Polite Kid

''A multicultural society is one that is inherently prone to conflict, not harmony. This is why we see a huge growth in government bureaucracies dedicated to resolving disputes along racial and cultural lines. These disputes can never be resolved permanently because the bureaucrats deny one of the major causes: race. This is why there is so much talk of the "multicultural" rather than the more precise "multiracial." Ever more changes and legislation are introduced to make the host society ever more congenial to racial minorities. This only creates more demands, and encourages the non-shooting war against whites, their civilization, and even the idea of the West. '' - Frank Ellis, Multiculturalism and Marxism
But is it still a 'non-shooting war'?
The news story of the four police officers killed in Oakland has been much discussed in the right-blogosphere, though crimes like this are under-reported in the old media. The CofCC has a piece on the black radical group which organized what amounted to a celebratory march in honor of the killer, Lovelle Mixon.
Uhuru/APSP is one of several extremely militant anti-white groups thriving in black communities across the United States. Uhuru openly celebrates violence against white police and authority figures. They also denounce Obama as a tool of the "white power establishment."
The group is based in St. Petersburg, Florida and actively holds rallies and demonstrations in about a dozen cities. The leader goes by the name "Chairman Omali Yeshitela." The group claims a kinship with ZANU, the political party of violent Zimbabwe dictator Mugabe. It also claims to be allied with "revolutionary forces" in South Africa and other nations. Uhuru calls itself the "American front of the international African liberation movement."
It's an old story that the mainstream media treat groups like this as harmless and as 'civil rights' or 'activist' groups when they cover them at all, whereas we know that a White counterpart, if such existed, would be shrilly denounced as a 'hate group' or worse, and would probably by now have been raided and mass arrests carried out. But we all know that the double standards exist, and that nonwhite radical extremist groups will be handled with kid gloves and/or treated with exaggerated respect by the powers that be.
Another distressing aspect of the event and the old media coverage of it is the tendency to make the killer just one of the victims. This kind of thing is standard these days, especially when the perpetrator is of a 'victim group'. But this trend is an affront to the actual victims and to their families and friends. It is the ultimate in moral obtuseness.
I caught a few minutes of O'Reilly earlier this evening, and in his usual fashion he declared that the vast majority of 'African-Americans' deplore crimes like those committed by Mixon and that the majority do not support the march in support of the killer/rapist. Of course O'Reilly had nothing to back up that assertion, and I see no evidence of it in real life. I have to wonder if O'Reilly mixes and mingles with the ''African-American community'' enough to know what the majority there thinks or feels. I suspect his experience consists mostly of mingling with the blacks who work in the media or in other related positions, people like Juan Williams, who usually adopt a more moderate tone.
Surely, though, we can look back some years to the O.J. verdict and see how most blacks reacted to Simpson's acquittal (no doubt with the aid of sympathetic black jurors). Or we can go back a little further and remember the L.A. riots after the Rodney King incident. How many 'African-American leaders' expressed shock or dismay or chagrin over what they saw during those days? None, that I can recall.
Similarly, with Katrina, how many 'African-Americans' stood up to deplore what occurred there in the aftermath of that natural disaster? From what I recall there was much race-baiting, and accusations of purposely delayed evacuations, actual claims of conspiracies (levees being blown up, and so on) and charges of 'racism' in general from the national leaders.
Few or no blacks denounced the hysteria and the race-baiting, except for an occasional lone voice.
O'Reilly is like most media figures in that he leans over backwards to insist that it's only a 'tiny percentage' of blacks who commit heinous crimes and an only slightly less tiny percentage who excuses or even celebrates the criminals. However he is going to have to come up with something to back up these assertions if he insists on making them. But we know he will never do that; he will never have to. Most people are eager to simply let those statements pass or even to blindly assent, without any evidence of their accuracy. And we know why this is: political correctness.
Inevitably even those who recognize the dishonesty in statements like O'Reilly's will acknowledge that, and then proceed to justify the PC 'white lies' by saying ''oh, well, he has to say that, if he wants to keep his job. He can't tell the truth."
Yet O'Reilly is the guy who calls his TV program the 'No-Spin Zone', the man who claims to be so blunt and honest in contrast to the mealy-mouthed spinmeisters elsewhere in the media. He trades on his no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is persona, and he is blunt enough when it comes to the safe topics, but when it comes to race, he is little better than any of the other PC-fied media minions.
So why does he make these silly PC statements about how 99 percent of blacks don't agree with the extremists, when the evidence to the contrary is everywhere? Why do many others do the same? We also see the same thing with those who insist that there are 'moderate Muslims' who are the peaceful majority, and only a minuscule number who actually support extremism and terrorism. Whenever the subject is the behavior of some minority group, there are the eager apologists who rush into the conversation to insist that ''but the majority are not like that! We can't blame all of them; it's just a few that cause problems. The majority are good people."
Perhaps it's some kind of psychological defense mechanism that makes people feel compelled to deny that there is a problem and that it does involve a great many people, not just a few troublemakers. Acknowledging that there is a problem and that it is more widespread than political correctness would admit would imply having to deal with the problem in some way, and many people prefer to avoid that.
And then there are those for whom PC is their quasi-religion; these people have to 'feel good about themselves' and these days, what better way to do that than to take a benevolent and all-tolerant attitude towards minorities who behave badly?
But these are people with their heads in the sand, believing that if they deny the problem, it will somehow evaporate on its own.
Maybe O'Reilly himself, who is so often accused of being 'racist' or 'fascist' is more sensitive to that criticism than he lets on. Despite his blustering tough-guy image, I think he cares very much about being seen as 'fair-minded' or unbigoted, even if it means denying obvious truths.
The media of late have gone all-out, as we've discussed here and elsewhere, to show us falsified images of blacks in positions of authority, wise, noble, kind, friendly, accomplished blacks, probably in an all-out effort to counter the crime stories or the evidence of our own senses from everyday life. The news channels and the media generally like to present us with blacks who belie the stereotypes and it has worked like a charm, apparently, for most people. However as I've always said, one exception, or the occasional aberration, does not disprove the rule.
Again, Frank Ellis said
A mode of opinion control softer than outright censorship is the current obsession with fictional role models. Today, the feminist and anti-racist theme is constantly worked into movies and television as examples of Bertoldt Brecht's principle that the Marxist artist must show the world not as it is but as it ought to be. This is why we have so many screen portrayals of wise black judges; street-wise, straight-shooting lady policemen; minority computer geniuses; and, of course, degenerate white men.''
But we still, if we are honest and realistic, have to look at the overall statistics and the realities, without the rose-colored glasses provided by the media propaganda.
Political correctness kills; when I first said that on a forum some years ago, I was angrily challenged for it, but every day in the news we get more examples of how it can be fatal. I have to wonder to what extent PC affects law enforcement policies when 'interacting' with people in the ghetto or the barrio. I have to wonder how many people's lives are put at risk by this foolish insistence on believing in PC fairytales.

Labels: Anti White Racism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Hate Crime, Media Bias, Old Media, Political Correctness

Rick Sanchez, affirmative-action reporter on CNN, thinks that minorities who work for Fox News are 'sellouts.'
I've wondered about just what Sanchez's ancestry may be, since he appears 100 percent European. I guessed he was probably of (White) Cuban descent, meaning mostly Spanish, and I was correct, according to Wikipedia.
The son of Cuban political exiles who came to the United States in the 1950s from Cuba, Sanchez grew up in the city of Hialeah, Florida. He graduated from Hialeah High School in 1977 and accepted a football scholarship to Minnesota State University Moorhead. He transferred to the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis on a CBS/WCCO Journalism Scholarship in 1979."
There you go, another one of those arch-conservative Cuban-Americans of whom the Republicans like to brag, like Bob Menendez who is also a liberal son of Cuban immigrants. So much for that myth, right? No, I am sure the Republicans will cling to it, just like they cling to the idea of the precious Hispanic vote on which they are staking their political fortunes.
Sanchez has apparently been taking potshots at Fox News lately, as ''reporters'' on those ultra-left news channels do regularly, and it's rather absurd, really, since Fox is almost, very nearly, as politically correct as CNN, MSNBC, or any of the others. They certainly abide by the rules of PC and slavishly seek 'diversity' in hiring on-air personalities.
I notice they now prominently feature more black faces and minorities in general than in the past, no doubt partly in response to CNN's sniping, and the most popular one on Fox is the FReepers' pinup, replacing the blonde Laurie Dhue, is Julie Banderas.
Miss Banderas does not look like most Hispanics I've met; she looks more like an Anglo-American with a dark tan, and acording to her biography, her birth name was Julie Bidwell, and she is a descendant of John Bidwell, a prominent pioneer.
Went by her birth name Julie Bidwell while at WHSV-TV in Harrisonburg, Virginia and at WBRE-TV in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. She is a paternal descendent of John Bidwell. Her father's name is Howard D. Bidwell. She is partially of Colombian descent, henceforth the use of the Spanish name.
The biography of Miss Banderas says she is 'partially' Colombian, so I wonder why she chose to drop her birth name in favor of a Hispanic name. I suppose it certainly does not hurt one's career to claim minority ancestry these days. I suspect we will see a lot more of that, as this country becomes majority nonwhite, and Hispanics become the majority. I expect many White Americans will emphasize any ethnic ancestry they may have so as to escape the stigma of being White-bread, and if they have any Hispanic ancestry, even just Spanish, as Linda Sanchez the 'conservative' has, they will pick that as their identity for practical reasons.
Miss Banderas has replied to Sanchez:
As a wise Latina woman, I have no comment other than to say if I were Rick Sanchez, I wouldn�t look in the mirror, period.''
It does seem an ironclad law that just about anybody with one-quarter or more nonwhite ancestry identifies with their minority side; I see it all the time in real life too. I can't think of any exceptions, offhand.
The mainstream 'conservatives' hold to their faith that ''Democrats are the real racists, and they are keeping the minorities on the plantation. But one day they will wake up and see that Republicans are their real friends!"
Sometimes I think the mainstream conservative types are more lost than the liberals. They come right to the brink of understanding, and pull back every time.
Fox News helps keep them in the dark.

