The 'diversity component'
0 comment Tuesday, April 29, 2014 |
The recent story about a Chinese student beheading another Chinese student at Virginia Tech conjures up memories of the murder spree by Korean immigrant Cho Seung-Hui a couple of years ago.
And even more so, the incident from last year in which an unsuspecting young man, asleep on a Greyhound Bus in Canada, was beheaded by a Chinese immigrant. That incident was quickly forgotten, it seems, despite its shocking nature.
At the above link, some female with a hyphenated name makes this comment:
''An unfathomable act, unless this person had lived through horrific scenes as *everyday* happening in his formative years.''
As if such savage acts were excusable for any reason.
Then there's the wake shooting in Kansas, of all places, which Brenda Walker at VDare writes about.
One still tends to think of places like Kansas as heartland areas, having few immigrants. Of course I know this is not true; no place is allowed to be unscathed by 'diversity' these days, and if the illegals have not swamped a place (yet), the helpful State Department and some refugee resettlement profiteers will ensure that you get your 'diversity', like it or not. So now Wichita, Kansas has some kind of Laotian colony.
Apparently there are a lot of Laotians living in Wichita, 5044 according to the 2000 Census. We wouldn�t know about this additional diversity if it weren�t for a recent shoot-up at a wake, the sort of crime you don�t see every day.''
There are a number of issues that come up in connection with these stories, the obvious one being the question of our insane immigration policies, in which the people least like ourselves, the people most likely to be incompatible with us are given preference by our immigration authorities.
And in the first two stories, involving Virginia Tech, another issue is the liberal admissions policies, which seem to favor foreign students or nonwhites in general over native-born students. In addition there's the issue of the gun ban on campus. I mean, did the ban prevent a psychopath from carrying out his shooting spree? No, just as pro-Second Amendment advocates always say, gun bans only disarm the good guys, the ones who tend to obey the rules and the law. Gun bans don't work for the bad guys. Liberals have yet to notice that the bad guys, by definition, are not deterred by rules and laws, which they simply flout. And even if you insist, like the bleeding hearts, that killers are just misunderstood or 'mentally ill', then their mental 'illness' renders them irrational and unlikely to obey gun bans and other such rules.
Do these colleges vet the prospective foreign students? It used to be that the application process was fairly thorough in obtaining information on a prospective student's character. I suspect that the current mania for ''diversity'' and the preference for foreign students (because they pay much higher tuition -- excepting illegals of course) trumps any concern for the character and background of students.
The liberal 'discipline' policies, or lack thereof, do not help matters, either. Cho Seung-Hui had behavior and attitude problems, and raised some red flags, but because of the effeminate policies in dealing with such problems, nothing was done.
Another case of an immigrant Asian involved in a shooting spree was this one.
Oddly the young man, though Taiwanese, was said to have 'racist, sexist and homophobic' attitudes. So I suppose he is not likely to arouse the sympathies of the usual apologists who excuse violence by nonwhites as caused by the 'racist treatment' they receive from Whites.
Then, going back some years, there was this case which left 13 people dead in a 'Chinatown' gambling club.
The existence of Chinese organized crime is well-known, although some people these days, perhaps people who have never lived in a city with a large Chinese population, seem oblivious to its existence.
But the other question that is raised by all these stories is the issue of Asians as somehow being the 'model minority', the minority group which causes no problems, the group which is law-abiding, productive, hard-working, and above all, intelligent. In fact, most White Americans tend to credit Asians as a group with having the highest intelligence overall.
My response to that is: which Asians?
All Asians are not the same, by any means. But all have benefited by being conflated, at least among many Americans, with Japanese-descended Americans, who do have a low crime rate and who seem to have far fewer social pathologies, as well as being a highly-intelligent group who are achievers in many fields.
I haven't even mentioned Indian immigrants or Pakistanis, the groups which in the UK are often referred to by the term 'Asian', because in American colloquial usage, 'Asian' generally means East Asian, as in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. But again, even those South Asian groups have their problems, such as their custom of 'honor killing' in certain communities. Their ways and our ways cannot mesh; either they will have to conform to our morality and our standards of behavior, which may not be possible even if they were willing, or we will be compelled by our diversity-mad government to accommodate to them, which is most likely.
On sites like AmRen, there are people who persistently say that Asian immigrants are not a problem, and that we can happily coexist with them because they are 'hardworking' and law-abiding as well as smart -- and ultimately assimilable. I say, which Asians?
I keep wondering why so many 'race realists' cling to their illusions about Asians. I tend to think that, again, it's a conscious or unconscious effort to grasp at some kind of fig leaf, to cover what they fear is their own vulnerability to being called 'racist.' So the thinking seems to be ''if I like some minority group, and if I can praise them, then I can't really be accused of racism, can I?'' So they pick a favorite minority group. For some, it's Hispanics, but for most, it seems to be Asians, as they appear the least aggressive -- until we start to notice stories like those I've linked to here.
Japan indeed does have a low crime rate but we can't assume that what is true there is true in other Asian countries. And Japan contributes very few immigrants to our country these days, so the Japanese are not exactly relevant to the issues at hand, except insofar as other Asian peoples have benefited from the 'model minority' image of earlier Japanese immigrants to our country.
As to the more immediate question of what will happen in the wake of the latest murder at a university, probably nothing helpful will come of it; we will see the usual liberal emotional responses, such as tearful candlelight vigils and a lot of weepy talk about the 'need to reach out' to foreign students and to 'cultivate tolerance' and 'understanding' and the need for more 'counseling' for all, and more awareness of 'mental health'.
Then, of course, there will be calls for more banning of weapons, and calls for more security measures, which will mean more inconveniences for normal people but which will not make the campus any safer.
But nothing will be done by our useless, feckless government about limiting student visas or curtailing our out-of-control immigration policies. And the lectures from all involved about 'racism', 'embracing diversity' and 'inclusion' will be stepped up, as if that were an answer to anything.

Labels: , , , , , , ,