anglo-Americans" as victims, and that Paul can be the candidate who will speak for them:
Look, whoever wrote the controversial Ron Paul monthly newsletters during the 1980s and 1990s used language that is impolite, impolitic, cruel and crass. For this, Ron Paul might wish to express his misgivings – even apologize, although he has disavowed the letter and spirit of these bygone screeds.
However, the presidential contender has a chance here to show he can lead; to get off his knees, quit groveling and strike a pose against the racial ramrodding Anglo-Americans have been subjected to ever since.
Dr. Paul walked headlong into the political quicksand. He can, however, still do an about face. By rising against – and rejecting – the racial tyranny that prohibits rational discourse about race, Ron Paul stands to earn the undying loyalty of most Americans, bar the traitors at the top.
Paul should stand tall for Middle Americans, who've been cursed collectively with the racist Mark of Cain.
Of course, "anglo-Americans" and "Middle Americans" should be read as "white Americans." Which makes Mercer -- who pines for the days of apartheid in South Africa -- a racialist kin to fellow WND columnist Vox Day.