Labels: Affirmative Action, American Diversity, Ethnic Identity, Fox News, Media Bias, Old Media

Karl Denninger explains, from a technical angle, his assessment of the BC.
On the blogs, it seems few in our sphere are even discussing this, with the exception of Nathanael Strickland at Faith and Heritage, and Old Atlantic on his blog.
Any opinions or thoughts about this story? Or is it just we few who are interested in it?
Free Republic is buzzing with discussion of this, with FReepers arrayed against one another, so-called 'birthers' vs. what I call 'faithers' -- those who are willing to take on faith anything given to us by the media and those in authority.
It seems the faithers are furious the 'birthers' are not going to accept things at face value.
By my computer I have a sign, quoting I Thessalonians, 5:21 -- "Prove all things...."
I find it a good rule to live by. I plan to continue doing so.

Labels: Eligibility Issue, Media Bias

This is a story I posted over on the Forum a couple of days ago, and which has received little notice. Yet it troubles me in several ways.
Threat in Maine, the whitest state, shakes local NAACP
BANGOR, Me. � In October, the N.A.A.C.P. chapter for northern Maine got shocking news. A man from a nearby town had threatened to shoot "any and all black persons" attending the group�s meetings at an old stone church here, and state prosecutors were worried enough to seek a restraining order.
First of all, please notice the headline the NYT attaches to the story. The fact that Maine is 'the whitest state' seems to carry an implication that this is indicative of a greater propensity for 'hate'. In the New York Times' world, of course, white=hate, so this is not really surprising but still troubling.
Now: before somebody puts words in my mouth, the fact that an elderly (75-year-old) white man supposedly made a threat against the NAACP or black people is not something I intend to defend; although generally I think that if the man has reached 75 years of age and has not heretofore committed violence against others, he is not likely to at this stage of his life.
If, however, he made such a threat, in a credible way, certainly notice should be taken. I don't condone threats, racial or any other kind, from whatever quarter. But the fact is, the man in question has apparently been charged with no crime, although the article says:
This month a state judge signed an order barring Mr. Sawyer from threatening, using violence against or even speaking to any of the chapter�s members. It also requires him to stay at least 150 feet away from anywhere the N.A.A.C.P. meets. A hearing has been delayed for six months while Mr. Sawyer gets medical treatment and counseling, Mr. Harnett said.
And of course Mr. Sawyer has had his firearm taken away. But if he has not been convicted or even charged, how can his gun be taken away? Are our Second Amendment rights so attenuated that it takes merely the word of one witness (in a doctor-patient context) to lose one's right to bear arms? And will Mr. Sawyer's compulsory 'medical treatment' and 'counseling' (read: re-education) involve confinement? Does he have no rights at all, or is he, as an old-stock American, entitled to no such privileges?
It looks as though, judging by the lack of comments over on the forum (save one) I am alone in my concerns about this case. It is about more than just one senior citizen in Maine; it's about the rights of American citizens, especially those of the majority white population. It appears as though 'some are more equal than others.'
How many times have non-whites threatened whites and those of differing races? I suspect there are too many cases to count in an average, say, week in this country. We have seen a number of prominent blacks and Hispanic making very hateful and threatening statements against whites with no consequence whatsoever. For example:
"Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die." Augustin Cebada, Quoted in Barbara Coe, Reconquista, The Takeover of America, California Coalition for Immigration Reform, 1998, p. 20
"We are here to say that violence and racism and hatred of the white man in America is just as American as apple and cherry pie." Khallid Abdul Muhammad, quoted in Las Vegas Review-Journal and Sun, June 14, 1998, pg. 3A
"We have an ageing white America. They are dying. They are ****ting in their pants with fear!� I love it!"-Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas, Arlington, from a speech in Jan. 1995, quoted in Coe, 'Reconquista, The Takeover of America
Then there was the speech by ''Dr.'' Kamau Kambon:
A Raleigh activist and bookstore owner told a panel at Howard University Law School on Oct. 14 that the solution to many of the problems faced by black people is the extermination of "white people off the face of the planet." Dr. Kamau Kambon, who taught Africana Studies 241 in the Spring 2005 semester at North Carolina State University, also said this needs to be done "because white people want to kill us."
This kind of thing is so routinely spoken by various minority 'activists' that it is met only with yawns from most people. Somehow we dismiss it as venting or just rhetoric. But why does Mr. Sawyer up in Maine not receive the same benefit of the doubt as these 'minority activists'? And the doctor, who is apparently the only witness who asserts that 'threats' were made: who is he? (Oops, of course I mean 'he or she'; how sexist of me to assume the doctor is a man.) But who is the Veterans Administration doctor? A medical doctor? A psychiatrist? What? And do doctors routinely report such conversations as these to authorities?
It may be that these things are happening around America and I just haven't heard of such a case before. I think of the increasing role medical practitioners are being asked to play in gathering information on citizens, supposedly for our own good, of course. Children are being asked questions during doctors' visit about whether or not their parents own guns, or whether there are drugs in their house. When I visit my doctor I am invariably asked about domestic violence, and about whether I am safe in my home. Many of these lines of questioning seem intrusive and one wonders what use is made of the responses; is the government tracking certain data this way?
But to return to the case of Mr. Sawyer, who has been disarmed and ordered into some kind of 'treatment' for his 'sickness', this should be troubling to those who care about personal privacy, freedom, and our Constitutional rights. A number of issues are at stake here. Should anybody lose their right to bear arms, which is a crucial right for a free society, on the strength of one person's assertions? Can one lose one's Second Amendment rights without having been convicted of a felony? Maine's Constitution says:
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned. Article I, section 16.
Can someone be ordered to enter 'counseling' and 'medical treatment' based on their holding or expressing politically incorrect views (such as Mr. Sawyer's purported statement that 'Maine should be a white state)? Another thing which troubles me about this case is that Mr. Sawyer's name and town are mentioned very explicitly. Why? Our media are very scrupulous about not mentioning the names of people involved in various scrapes with the law, or people who are accused but not yet convicted of a crime. The old media are now obsessive about omitting any mention of a suspect's race, even when there is supposedly a manhunt going on, with a dangerous criminal roaming free. They are more careful to avoid any possibility of 'racial profiling' and probably also worried lest the public notice that most of the crimes are being committed by certain groups of people. So they cover the facts up as long as they can. But Mr. Sawyer's name is right out there for the public to see. What's the point of this?
Suppose Mr. Sawyer becomes the target of the racial agitators, like Joe Horn, who shot two burglars in Pasadena, Texas, was. Suppose Mr. Sawyer has an angry mob congregating around his door and making threats? And of course he has been disarmed and left a sitting duck for any self-righteous liberal who wants to make an example of him or 'teach him a lesson.'
So I can see no good reason for publishing Mr. Sawyer's name. Shame on the New York Times. Where are their journalistic ethics? Of course we know the NYT is not the paragon of journalistic virtue they pretend to be, after their many missteps. We all know they have an agenda, and that the Grey Lady is a woman of easy virtue.
A further injustice is that only majority white people are held to rigid standards about 'hate speech' or racial threats. We all know that racial threats are made by minorities on a regular basis, and these are almost never treated as crimes. There is a manifest injustice based on race in the way these laws are applied and enforced. It is evident that 'hate crime' laws are designed to be employed against only one group of people, to benefit another broad category of people. This violates the idea that we are all equal before the law.
And if this kind of thing can happen, and is happening now, we should be very concerned about our rights and freedoms. I am concerned that too few Americans display any zeal for preserving their Consititutional rights and freedoms. With such a passive and apathetic population, the PC tyrants have free rein.
One more thing which strikes me: the name Sawyer has been in New England since the days of the earliest English colonies. The Sawyers are one of the original Mayflower families. It seems Mr. Sawyer is symbolic here of old America, and he is being made an example of. Out with the old, on with the new.

Labels: Hate Crime, Hate Speech, Justice System, Mainstream Media, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Second Amendment, Thought Crime

Another episode in the 'just one big family' series.
According to the news media, Henry Gates and the Cambridge policeman who arrested him, James Crowley, are distant kin -- both being descended from the 4th century Irish king, Niall of the Nine Hostages.
It seems to me that this is reminiscent of the campaign-era stories in the mainstream media which trumpeted 'Obama distant kin to Presidents' or 'Obama's Irish roots', all transparently intended to further convince readers that race is just skin-deep, and that we're all just one big family, one race, 'the human race.'
How that line fits with the whole storyline in these headlines: 'A historic first! America's First African-American President!' A Milestone! Moving beyond race! -- I don't quite understand.
I've read conflicting stories on Gates' alleged European ancestry, and it's all as may be. I question how these 'experts' in the article can say with certainty that 'x' number of men today descend directly from a 4th century individual. Do they have his DNA, or just DNA from those who think they are descended from him? It all sounds rather iffy to me, but I am not a genetics expert.
I do know something about genealogy, and I know that once you get back in time that far, the recorded information is pretty sketchy. If you come from a prominent family in Europe, one that has maintained careful records down through the centuries, there is more solid evidence of descent, but this kind of record-keeping was mainly limited to the more prominent families, in which ancestry and descent and family lineage were all-important because of lands, titles, and status in society. I just don't quite buy how it's possible to claim this kind of lineage without something more solid than the say-so of a researcher, and I have my doubts; is Niall's DNA available for comparison? My doubts are confirmed by the linked article.
The biggest caveat of this research is that without testing DNA from Niall�s remains, it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that Niall is the ancestor (and some argue that there never was a real Niall). For instance, Mrs. Niall could have only reproduced with the friendly neighbor, or a large fraction of the men with the signature Y chromosome could be descended from Niall�s promiscuous uncle George (I don�t know if there was an uncle, or if his name was George - it�s just an example).
I've expressed my skepticism here before about the validity and reliability of some of these DNA testing companies, which for a fee will pinpoint what your ancestry is down to fine details. Do we really possess complete enough samples to make such exact claims? For example, remember the story of Oprah claiming she learned of her Zulu ancestry, which was later contradicted by other testing. Would any American of black ancestry descend from just one tribe? Was there not considerable blending of several West African tribes among black slaves?
I'm skeptical on this whole subject, but open to being corrected.
In so many of these media stories about some famous figure's purported noble ancestry, there seems to be a political agenda at work, sometimes publicity, to make the celebrity or politician more glamorous by asserting his descent from some famous or infamous historical personage. It's just hype, in other words.
In even more cases, the media jumps on any opportunity to push their ''one planet, one people'' trans-racial propaganda. Look! We are all just kissin' cousins anyway, so let's all join together. Race is an illusion, we're all mixed and mingled hopelessly anyway, so embrace it.
Sorry, but this does not resonate with me. In reading some of these genealogical stories during the campaigns, I learned I was (likely) kin to Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards. I say likely, because if the family trees given are correct, I am probably distant cousin to these people though that does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy towards them.
As I recently quoted Proudhon as saying 'if everybody is my brother, I have no brothers', that applies here; if we are all cousins, then kinship is pretty meaningless. It's hard to love people in the abstract, on that kind of scale. We are not made for that kind of attenuated, stretched-thin 'brotherly love.' It has to be limited in scope or it is not love at all.
What racial lessons are we supposed to take from this latest absurd story about Gates and Crowley and their supposed common ancestor, Niall of the Nine Hostages? That Gates is an Irishman? To believe such is to stretch the definition of Irishman beyond recognition. Gates clearly bears grudges against his White ancestors and kin, and probably feels little fellow-feeling for medieval (or modern) Irishmen. That illustrates how race is not just a matter of mind, but a primal identification; blacks who are half White, as Gates is said to be, still feel and think black. And those on the left and on the right who would like that to change are dreamers. Having some White ancestry, particularly if it is further back in the family line, does not change one's essential identification.
Certainly the multicultists would like to deconstruct the whole notion of nationality and ethnicity, at least where European-descended peoples are concerned. And this serves that purpose. As I don't trust those who write these stories, nor the motives of the left, I can't take this story seriously. Beware of the multicultural agenda.

