Category Archives: Social Issues
Tolerance does not usher in some tolerant anarchy in which we learn to tolerate all things. Rather tolerance is a finite substance. It can only be allocated to so many places. While a society changes, human beings do not fundamentally change. They remain creatures of habit, bound to the poles of things that they like and dislike, the people that they look up to and look down on.
The balance of tolerance and intolerance always remains the same no matter how progressive a society becomes. A tolerant society allocates its intolerance differently. There is no such thing as a universally tolerant society. Only a society that tolerates different things. A tolerant society does not cease being bigoted. It is bigoted in different ways.
America today tolerates different things. It tolerates little boys dressing up as little girls at school, but not little boys pointing pencils and making machine gun noises on the playground.
The little boy whose mother dressed him up in girlish clothes once used to be a figure of contempt while the little boy pretending to be a marine was the future of the nation. Now the boy in the dress is the future of the nation having joined an identity group and entirely new gender by virtue of his mother’s Münchausen-syndrome-by-proxy and the aspiring little marine is suspected of one day trading in his sharpened pencil for one of those weapons of war as soon as the next gun show comes to town.
The Duke of Wellington once said that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton. What battles will the boys playing on the playgrounds where dodgeball is banned and finger guns are a crime win and what sort of nation will they be fighting to protect?
The average school shooter is closer to the boy in the dress than the aspiring marine, but the paranoia over school shootings isn’t really about profiles, it’s about personalities. It’s easier to dump the blame for all those school shootings onto masculinity’s already reviled shoulders than to examine the premises. And mental shortcuts that speed along highways of prejudice to bring us to the town of preconceived notions are the essence of intolerance.
The trouble with tolerance is that there is always someone deciding what to tolerate. It is a natural process for individuals, but a dangerous one for governments and institutions.
In one of George Washington’s most famous letters, he wrote to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport that, “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.”
The letter is widely quoted, including on a site that bills itself as “Tolerance.org”, mainly for its more famous quote of, “the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance”. But the tolerant quoters miss the point.
George Washington was not advocating transforming the United States government into an arbiter of tolerance in order to fight against bigotry; he was decrying the very notion that the government should act to impose the condescension of tolerance on some perceived inferior classes.
Tolerance is arrogant. A free society does not tolerate people, it allows them to live their own values. And a tolerant society is not free. It is a dictatorship of virtue that is intolerant toward established values in order to better tolerate formerly intolerable values. A free society does not tell people of any religion or no religion what to believe. A tolerant society forces them all to pay for abortions because its dictators of virtue have decided that the time has come to teach this lesson in tolerance.
An open society finds wisdom in its own uncertainty. A tolerant society, like a teenager, is certain that it already knows all the answers and lacks only the means of imposing them on others. It confuses its destruction of the past with progress and its sense of insecurity with righteousness.
To the tolerant, intolerance is the most powerful act possible. They solve problems by refusing to tolerate their root causes. School shootings are carried out with guns and so the administrative denizens of the gun-free zones run campaigns of intolerance toward the physical existence of guns, the owners of guns, the manufacturers of guns, the civil rights groups that defend gun ownership and eventually toward John Puckle, Samuel Colt, John Moses Browning and the 82nd element in the periodic table.
None of this accomplishes a single practical thing, but it is an assertion of values, not of functions. The paranoid mindset that cracks down on little boys who chew pop tarts into deadly shapes, little boys who point pencils and fingers at each other, is not out to stop school shootings, but is struggling to assert the intolerance of its tolerant value system over the intangible root of violence.
It’s not about preventing school shootings, but about asserting a value system in which there is no place for the aspiring marine, unless he’s handing out food to starving children in Africa in a relief operation, serving as a model of gay marriage to rural America or engaging in some other approved, but non-violent activity.
To understand the NRA’s argument about the moral value of a gun deriving from the moral value of the wielder would require a worldview that is more willing to accept a continuum of shades, rather than criminalizing pencils and pop tarts for guilt by geometric association. A free society could do that, but a tolerant society, in which everything must be assigned an unchanging value to determine whether it will be tolerated and enforced or not tolerated and outlawed, cannot.
A tolerant society is as rigidly moralistic as the most stereotypical band of puritans. It is never at ease unless it has assigned an absolute moral value to every object in its world, no matter how petty, until it represents either good or evil. If good, it must be mandated. If evil, it must be regulated. And everything that is not good, must by exclusion be evil. Everything that does not lead to greater tolerance must be intolerable.
The FDA is proposing to regulate caffeine. The EPA is regulating carbon emission and encouraging states to tax the rain. Schools are suspending students for the abstract depiction of guns on such a symbolic level that Picasso would have trouble recognizing them. There is something medieval about such a compulsive need to impose a complete moral order on every aspect of one’s environment.