Labels: Dna, Genealogy, Media Bias, Multiculturalism, Multiracialism, Nationality, One World, Political Correctness

It seems I've never written a post on this blog which is specifically about capital punishment. It's odd that I haven't because I feel strongly about it.
Every now and then, there is some mainstream media article attacking the death penalty, and making claims about our 'biased' justice system. Every now and then, like clockwork, Mexico -- Mexico, of all countries! -- has the colossal temerity to condemn us for executing criminals in our prisons, usually in Texas prisons. Well, if they only kept their killers at home, we might not execute so many of them, but that would not occur to them. Mexico, one of the most corrupt, dysfunctional, ramshackle countries in the Western Hemisphere, lecturing us on morality, and striking a superior pose. That really is humiliating.
This is something that really annoys me: the way the left uses the death penalty as an issue on which to lecture to us, from their moral high horse. I find it really rankling when countries like Canada or Ireland or France or wherever refuse to yield up one of our fugitive murderers, actually making said murderers into some kind of perverse heroes, as if they were political prisoners. Ireland and France, for instance, harbored the odious Ira Einhorn, whose girlfriend's body was found in a trunk in his apartment. To me, his guilt was apparent.
Why did some in other countries take up his dubious cause? To teach the U.S. a moral lesson, I think. We are so often seen as the heavies in the rest of the world.
For liberals, capital punishment is merely legal murder. We have quite a few American-born liberals who hold this opinion, but the reality is, most Americans are not opposed to the death penalty where appropriate. The rest of the world seems to be of a different mind.
Sarah, Maid of Albion writes an honest blog entry on the subject, confessing some ambivalence about it. I tried to make a case for it as best I could in a few short paragraphs in a comment, but it's near impossible to do so in a blog comment.
I respect that Sarah has written about her misgivings. I simply think that all too often, this subject is not discussed, and the media relentlessly presents only their side of things.
It seems that there is quite a rift between us and our British cousins when it comes to some of these issues like capital punishment and the right to bear arms. The difference is greater than in previous eras due to the greater influence of liberal/leftist ideas in Britain, and the weakened state of Christianity there. At one time, we were more of one mind with the British on such matters, but a wedge has been driven between us. Unfortunately, liberal ideas, and an increasingly enfeebled Christian establishment may soon cause Americans to lose our traditional perspective.
Fewer and fewer Americans are really conversant with their Bibles, though we still have a Biblically-based system of laws. The Bible lays out the reasons for the death penalty.
However it is now commonly believed even in America that the commandment 'thou shalt not kill' forbids the death penalty, and that the popular statement that 'all life is sacred' means that we must executing killers.
Really? Sparing the murderer denies the value of innocent life; the Bible clearly differentiates between 'shedding innocent blood' and shedding the blood of a mankiller, a murderer.
This distinction between innocent blood, and the blood of a murderer or otherwise heinous criminal, is something that few people today seem to grasp. Why is it so hard to understand? Somehow, in place of the old understandings, we have this new liberal nonsense about how ''all life is precious.'' Really? Where does that idea come from? The Bible makes clear that those who shed innocent blood, who murder, must forfeit their own lives. That is putting the ultimate value not on life per se, but innocent life.
There is a difference. The Bible, contrary to what Christian and secular liberals think, is all about discerning, making distinctions, dividing, separating, judging, choosing a side -- the side of justice and right. It is not about egalitarianism or moral equivalency or blurring differences into nonexistence.
Liberal egalitarian dogma insists that 'all life is sacred' (except, seemingly, that of the unborn); though killers' lives are put on a par with those of the innocents whose lives they take.
Here this website puts forth the usual liberal arguments against the death penalty, such as:
Value of human life: Human life has intrinsic value, even if a person has murdered another individual. The death penalty denies the sacredness of human life. Live is so precious that nobody should ever be killed, even by the state.''
See above.
Other 'arguments' used to oppose death for murderers:
Unfairness: The mentally ill, poor, males, and racial minorities are over-represented among those executed. One pilot study of over 2 dozen convicted criminals on death row found that all had been so seriously abused during childhood that they probably all suffered from brain damage.''
Yes, and let's see some proof of this ubiquitous claim of abuse or 'brain damage.' Criminals always whine that they were themselves abused as children, so they can't help what they do. Never mind that many people who were abused in some way as children --- or as adults -- commit no crimes, and are law-abiding, decent people. Abuse does not guarantee a criminal career.
And again, I have an idea which will shock many post-moderns: criminals lie.
Is that so hard to imagine? Criminals are, as a group, guilty by definition of dishonesty or anti-social conduct. Lies are always part of their self-justifying, rationalizing, self-serving, narcissistic 'defense mechanisms.' They will, almost 100 percent of the time, try to deny everything, and when the evidence is against them, when they are backed into a corner, they try to deflect blame: somebody or something made them do it. They did not know what they were doing. They 'dissociated' and became temporarily insane. They had bad childhoods (which may be true, but does not excuse them), and they are often prone to blame their victims.
So nobody with an ounce of common sense should accept, at face value, unproven claims of childhood abuse on the part of criminals. They are prone to lie when it serves their needs.
But if it's the case that our justice system is so flawed, then let's scrap our whole justice system, by all means, because if it's not perfect we can't try or punish anyone, apparently. The ACLU and all other such criminal-friendly organizations are constantly bemoaning how blacks, I mean 'African-Americans' are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and punished at all levels. So they say. What is never considered, or even mentioned here, is that this may just be the case because blacks are more crime-prone (statistics certainly suggest this) and they simply commit more crimes. Yet the mainstream media perpetuate the idea of a 'racist justice system', apparently wishing us to believe that all races are 'equal' in the commission of crimes, which is absurd.
If anything, I would suggest that Whites, especially White males may be at a disadvantage. When a White man commits some heinous crime (which does happen; I don't deny that) there is no big media machine or racial advocacy apparatus that goes into overdrive to drum up sympathy and outrage over the 'unfairness' of his being arrested, convicted, or sentenced. There is no 'race card' to be played. There is no NAACP to march or to hold press conferences. There are no crying, hymn-singing, sign-carrying White liberals and black protesters when a White man is about to be executed. No, this only occurs when a person from a 'protected' group is convicted or sentenced or facing execution. So they have far more people advocating for them, at public expense ultimately, and they have a biased media on their side. Who is truly at a disadvantage here?
The website linked above even admits that there is a bias in favor of female criminals in general; it may seem surprising that they state this matter-of-factly, but not really, because race trumps all, even the feminist agenda:
Women convicted of murder are almost never executed; that is a penalty that is almost entirely reserved for men.''
I've mentioned that fact in a previous blog post. I am somewhat morbidly fascinated with women who commit violent crimes. I've followed many of these criminal cases, some involving women who kill, and it often seems as if they kill those nearest to them: spouses, children, siblings in some cases. Even parents.
Most of us still have a residual belief that women are the 'weaker' sex, the gentler sex, but there are always exceptions. The belief still persists, which makes many jurors think that surely something ''made'' the accused woman kill, because they ''know'' women would not do so without some extreme circumstance ''forcing'' her to do it, or 'driving her insane.'
So the justice system is imperfect. So is every human institution. It's an inbuilt thing. Does that mean we abolish courts, laws, and prisons because the occasional innocent person is accused, convicted, and in rare cases, executed?
And if there are a few innocent people convicted, I would wager there are many, many more guilty people who walk free, who suffer no punishment (because they have slick, shrewd, unscrupulous attorneys, or because a biased jury -- as in the OJ Simpson case -- gives them a pass). I am far more worried about the dangerous criminals who game the system being free to continue their crimes than I am about the few innocent ones being punished. It's absurd to expect perfection of our justice system, and I don't think we err on the side of harshness; just the opposite.
And why am I more concerned with the guilty ones being exonerated or getting obscenely light sentences? Because many innocent people suffer in some way at the hands of the guilty who go free. If an innocent man or woman is imprisoned, is there commensurate suffering? Certainly the wrongly convicted, and their family members would suffer, but how much worse is the suffering of an innocent victim of a murderer who should not have been free, and of course the suffering of the victim's family and friends.
I am more concerned about the fate of innocent people on the street who are prey to criminals than I am about possibly wrongfully convicting an accused. Of course we should try to minimize mistakes, but we are leaning far too much toward the lenient side, with predictable results. To fret and worry that we are executing innocent people while guilty and dangerous ones are running free is to have one's priorities upside down.
Here, I will recite the usual cliche that 'one innocent person convicted is too much', but when one guilty murderer or molester goes free, far more than one innocent person suffers, in most cases. And too often it is the most vulnerable who suffer.
One innocent victim of a wrongly-freed criminal is too much.
I think it is the stuff of Hollywood movies and of liberals' fevered fantasies to believe that innocent people, who have never done a wrong in their lives, are whisked off the streets, wrongly accused, railroaded by evil prosecutors, convicted by corrupt, biased juries and 'hanging judges,' and sentenced to death. I don't believe it's statistically likely that an innocent 'first offender' would end up on death row and be executed without a chance at justice.
If anything, the process drags on and on, as delays are sought, appeals are made, and years pass before a convicted murderer is executed, if ever. This process affords more than enough time for evidence to be gathered and presented to exonerate an innocent person, if he is truly innocent.
We hear so often, thanks to Hollywood's and the news media's bias, of some innocent man who is exonerated after years in prison, thanks to DNA evidence. But what of the cases in which the evidence proves the man's guilt after all? I suspect there are more of these cases, but the media plays these down.
Every prisoner claims to be an innocent victim. It's sensible to be skeptical of those claims rather than too credulous.
Another argument often made against executing criminals is that 'it's actually crueler to sentence them to life in prison; I would rather die than spend decades in prison, so we are letting them off easy to execute them." This argument has the advantage of trying to sound rather conservative, as if punishment for the murderer really is desirable, while paradoxically claiming that the death penalty is 'letting them off easy.'
If there were no chance of a killer serving life in prison escaping and victimizing others, which we know is not realistic, maybe there could be a case made for life in prison. But prisoners in maximum security prisons have escaped and have killed again. Think of the Texas Seven.
Others have managed to escape, or have been released by some bureaucratic incompetence or due to bad decisions by liberal judges, and have killed again. Google Kenneth McDuff.
No prison is escape-proof. Dangerous criminals whose lives are spared may one day be walking free and will almost surely do harm to more innocent people. When they do, whoever is responsible for their wrongful freedom should be held accountable for the harm they do.
And as for the supposedly harsher punishment of life in prison: maybe in the old days, the days of solitary confinement in a dank cell, fed on bread and water, or doing hard labor breaking rocks, this might, might have been true. Somewhat. Nowadays, prisons are generally not that bleak; prisoners have many amenities that some on the outside lack, such as cable TV, phone privileges, 'conjugal visits', gym equipment, and so on.
The idea that convicted killers spend time in a dark cell, alone with their supposed 'consciences', living out their lives tormented by remorse, is just straight out of a movie or a bad novel. Instead, the reality is the example of mass murderer Richard Speck in prison videotaping his 'parties' with his prison boyfriend. The videotape was shown, (the the least offensive parts, anyway) on national TV. Or think of Susan Smith, the mother who killed her children, seeking romance via personal ads while serving her sentence. Or Pam Smart, who had her husband killed, having liaisons with guards in prison. Or the Colorado 'black widow', whose name escapes me, who advertised that she would help an illegal get a green card via marriage, in exchange for companionship. I'm afraid that none of these people were sitting and repenting, weeping over their crimes, in prison. They were using and manipulating and having a good time, in many instances, at our expense.
We live in such a liberal age that even many who are in some respects conservative and who believe in being 'tough on crime', will shrink from approving the death penalty. We often hear things like 'if we kill criminals, we are just as bad as they are.' I think this kind of statement shows just how strong and pervasive liberal indoctrination is, and further, how far most people are from traditional understandings and interpretations of the Bible.
It is not just those "harsh" Protestant fundamentalists who traditionally supported the death penalty; the Catholic church followed the authority of Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine in approving of the death penalty for certain crimes, including murder.
If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
Further, Thomas Aquinas also said that executing criminals 'protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on."
Surely this makes sense from a Christian point-of-view. If the criminal is truly repentant, I would think the pain of remorse, and the fear of doing the same things again, would make them prefer to pay the penalty.
One such criminal, who was a child-killer, requested the death penalty, and said
"I must be executed before I have an opportunity to escape or kill someone within the prison.''
Further, he said that he knew he would kill again, including killing prison guards, if he had the chance.
Predictably, liberals took this statement as proof that he was just a poor sick man who should be spared and 'helped.'
His statement contained another reason for execution: prisoners have killed, even in prison. Prisoners have been killed (remember Jeffrey Dahmer?) while in prison. Better, from the criminal's perspective, to have been executed than subjected to 'justice' at the hands of another killer in prison, surely.
The fewer killers in prison, the safer for those who work there, as well as for the less dangerous prisoners there. Why keep dangerous individuals alive indefinitely, where they can wreak more harm?
Those who are not Christians will not be persuaded by arguments from Scripture or from Christian scholars, but they should at least concede that our society, though it may have fallen away to some extent from its Christian roots, is centered on Christian morality. The weakening of Christianity, and the decline in familiarity with the Bible and our Western traditions, have meant that our society is becoming more incoherent, in the true sense of the word, every day. We can't just cobble together a crazy-quilt of do-it-yourself liberal 'morality' and expect our society to hold together, or to be a safe and stable place in which to live and raise our families. There have to be some agreed-upon values and standards, and liberalism has made that more and more difficult, as liberalism constructs a warped mirror-image of Christianity which even cites Scripture in the cause of some rather un-Biblical ideas.
Here's another thing which crosses my mind: the anti-death penalty forces often point the accusing finger at the United States as being a 'backward' country because of our (rather infrequent, in some states) application of the death penalty. They like to associate us with some of the more barbaric countries which still execute criminals. Guilt by association.
It's often said that America is the 'only first-world nation still executing people', or words to that effect.
Actually Japan still uses the death penalty, and I think they are actually more sensible about it than we are, though some would say they are too harsh also.
But if our rulers are to go through with this rumored shotgun marriage between the U.S. and Mexico and Canada, and if we ultimately move towards some kind of one world system, with the U.N. having some authority over us all, our justice system is finished. Mexico and Canada do not use the death penalty. We will be the red-headed stepchild made to conform to Mexico's and Canada's ideas of justice. The system of jurisprudence that grew up over the centuries in England and later here will not be part of any New World Order. It's one more part of our longstanding traditions that will be slated for extinction should we lose our sovereignty.
Our system is not perfect, but I don't see any other country as being a superior example to follow. Our forefathers took great care to give us our jurisprudence system and we should not jettison it lightly.

Labels: Capital Punishment, Justice System, Media Bias, Western Civilization, Western Culture

A few Obama-related links:
First, Barack Hussein Obama and the Triumph of Marxism
Fjordman's latest on Obama.
Several of the links following contain some information about Obama which certainly calls into question the facts presented by the candidate himself and his campaign people. However, I've been halfhearted about posting links of this kind because I think most of my readers have no illusions about Obama, and those who really should read these things and consider them objectively will not do so, being fully indoctrinated members of the cult. So it may be preaching to the choir to post these links, and I suspect most of you are aware of the information contained therein, having already read it at the linked sites or elsewhere. But I present the links as rather interesting information, raising further questions.
These links have some interesting information about Obama's vague past, and the many gaps and unanswered questions.
Pamela at Atlas Shrugs compiled an impressive amount of information about Obama's birth, and notes the discrepancies between the official story, and the (rather scant) existing public information.
This rather odd story from the Times UK introduces readers to Obama's 'auntie' living in public housing in Boston, and his uncle, both described as coping with the "harsh realities" of immigrant life in the U.S.
And last, but certainly not least, Steve Sailer has made his new book on Obama available online at VDare. It's available in .pdf format, and can be downloaded. I've downloaded it, but I have not yet started reading it. Have any of you?
The .pdf file is here: America's Half-blood Prince: Barack Obama's Story of Race and Inheritance

Labels: Blogosphere, Media Bias, Presidential Candidates

All of us are aware, I think, of how popular culture is being used to propagandize and shape all of us. It's used especially to separate the young from their elders and, generation by generation, to further divide the population and at the same time to further the leftist/multiculturalist agenda, destroying the heritage and traditions that characterize our past.
This piece does a good job of detailing how it is being done in the UK, and although the specifics deal with the UK, it is substantially true here as well.
...At the beginning of the twentieth century the modernist movement set about destroying the form and grammar of traditional art, and thus the content, and made it both unintelligible and uninteresting. In the 60�s, cultural Marxists of the New Left became the avant-garde in the art word [world?] as they became the elites in almost all the avenues of culture. They hated our culture and traditions, and they have been destroying them and our young people ever since.
Aristocrat rulers had a sense of noblesse oblige towards the working-classes, and a sense of responsibility to posterity. But the new elites were driven by their hatred and personal gain to corrupt them.''
This last paragraph makes a good point. Much as our 'democratic' new America hates the idea of aristocracy, our aristocracy in the past, ideally, at least felt a sense of connection to, and a responsibility for, the common people, and above all, toward the perpetuation of our heritage. Our new 'elites', who are in no sense aristocratic, even though they may be wealthy, have no such allegiance or concern, being disconnected from us.
The Discrimination Act of 1975 cautions people against using degrading language in respect to certain selected groups. But our elites continually degrade working-class people and our young, whom they mock as "chavs". Our people rarely see themselves affirmed as human beings of value in adverts or on TV. Only the dark-skinned without English features are accorded a sympathetic treatment. The worst of it is the frequency with which our women are shown to the world as whores.''
The blogger references 'celebrities' such as Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Both these women have similar public images, based on their dissolute lifestyles, though Hilton came from wealth and Spears from a poor background. I've long thought that their public images are meant to 'inspire', if the word can be used in such a paradoxical way, young women towards similar lack of self-respect. The intention is to degrade our people and culture. What better way than through young women, who should be the mothers of the next generation? Former eras treasured these young women and encouraged them to maintain their wholesomeness and chastity, while today the opposite is encouraged and rewarded. It's an assault on our future.
'It is simply not intended that we should identify with ourselves. Why, then, would the elites have any conscience about bringing immigrants here to undercut our wages and take our jobs, and push us out of our communities? They consider us worthless.''
And, more importantly, they want us to consider our fellow White people worthless, and even ourselves.
In too many instances, this is what is happening.
The television programme makers are on the lookout for something to laugh at but we are now the targets and this is done to us before the rest of the world. It is conveyed by images as well as words which are read as body language and semi-conscious messages.''
I'm convinced that these media-generated images, which end up encouraging the same behavior in real-life people, are contributing to the general contempt already felt towards us by nonwhites, and people in general in other countries.
I know that many foreign people see the grotesque media images of White Americans and loathe us for it, if they don't already dislike us anyway.
In our household, we get BBC America, which presents truly hideous programming presenting British people in an unflattering light. It is being done to turn us all against each other, I think, and as life imitates art more often than the other way around, more people in real life live down to the stereotypes.
One of the shows one sees constantly advertised is 'Skins', which seems to be all about teen sex, and there is another show, whose name escapes me, whose 'comedy' seems centered on fat people's sex lives. Degrading for all involved.
Whites are presented as fat and over-weight, while ethnics are bright and clean. One Channel 4 programme, How clean is Your House, has two women visit couples homes to instruct them on how to keep the house free of grime. ''
I've confessed to watching 'How Clean is Your House' because it appeals to morbid curiosity as to how bad people's living conditions can be; sometimes people who look quite normal and well-groomed live in incredible squalor. Yet on reflection I've started thinking that this show, too, like Jerry Springer, seems calculated to show White people in the worst possible light. Most of the people whose filthy homes are featured are White people of 'indigenous' British ancestry. I've only seen one program with a nonwhite subject, a very overweight Chinese man.
By the way, there is now an American version of this, with the two 'cleaning gurus' visiting untidy and unhygienic Americans (some of whom live in rather 'upscale' areas) and showing us that we, too, are just as bad as the worst.
I think there is method to this madness; I think the idea is to show us that we needn't look down on the unhygienic ways of the Third-Worlders in our midst, who often live in very squalid conditions, typical of their home countries. I think it's also meant to further foster contempt for our neighbors, people who look like us. Liberals and the multiculturally-smitten love to find bad examples of White criminality, slovenliness, and just plain 'sorriness' to flaunt in our faces, and to show just how bad we are.
As the blogger says,
'It is done not just to degrade our own people, but to redress the balance with the behaviour of ethnic communities.''
On the subject of popular music:
Pop stars are arbiters of taste and behaviour and must take personal responsibility for the harm they have done to young people by creating degenerate images to make themselves millions. Young people identify with them, and are beguiled by their rebellious and exciting images while in reality they live in mansions, employ gardeners, maids, cooks and butlers, and send their children to the best schools.
The man who destroyed old America, and undermined the western world, Elvis Presley, has a religious devotion 30 years after his death, and his home Gracelands attracts worshippers on the scale of Lourdes or Mecca. These pop idols have replaced religious and national icons for millions of people. They are hypocrites who pose to corrupt and make money.''
I have to agree, reluctantly, with him on the second paragraph. I grew up in the rock 'n roll era, and rock music was, for me as for most people born since then, the 'soundtrack of my life', as the cliche has it. But looking back at what has transpired since Elvis and rock music came on the scene, I can see how the older generations may well have been right when they objected to rock 'n roll as a degrading influence and as a factor in the move towards 'integrating' our country and elevating nonwhites above Whites. There is no denying that the two movements were connected, and the influence of leftists and Gramscians at the higher levels of show business is undeniable also. One could argue, as some do, that it's a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy to blame rock 'n roll for the social deterioration and the move towards multiculturalism, but there's no doubt that the two went hand in hand.
I mentioned before that a 1990s documentary on rock music, the name of which eludes me, openly and cheerfully admitted that yes, rock 'n roll was mean to 'loosen up' young White folks, who were seen as too inhibited and too repressed, unlike our more 'sensual' black population. The show biz figures who were interviewed laughed and said yes, they wanted young Whites to 'connect with their sexuality' and be free.
Back in the 1950s, of course, the denials were indignant: how dare those old fogies say rock 'n roll is 'smutty'? They are just old prudes who have dirty minds, looking for 'sin' everywhere, according to rock 'n roll's defenders. Now? It's all brazenly admitted.
So yes, rock music was a big, big step towards multiculturalizing everyone, making us more open to black music and black ways, and making young Whites see themselves and their people as deficient, lacking in qualities like 'cool' or to use an old 60s black shibboleth, ''soul.'' Whites, it began to be said, can't dance. Whites have no natural rhythm. Whites need to learn to loosen up and how better than by emulating blacks?
The antidote to all this? The blogger briefly mentions changes in our educational system and a revival of some practices like fairs and folk-music traditions, but using modern words and messages. I agree with what he says, as far as it goes.
It's a beginning. I do agree that the answer should be to try to retain what still exists of our culture, both 'folk' culture and high culture, and to restore what has been dismantled or neglected. And we don't have to have government grants or the 'elites' to help us do that, or do it for us; it has to be an effort by real people, a grassroots effort. We can all do our part within our own families and communities. We need to pay more attention to what remains, and to emphasize the beautiful and the worthwhile, and to stress that it is ours, not 'borrowed' or 'stolen' from some more 'vibrant' group of people.
There is an argument to be made that rock music has much more of a White, Southron origin than an African origin, although that may be a losing battle since people are firmly convinced that Elvis 'stole' rock music from blacks, and that its origins are African. I say: prove it, but in any case, rock music is firmly associated with multiculturalism and black culture, even though blacks want little part of it. They recognize that it isn't theirs, and prefer other types of music.
Much of our popular culture is credited to blacks when there is little evidence for the claims. Most White people are content to passively let everyone else claim credit for what is rightfully ours, and in order to regain some pride and some sense of proprietorship of what is ours, we need to become familiar with our own heritage and folk culture, as well as our high culture.
Television and the mass media in general being the source and the origin of many of the lies and distortions, we cannot look to them for any help or hope. It has to come from the people. That's us.

Labels: Anti White Racism, Gramscianism, Media Bias, Multiculturalism, Popular Culture, Propaganda, Western Culture

I referred to this news release in an earlier post, and I think it's worth examining more closely, although there is nothing here that will surprise any honest observer of human nature:
New study discovers why few people are devoid of racial bias
Why are some individuals not prejudiced? That is the question posed by a provocative new study appearing in the September issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. The authors investigate how some individuals are able to avoid prejudicial biases despite the pervasive human tendency to favor one�s own group.
Robert Livingston of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and Brian Drwecki of the University of Wisconsin conducted studies that examined white college students who harbored either some or no racial biases. What is remarkable about the findings is that only seven percent did not show any racial bias (as measured by implicit and explicit psychological tests), and that nonbiased individuals differed from biased individuals in a psychologically fundamental way -- they were less likely to form negative affective associations in general.
Now, the fact that 93 percent of people exhibit what is termed 'racial bias' should be an indication that perhaps it is the default orientation of human beings. Of course I notice that the study seems to have included only white college students. Why is that? Were those who conducted the study wary of testing nonwhites, for fear they would exhibit a level of so-called 'bias' just as high as that of whites? Or perhaps even higher?
And are college students a fair cross-representation of the population? I would say it's well-accepted that college students are more likely to be socially liberal, and liberal on racial issues, than people in general. Young people are more thoroughly indoctrinated into the orthodoxies of our time, in which 'racial bias' or 'racism' are condemned more strongly than any other human tendency.
So if the vast majority of college students exhibit some 'bias', then the percentage might be close to 100 percent among the population at large.
If there are any people who even attempt to be 'colorblind', it is white people; every other group feels free to show ethnocentric pride and an open preference for their own group. Yet whites are consistenly berated for their 'racism.'
These kinds of studies, which tend to provoke a spate of articles from the knee-jerk leftist media, following their 'diversity' mandate of course, are so commonplace that it would seem very difficult to elicit the desired hand-wringing and soul-searching with each such article. The recent turmoil in Jena, and the heated discussion it provoked around the country, showed that there is a law of diminishing returns at work with the race-baiting. The race industry, which includes not only the brazen opportunists like Sharpton and Jackson, but the hack journos who crank out 'racism' stories, and the 'social scientists' who cook up these never-ending studies, must notice that they are not getting the results they used to get. They may find that they are creating a backlash, which has been building for some time now. And when I say backlash, I am not alluding to racist thugs roaming the streets, which picture the media like to invoke in any such context, but the phenomenon of average, law-abiding citizens who are simply fed up with the endless accusations and demands. You can only berate, accuse, and guilt-trip people so much before the accused develop a thicker hide, and refuse to respond to the tried-and-true stimuli.
Most Americans, and I think most white citizens of Western countries, have leaned over backwards, and then some, to accommodate hordes of demanding third-worlders, and have all but given their countries away, as I write this. Most Americans in my experience are scrupulously careful to treat everybody fairly, regardless of color or nationality. No; I take that back. That statement is wrong. Many -- if not most -- Americans are NOT fair as regards racial matters; they show a bias in favor of nonwhites. I have witnessed so many situations, in various parts of this country, wherein an employer, a colleague, a clerk in a retail store or restaurant, or whoever, will show open partiality to a person 'of color'. Sometimes this takes the form of excessive and fulsome politeness and friendliness. Sometimes it consists of giving the minority person the benefit of the doubt, or giving them some extra leeway, bending the rules, so as not to be accused of racism or prejudice. In many cases, the person showing favor to the minority or minorities is doing so not simply to avoid complaints (which complaints seem to occur frequently) but because they truly want to be liked by minorities, particularly black people. Black people have been portrayed in our entertainment and news media for decades in a very flattering fashion, with the result that some whites believe blacks (and to a lesser extent, Mexicans) to be our moral betters: they are the victims, we are the victimizers. Many people would rather identify with the righteous victims than with the wicked oppressors. So there are many white people, especially those whose contact with other races has been minimal or casual, who idealize and romanticize them. On some of the tabloid talk-shows back in the 90s, the guests were white people who dated blacks exclusively, and emulated their styles, speech, and behavior. We see this phenomenon mostly among young people who are searching for an identity, but even among some more mature people.
And we have the phenomenon of whites who will take the side of illegal aliens in demonstrations, to the extent of committing violence against their fellow white Americans, such is the strength of their identification with 'others.'
In all my travels in this country, from Hawaii to the West Coast to the South to the Northeast, I can say I have never seen an instance of outright racial 'hatred' on the part of whites. I have, however, seen such racial hatred directed toward whites: name-calling, threats, verbal abuse, insults, cruel 'jokes', crimes committed against them.
Where are the studies on non-white 'racism' toward whites? Or towards other non-whites, for that matter? If there is serious racial conflict or violence in this country, it seems more likely to be black vs. Hispanic, or either of those groups against whites. Some people are surprised when I mention the black vs. Hispanic riots that have happened in California and elsewhere; the media don't cover these things much. If the violence was white-on-black or on Hispanic, you can be sure it would be the top of the news, and CNN would be running specials about white racism -- which, come to think of it, they do anyway.
Yet according to the psychologists and the media and the government, the real threat is some nebulous 'extreme right' white groups out there, despite the evidence that there is any such organized threat.
But meanwhile, back to the psychobabble:
The results suggest that "whether someone is prejudiced or not is linked to their cognitive propensity to resist negative affective conditioning," according to the authors. Thus, reducing prejudice may require more than simply adopting egalitarian values. Instead, such change may require reconditioning of the negative associations that people hold.
"Just as it is difficult to change visceral reactions to aversive foods (e.g., lima beans) through sheer force of will," writes Livingston, "it may also be difficult to change visceral attitudes toward racial groups by acknowledging that prejudice is wrong and wanting to change." The authors argue that although negative affect cannot be reduced by reason alone, it could be reconditioned through positive interpersonal experiences or exposure to more positive images of Blacks in the media.''
[Emphasis mine]
This all sounds ominous: you can bet that we will be subjected to even more attempts at 'reconditioning' us 'through positive interpersonal experiences' -- now how can they arrange that? Our experiences out there in the real world militate against the rosy rainbow world the politically correct left tries to create. They can't give people 'positive interpersonal experiences' but they can arrange 'exposure to more positive images of Blacks in the media.'
Actually, I don't know if it is possible to create 'more positive images of Blacks in the media.' We already have them in every possible positive role, portrayed in a glowing light. Blacks are always judges, or savvy, streetwise police detectives, or computer experts, star athletes, all-around sages and wise men and women, doctors. They are always cool, hip, funny, smart, witty, confident, in control. So superior to awkward, nerdish whitey.
Blacks are even being depicted in situations in which they almost never were found in reality, such as in cowboy roles. There might have been a handful of black cowboys, somewhere, but they were not a common sight. And then Hollywood, in some of the most absurd casting, puts blacks into settings like medieval England: Morgan Freeman in Robin Hood, for example. There must be some unwritten law that blacks must appear in settings where they never existed in real life. But then I suppose the liberal answer will be to rewrite history and miseducate more young people into believing that there WERE blacks aplenty in medieval England, even hanging out with Robin Hood in Sherwood Forest. I don't doubt that Trevor Phillips' proposed 're-weaving the tapestry of history' will put blacks in medieval England. There have already been absurd claims by Afrocentrists that the Black Prince was actually a black man.
Nowadays, too, Moslems are gaining clout so that terrorists in movies are more likely to be neo-Nazis than Islamic jihadists. I suppose Mexicans are the next group who will claim their 'right' to be portrayed with haloes. We've seen this with the Latino demand to be included in Ken Burns' recent documentary on World War II; the Hispanics claim that they played a much bigger part in the War than they were given credit for, even though they constitued less than 2 percent back then.
As usual, we will give in and humor them in their childish demands, at the expense of our own people's accomplishments. When we are finished redacting the history books to make everybody else feel good, regardless of their actual accomplishments, we will have been reduced to invisibility or insignificance.
But beware of more politically correct 'reconditioning' in our media; they have to 'cure' us of our stubborn 'racism'.
I think these utopian social engineers will find, though, that their conditioning may be backfiring on them, too. Speaking for myself, and others I talk to, people notice this heavy-handed propaganda. It turns people off. It galvanizes us, in some cases, to resist their lies. We are not all so ignorant of history or so oblivious to what we see every day out there in the real world that we are easy marks for their manipulations.

Labels: Cultural Marxism, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Psychology, Revisionism

The New York Times gushes about the wonders of interracial families, which, in the multicult's world-view, are inherently superior to monoracial, specifically, White families.
I suppose the zeal of the multicultists to ensure that everybody has an available nonwhite partner out there must be a big factor in their big push, since 1965, to de-Whiten America. After all, in a country with a small nonwhite population, Whites would be too likely to marry one another and have White children. And that is a highly undesirable state of affairs for the multicultists. So the percentage of nonwhites had to be increased drastically in order to accelerate things.
Many people have themselves convinced that the government's eagerness for mass immigration is due mostly to the desire for cheap labor on the part of business, but now we have liberals and 'progressives' more or less openly admitting what the older generations said back in the era of the Civil Rights Revolution: that intermarriage was an ultimate goal of such 'activism.'
The older generations said that then, and they were called 'bigots' for even suggesting that intermarriage was an implicit goal of 'desegregation' but now the media cheerfully and openly admit it.
And here's the scary part: the liberal/multiculti mindset thinks that intermarriage is so good, and indeed, so imperative for America, that they are willing to entertain the idea of governmental policies meddling in people's marital choices, as this Slate article on interracial marriage suggests:
...All these numbers may be climbing, but they remain low. What's more, the white-black marriage rate lags significantly behind rates of white intermarriage with other, nonblack races. Among 25-to-34-year-olds, 52 percent of Native Americans and 40 percent of Asians married outside their race, while only 6 percent of blacks did so. The racism that kept Alabama's constitution unchanged has hardly been eradicated. Whether these habits will change on their own, with the maturation of a more tolerant generation, or whether full social acceptance of black Americans will require a concerted governmental effort, is unknowable. In the meantime, we can take only meager pride in achieving a society in which interracial marriage is safe, legal, and, alas, rare.''
I wonder if Mr. Greenberg is married to a nonwhite spouse?
What kind of 'concerted governmental effort', one wonders, would be contemplated? Penalizing those who participate in 'racist' marriages with those of their own race? Making such marriages a 'hate-crime'? Incentives for interracial marriages? What?
First, the laws against interracial marriage were overturned and now the homosexual agenda is following that precedent to press for same-sex marriage as a 'right.'
However, going from merely allowing irregular or unnatural marriages to take place to actively promoting them via government policy and funding is another step towards totalitarianism. On the one hand, first leftists claim that the government should take a hands-off approach to marriage, it being a choice between 'consenting adults.' but now suddenly government should be meddling in our personal choices. How does that work?
To say that government has no right to dictate who we may marry, at least in regards to male and female, is one thing, but to then turn around and agitate for the government to promote mixed-race marriages is illogical.
But there can be little doubt that there is an agenda being promoted, and that the results of the recent election seem to have given the government and the media propagandists the green light to push forward, full speed ahead, with that Babelizing agenda.
(H/T James Edwards)

Labels: Babelism, Cultural Marxism, Demographics, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Race Replacement, Racial Division, Social Engineering

On his blog, Nicholas Stix discusses 'Racial Dialogue in America', linking to a " 'Racist Rant' That Almost Everyone is Condemning", a piece written by a blogger calling himself Old Punk. The post is here.
I think it's a viscerally honest piece, although the author, honest as he basically is, resorts to the usual disclaimers and makes a painstaking effort to say good things about admirable black figures (the usual: Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, et al) in an effort to avoid being labeled an all-out 'racist.' But his disclaimers, sadly, did not insulate him from the race-baiters of both liberal and ''conservative'' persuasion.
The very volume of the response and the vehemence of the comments shows just how incendiary the whole race issue is these days; is this in itself not absolute proof that Obama has actually polarized this country even further, and set white against white as well as black against white, and white (some) against black? So much for the 'uniter' and the 'transcender'. He is a divider par excellence.
The race issue seems to be more radioactive than ever these days, mostly due to Obama, his 'mentor' Reverend Wright, and the Obama groupies, who are out in force all over the Internet acting as vigilantes for political correctness.
I notice, too, that Steve Sailer, who has been covering the Obama saga more than any other mainstream blogger, has drawn persistent nagging criticism from several anonymous commenters who accuse him of a vendetta against Obama, and of carrying out a 'hit' on Obama. This person, or these several people, are wearisome; I peg them as Obama supporters out policing the blogosphere for their hero, or as whining liberals of either party who see themselves as defenders of PC virtue. If they don't like Sailer's writing about Obama, they should 'change the channel'.
The message is: writing about Obama carries a price; you will be visited by the Obama groupies or the canting liberals of both parties who feel that all this talk about race is just -- racist.
Stix has some good observations about the whole issue, although he is somewhat 'mainstream' for me. But here he says, accurately:
Obama doesn�t want dialogue on race, any more than black people do. Dialogue for them means lecturing, hectoring, and otherwise abusing whites, lying to our faces about race, the more egregious lie the better, and daring us to tell the truth, so they can curse us, assault us, and have us arrested or professionally destroy us. "Dialogue" for blacks and those who think they are blacks, is simply yet another occasion for the exercise of black racial power, you know, the kind they always insist they don�t have.
Go ask Geraldine Ferraro what she thinks of Barack Hussein Obama�s kind of honest racial dialogue. When Ferraro spoke a home truth about Obama�s racial advantage, he immediately demanded she be fired as a Clinton campaign advisor, and she was.''
This is true; 'dialogue' really means monologues or harangues from the 'African-American community', in which we are made to sit like whipped schoolchildren and listen to the accusations and the abuse, and our only permitted response amounts to admitting our guilt and professing remorse. There IS no real dialogue, because, as Merriam-Webster defines dialogue, it involves two sides:
1: a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing
2 a: a conversation between two or more persons; also : a similar exchange between a person and something else (as a computer) b: an exchange of ideas and opinions 'organized a series of dialogues on human rights' c: a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution
There is no conversation; there is no 'exchange'; there is no movement toward a mutual resolution.
Unfortunately, I still see too many of the otherwise honest white people doing what Old Punk and Stix are doing: trying to prove their good faith by meeting blacks halfway, saying conciliatory, appeasing things. It's tempting to go into the patter about how some of one's best friends and favorite co-workers are black, or how one admires Sowell, Walter Williams, Tiger Woods, or other 'moderate' blacks. A bit of advice to those tempted to do this: it doesn't work. We see in the example of Old Punk's vitriolic commenters that it doesn't appease anyone. Why waste bandwidth or breath in a maneuver that always fails anyway?
Being defensive is a bad choice; if we dignify their accusations by treating them as legitimate, if we become defensive and self-justifying, this is only playing their game, and giving them further opening to attack, as we appear weak.
Around this time, inevitably someone says 'well, do you recommend we descend to their level, or that we go into attack mode?' Not necessarily. Each situation is somewhat different. I do think defensiveness is a bad choice which makes us more vulnerable. It shows that we care too much about their opinions and their name-calling. Once we stop caring so much, we are that much less vulnerable.
Another tack, which I see all too often on the 'conservative' side, is to point the finger back at the liberals and say 'but, but they're racist too! It isn't fair that they can be racist and get away with it."
We can see that tactic on display in the comment thread following this blog entry, which is about a discussion of 'racism' on the TV program ''The View".
''Only white people can be racist according to 'View� co-host Joy Behar. Also on the March 24 broadcast, both Behar and Whoopi Goldberg justified Barack Obama�s connection to Jeremiah Wright by pointing to Bush�s association with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and their many controversial remarks. It could be a valid point if Falwell or Robertson were Bush�s pastor for 20 years. Neither of them ever were.
After Elisabeth Hasselbeck labeled Reverend Wright "racist," Whoopi Goldberg jumped in and alluded to the late Reverend Jerry Falwell�s suggestion that God allowed the September 11 attacks because of secular forces in America. Whoopi asked Elisabeth if she should leave the Republican party because of that. Elisabeth noted that Falwell is not her spiritual adviser. Joy Behar then claimed that Robertson and Falwell are "spiritual advisers" to the Republican party.
Behar then essentially stated it is impossible for those in the "oppressed minority" (African Americans) to be racist. This is according to her college sociology professor.''
Sounds like Ms Behar had the same leftist sociology prof as I had; the difference was, I saw through the rhetoric, even though I was a liberal then, but Ms Behar didn't and still hasn't.
Judging by the extensive quotes from the show transcripts, the women on the show were at their shrill liberal worst, while the token ''conservative'', Elisabeth Hasselbeck, does not acquit herself too well. Of course, with several strident leftist harpies against one lone woman, the odds are not in her favor.
But please read the 'conservative' comments below the piece for examples of 'what not to say' in discussions like this. For example:
''Incredibly stupid people over on the view.
I think it actually insults black (or brown, or whatever) people to say they aren't capable of something. It's like don't worry 'bout nothing, just stay on the plantation and "we'll" take care of you.
Minorities, and women want to be treated as equals. And I wholeheartedly think they should. But as equals, they also must bear responsibilities for their actions. To not hold Obama, or any other minority, or woman, responsible for their actions, is to say they are "just not ready yet" to be equal.
So, using liberal logic, Obama is just not ready yet, to leave the plantation, and become President. (of course, on this I agree)"
This line of argument always blames the problem on 'liberalism', which is partly true, but somewhat of an evasion, because the problem is also with black people -- which is not a permitted thought to have, so conservatives like to blame it all on a political ideology, implying that if more people like Thomas Sowell were raised up as role models, voila, no more race problem.
It also resorts to the tired old retort that liberals are ''the real racists'' whereas conservatives want to help minorities by teaching them responsibility. This is just blame-shifting among whites. It's just pointing the finger back at the accuser and not addressing the root issues -- ultimately because of political correctness.
Nevertheless, the comments show some glimmers of reality, and it seems to show, yet again, that this debate over race is heating up, and that the heat may also create some light. Whether this current state of things will continue and increase during the election -- and I am convinced that the race issue will never go away during Obama's candidacy -- it may be that we will sink back into the status quo. Or it may be that more people will reach their limit of all this race-baiting and haranguing, and that attitudes will change. But if we only get halfway there, stuck in these evasive 'conservative' ideas about the issue, that will not suffice.
Blaming all the problems on 'liberalism' or even worse, just on the Democrats, will not do. It's an evasion, and another bow to political correctness. Sometimes half-truths are worse than outright lies, and this is what we have to guard against now; we can't let our fellow Americans become content with the half-truths and evasions that are now being resorted to in these discussions. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth will suffice.
However I recognize that the truth is too strong, sometimes, to be taken in anything but small doses.

Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnic Division, Liberalism, Mainstream Media, Media Bias, Political Correctness

This is no surprise to many people: the so-called 'McCain volunteer' who claimed she was robbed and assaulted by an Obama supporter has now apparently admitted the story was fabricated.
...According to Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard, Ashley Todd, 20, told investigators today that she "was not robbed and there was no 6'4" black male attacker."
Todd initially told police that she was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield Wednesday night and that the suspect began beating her after seeing a John McCain bumper sticker on her car.
Todd claimed that the mugger even cut a backwards letter "B" in her cheek.
But today investigators say Todd confessed that the attack never happened.''
On her MySpace profile (her page is now apparently private) she said:
"Lying is the most fun a girl can have."
And it appears that at least one other young woman thinks along similar lines:
Police Say Girl Lied About Racism Charges
Morgan claims she has been the target of racism at West Bend East High School. The 15-year-old said she�s been pushed down the stairs, had eggs thrown at her and has been called racial slurs.
Police arrested Morgan at her grandmother�s home Monday afternoon. They later booked her at the Washington County Juvenile Detention Center.
Police want the district attorney to charge her with obstructing an officer for lying to investigators.
The police chief said the investigation proves Morgan made the whole story up.''
Can we guess which story will be the most publicized and sensationalized? The MSM are already making hay with the Ashley Todd hoax story. It will be milked for all it is worth; there will be more pontifications about 'White racism' and generalizations made against not only McCain supporters, but Republicans, 'conservatives' in general, and of course Whitey.
And the fake hate crime accusations by the Morgan girl? I will be surprised if she really is prosecuted for lying to police.
The story will be forgotten or buried on a back page, while the Todd story will go on and on, at least until the election is over with.
Compare and contrast: when a White person commits a hoax or accuses a fictitious minority attacker of something --remember the 'runaway bride' story in 2005, in which she claimed to have been abducted and taken to New Mexico by Hispanic kidnapers?
Of course the media made the most of that, and the ''Hispanic community'' demanded apologies. But when a minority person perpetrates a 'hate crime' hoax (which happens not infrequently) the story fades away, and at worst, the hoax perpetrator gets a slap on the wrist or is treated as someone in need of 'help' and 'understanding'. Meanwhile the 'mainstream media' sweep the hate crime hoaxes under the rug, refusing to even look at the apparently growing phenomenon of fake 'hate crime' accusations.
And let's not forget Crystal Gail Mangum, who is still trying to cash in on her proven lies about the 'attack' by the Duke Lacrosse team members.
We know why minorities make up stories of ''hate crimes'' that never happened, or which they themseves perpetrated ('racist' graffiti, nooses, swastikas, threatening notes or whatever). They obviously relish the victimhood role, which is so central to the identity of minorities these days. They may profit by their false claims. They certainly get 15 minutes (or much more) of 'fame' and attention. They get sympathy. And the bonus is that they are furthering the idea that Whitey is always out to get them. Usually the fake 'hate crimes' elicit some kind of community 'demonstration' about 'stopping the hate' and the usual race-baiting speeches are made. It is all part of a kind of ritual, and it is meant to reinforce the whole minority victimhood 'narrative' and the idea of Whites as aggressive and hateful bigots.
Meantime, the media still refuse to talk about the pattern of hate hoaxes.
Thus the other obvious pattern here is that the biased media are anything but objective or even-handed when it comes to reporting these things. In fact, the old media are complicit in the PC hoaxes; they are part and parcel of the whole fraud, by reporting and lending credence to false accusations and patent hoaxes -- when the lies are perpetrated by favored groups.
Most hoaxsters of any type are probably attention seekers, drama queens, histrionic personalities, or just messed-up people.
And that is probably the story with this Todd female. Judging by what she discloses of herself on her MySpace page, she seems to be a girl with a lot of what are colloquially termed 'issues.'
Is she a real McCain supporter or a Republican? To me, her writings don't sound like what I would think of a 'conservative' young woman, but then again, being a conservative doesn't necessarily coincide with being a Republican.
Is there more to the Todd story than just a messed-up, immature young woman looking for attention? We don't know. If she made the whole story up, she should be charged and she should have the book thrown at her. I have no excuses to make for her; she is certainly not helping our side at all; people like her are a liability to us. But I have a feeling she will be made an example of by the media and the justice system, while the Morgan girl will be given a pass. If we really had any kind of equality, each would be treated with similar sternness.

Labels: Hate Crime, Hoaxes, Media Bias, Party Politics, Political Correctness

I have to take a break from some of the controversial subjects of the last few days, so how about a repeat of a corny joke you have probably all heard, in some form:
The Saudi Ambassador to the UN has just finished giving a speech, and walks out into the lobby where he meets his American counterpart. They shake hands and as they walk the Saudi says, "You know, I have just one question about what I have seen in America."
The American says "Well your Excellency, anything I can do to help you I will do."
The Saudi whispers "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there are Russians and Blacks and Asians, but never any Arabs. He is very upset. He doesn't understand why there are never any Arabs in Star Trek."
The American laughs and leans over and says, "That's because it takes place in the future."
This is all by way of an intro to the Star Trek weekend they have been having at NRO, of all places.
James Lileks has one of the better entries, of those I've read, at least, called A Conservative Trek.
I confess to having been a Star Trek fan -- that is, of the original series, not the later counterfeits of the same name. Like James Lileks, however, I was never a 'Trekkie' or even a 'Trekker' as some of the really serious fans insisted on calling themselves. I never went to a Star Trek convention or any sci-fi 'con' although I knew people who did.
In recent years, though, since I've returned to my conservative roots, to the traditional values under which we were all brought up back when, Trek has lost whatever luster it had in my eyes, mainly because I have become uncomfortably aware of the agenda being pushed in many of the Trek episodes. Nowadays, we see a leftist/multiculturalist agenda being pushed relentlessly in all our entertainment, but back in the late 60s, that trend was just beginning. Back then, there was entertainment that was actually not propaganda, but mere silly diversion and fun. But much of Star Trek, seen through the eyes of an awakened conservative, seems clumsily preachy, embarrassingly so. The 'one world' agenda: back when I was a teen, when this series first appeared, I thought, as most idealistic youngsters would, 'oh, wow, cool, we will all be one world where everybody gets along and works together!' As an adult, I see the folly of that, the impracticability.
And then the feminist agenda: women in space, as the equals of men! Or sort of equals; the original pilot episode had a female second-in-command, played by a dark-haired Majel Barrett; she was rather no-nonsense, not at all the miniskirted cutie like most of the female crew members in the later series.
And Star Trek was an early advocate of 'multiculturalism' or at least pluralism; one of each was represented in the crew. Of course the later spinoff series were much farther gone down that road: not only multiple nationalities of earthlings, but aliens galore. That's real multiracialism; why be 'species-ist'?
But as Lileks says in his entertaining piece,
Nevertheless, the best Trek was conservative: it was rooted in the unchanging nature of man, be they hooting hominids on the plains of Earth throwing rocks at prey, or civilized spacefarers Money, power, lust, war: These were the constants, and Star Trek knew they�d follow us to infinity and beyond. At best we could find enlightened, savvy ways to avoid the pointless fights. But some people only understand a photon torpedo up the dorsal vent port, and we�d best be prepared to deal with them. The Federation, after all, had something called General Order 24, which called for the total destruction of a planet�s surface if the civilization was considered a threat to the Federation. As Vader might have said: Impressive.''
I have to say I've noticed that, too; a number of the Trek episodes had very conservative messages. I guess society hadn't attained to the present level of liberal 'enlightenment.' In a number of episodes, Kirk argued for the necessity of aggression and force in fighting evil. Another episode with a perhaps inadvertently conservative message was 'The Enemy Within', in which Kirk, split into two 'selves' via a transporter malfunction, had to fight his evil self, while his 'good' self proved ineffectual to do so. It was acknowledged that the aggressive, violent side had to be integrated with the good, though weak side in order for him to be an effective leader. Our society needs that lesson right now.
Lileks also mentions episodes like 'Errand of Mercy' in which Kirk tries to rally the seemingly passive people of a planet against the marauding Klingons, but the people have 'evolved beyond' aggression and in fact evolved beyond those troublesome physical bodies. That sounds like a liberal fantasy.
And then Lileks mentions the episode 'City on the Edge of Forever', written by Harlan Ellison, in which Kirk has to let his sweetie die so she won't found a pacifist movement. When I was young, I thought his letting her walk out in front of a car was tragic and wrong, but now I'm less sure.
The multicultural agenda of the original Trek used to bother me as I became conservative, but now that I think about it, it actually gives us cause for hope. Here's why: if today's multiculturalists are successful, there would not be any separate races or nationalities in the 23rd century. We would, if their plans succeed, be all one homogeneous group of people: no Russians, no Americans, no Scotsmen, no Swahili-speaking Africans, no Irishmen. Just Earthlings. But since all these people exist in the Star Trek future -- minus the Arabs -- maybe we and our cultures will forestall this Tower of Babel disaster that is being engineered.
And if the Arabs aren't a part of The Federation, maybe that's a sign that separationism will have succeeded.
We can hope. That's the message of Star Trek.

Labels: Future, Media Bias, Multiculturalism, Popular Culture, Separationism

On a Free Republic thread about the deadly stampede by frenzied Walmart shoppers, post #8 asks why the media are using an incorrect picture to illustrate the story. The picture apparently being shown is (I believe) from a Target store, and it looks like a racially-mixed group of people, some White, some black, some of unidentifiable race. However, the correct picture of the site of the Walmart stampede shows a group which appears to be close to 100 percent black.
The poster asks why the media are using the wrong photo. Need we ask? It's all part of the media's campaign of deception and obfuscation in the name of political correctness.
The other incident of 'Black Friday' violence, which resulted in two people being shot dead in a Toys R Us store, is reported in the usual odd fashion of today's PC media; the race or ethnicity of the people involved is coyly avoided in the article. This lack of information usually leads me to conclude that the perpetrators were nonwhite. The media are never shy about telling us when a White person commits a crime.
Is it important to tell us the race or ethnicity of a criminal suspect? I say it is, especially when the suspect is still at large. But in countless cases I've seen reported on the TV news, a suspect will be described only by the type of clothing worn, and by sex. For instance, a 'male wearing dark-colored clothing' is a popular description of criminal suspects. If this person is at large, he is still a danger to others, and yet his arrest is made less likely by the lack of a clear description.
When this kind of thing first became accepted practice by the media, and presumably by law enforcement agencies, many skeptics denied that such a policy existed, saying that only paranoid 'bigots' would make an issue out of racially ID-ing suspects. But it's since been acknowledged by news media that they in fact avoid such racial identifiers out of a desire not to ''stigmatize members of ethnic communities unfairly."
So rather than ''stigmatize'' someone, heaven forbid, let's let criminals run free and possibly victimize other innocents. Innocent lives are not as important as the ''feelings'' or the ''self-esteem" of 'ethnic communities.'
As for these disturbing events among 'Black Friday' shoppers, if one can call stampeding mobs 'shoppers', what have we come to, that there can be so many people willing to regress to savage behavior in pursuit of ''stuff", such as big-screen plasma TVs and game systems?
Many other questions come to mind: why are people knocking down doors (literally, in the Wal-Mart incident) to obtain these high-ticket items? The very people involved are the people the media tell us are ''deprived'' in some way, unable to participate in America's prosperity. It looks to me as if they are doing better than many middle-income people, if they can afford these luxury items. And if the economy is so troubled, why do so many Americans seem to have so much disposable income? Are they living beyond their means, charging these items on maxed-out credit cards? I've often idly wondered this kind of thing. When I still lived in the Big Multicultural City, I often saw residents of a certain housing project. Supposedly these people were at the bottom of the economic totem pole, yet they had $200 shoes, gold chains, and designer label clothing. I saw virtually no one who looked poor or deprived. In my youth, there were people (Whites as well as other races) who looked truly poor, being inadequately clothed and shod. Now the 'poor' people seem quite middle-class. Even homeless people sometimes don't look completely down and out.
Still, we are told that we are in some kind of new 'Great Depression', or on the verge of such a crisis. Are we? You'd never know it by these berserk shoppers.
But the behavior of the Walmart shoppers is apparently causing many people to think 'naughty' politically incorrect thoughts, at least if we can judge by the comments at many of the newspaper web pages. The first link I provided above, from the New York Daily News, contained some rather over-the-top comments, at least by PC standards, and I would not be surprised if such comments are deleted, or if commenting is shut down, as usually happens when people go off the reservation and make ''bigoted'' comments. It's interesting to see that some people are speaking up and making connections that were unthinkable in some quarters until recently.
This article contains the usual psychobabble explanations for the savage behavior of the Walmart mob, and some commenters actually see through it.
The all-knowing 'experts' say that fear was behind the behavior:
A fear of being unable to afford gifts - given today's economic woes - may drive many consumers to shop competitively for bargains at dawn, say local psychologists and sociologists.
Many people abandon their normal behavior when caught up in the urge to snag discounted plasma HDTVs like those on sale Friday at Wal-Mart in Valley Stream.''
Leave it to psychologists to try to elicit sympathy for those who trampled a man to death.
Why on earth should anybody ''fear'' not being able to buy an HDTV? It makes sense to fear not being able to buy food, or not being able to provide shelter for ourselves or our families, or not being able to get crucial medical care. Those wants are grounds for fear and distress, or at least concern. But ''fear" of not being able to buy pricey luxury gifts or even 'presents' for oneself? That's just greed and lust. And it is not something we should empathize with.
The exasperating thing about those who are so avid to buy Chinese-made junk because it's cheaper is that we Americans in general are not a frugal people, and we are not a deprived people. I suppose if this country were like the old Soviet Union, in which people told of having to stand in line for hours to get a simple loaf of bread, the desperation to 'get stuff' might be somewhat understandable. But as of now, at least, these frenzied bargain-hunters, who will stay up all night to get in a line to buy TVs or game systems, are not needy or hungry or desperate. They don't ''need'' these things at all.
We are a spoiled, self-indulgent, acquisitive people when you come right down to it.
Our parents and grandparents in many cases knew real want, and they knew the value of a dollar. Most of us today have never known hunger (except when on a self-imposed diet) or want. There's no excuse for Americans to act like starving people fighting over a loaf of bread.
Not all of us individually are guilty of these things, but as a society, it's true of us.
It's tempting to blame these trends on the media, and advertising. They do play a huge part in creating lusts in people for these luxury items and what used to be called 'status symbols.' Or some blame Walmart for their irresponsibility in enticing people to these dog-eat-dog shopping frenzies, and for failing to hire sufficient security and other staff to deal with rampaging hordes of 'shoppers'. Some say we should not blame Walmart. I say there is blame to go around. People of good character would not be engaging in this kind of savage behavior in quest of a "cheap'' $800 TV, but retailers should realize they are courting disaster by catering to the worst instincts of some people. Most people might be able to behave in a civlized and restrained way at these sales. Others, unfortunately, are not, and retailers surely know their customers. Walmart stores in certain areas are notorious for the kind of underclass clientele they attract and cater to. True, many middle-class people are bargain-hunters but most know to stay away from such places because of the kinds of customers who throng such stores. For that reason (and because I like quality, non-Chinese made merchandise) I shun Walmart.
So Walmart was irresponsible, but ultimately the stampeding hordes are the guilty ones. No individual blame can be affixed in a situation like the Walmart one; a number of people apparently trampled the poor man who died; no one can say who was most responsible, but it appears that there was a general callousness and indifference to his life and safety on the part of all the crazed shoppers. So they bear a collective responsibility and guilt -- which I doubt will trouble any of them. Reports said they were resentful and angry at being asked to leave when the injured and dying man was being aided by the paramedics. Getting their loot was uppermost in their minds. This is sad, and appalling.
Was this just an isolated incident? Unfortunately, probably not. Was it a harbinger of what is to come? I hope not, but I fear it may be, as we descend into Third World status in this country.
Personally I am doing more online shopping or giving gift cards, rather than descend into the chaos of shopping malls at Christmastime.

Labels: Consumer Society, Crime, Media Bias, Social Change, Societal Decay