These policies take place in the real world and in response to assertions of real threats, but they are largely assertions of values. The debates over them tap into a clash of worldviews. That is as true of Newtown as it is of Boston. The same tolerant liberalism that can see deadly menace in a pencil or a pop tart, is blind to the lethal threat of a Chechen Islamist. If a gun is innately evil, then a member of a minority group, especially a persecuted one, is innately good. The group certainly remains above reproach.
The arrogance of tolerance does not allow for ambiguity. There is no room for guns in schools or profiling of terrorists. Instead all guns are bad and all Muslims are good. In the real world, it may take bad guns to stop good Muslims, but the system just doubles down on encouraging students to recite the Islamic declaration of faith while suspending them for chewing their pop tarts the wrong way.
Liberal values are at odds with reality and they are not about to let reality win. In their more tolerant nation, there is more room than ever for little boys who dream of one day setting off pressure cooker bombs at public events in the name of their religion, but very little room for little boys dreaming of being the ones to stop them.
As a society we have come to celebrate the helplessness of victimhood and the empowerment of “speaking out” as the single most meaningful act to be found in a society that has become all talk. The new heroism is the assertion of some marginal identity, rather than the defense of a society in which all identities can exist. That is the difference between freedom and tolerance.
The little boy in a dress has put on the uniform of tolerance while the little boy making rat tat noises with a pencil is showing strong signs of playing for the wrong team. The wrong team is the one that solves problems by shooting people, rather than lawyering them to death or writing denunciations of them to the tolerance department of diversity and othering.
The complainer is the hero and the doer is the villain. Reporters and lawyers are the heroes because they are the arbiters of tolerance. Soldiers and police officers are the gun-happy villains because they respond to realities, rather than identities. They unthinkingly shoot without understanding the subtext. A free society is practical. It acts in its own defense. A tolerant society acts to assert its values. The former fights terrorists and murderers, while the latter lets them go to show off its tolerant values.
A free society teaches little boys that the highest value is to die in defense of others. A tolerant society teaches them that it is better to die as recognized victims than to become the aggressor and lose the moral high ground.
This is the clash of values that holds true on the playground and on the battlefield of war. On the playground, little boys are suspended for waving around pencils and on the battlefield, soldiers are ordered not to defend themselves so that their country can win the hearts and minds of the locals in the endless Afghan Valentine’s Day of COIN that has stacked up a horrifying toll of bodies.
In their cities, men and women are told to be tolerant, to extend every courtesy and to suspect nothing of the friendly Islamists in their neighborhoods. It is better to be blown up as a tolerant society, they are told, than to point the pop tart of intolerance on the great playground of the nanny state.
However, society did have a tool that picked up where laws left off – shame.
Though not codified or written down, society had their own set of unspoken rules or laws called “standards” and if you violated these social standards you would be shamed and scorned. This shame would compel you to behave appropriately and was a vital and necessary component of society in order for it to survive and succeed.
However, shame is very interesting in that it’s very much like “paying taxes” or “having to work for a living.” It’s a fact of life nobody likes. You step out of line you may not go to jail, but you will be shamed by society. Therefore, you don’t get to do whatever you want to do all willy nilly. However, also like paying taxes and having to work for a living, shame can be used as a political tool. Specifically, when it comes to a democracy, an amoral political party can ignore the importance shame plays in society, capitalize on childish-mentalities of the lesser members of the electorate, and promise a world with no shame.
You don’t want to work? Fine! We’ll tax other undeserving people to finance your life.
You don’t want to pay taxes? Fine! We’ll make a villainized group pay them for you!
You don’t want shame? Fine! We’ll launch an all out assault on traditional historical standards, the country’s historical culture, and institute moral relativism.
In short, promising the electorate the elimination of shame is nothing more than bribing them. However unlike welfare, medicare or EBT cards, it’s a psychological benefit, not a financial one. And thus, just as sure as leftist parties across the world promise their voters other people’s money, they also do their best to eliminate shame.
We see this everyday. The idiot who couldn’t do basic math and bought a house he couldn’t afford is a “victim.” The unemployed Music Therapy major, living at home is “just down on his luck.” And there is no better example of the elimination of shame as we replace military veterans with “single moms” as our nation’s greatest hero. So successful is the left that the political and social environment is now so hostile that it’s now “shameful to shame.” If you dare criticize somebody for failing to meet a standard you are the one that is shamed. You are accused of being rude. Your target of shaming is even arrogant and entitled, yelling “HOW DARE YOU JUDGE ME!!!” And if your target of shame happens to be in a “victim class” you are immediately called an “ist” (even though you are criticizing their actions and not their race, ethnicity, sex, etc. etc.).
Additionally, since shaming by its nature is a public or publicized action (i.e. – you can’t secretly shame someone) you are immediately alienated and ostracized from society. Dare you demand EBT cards be the size of a poster for all to see on a blog or a forum, employers will no longer hire you. Dare you criticize illegal immigration and are consequently accused of racism, you cannot run for public office. And dare you criticize single parenthood, you can forget finding a date. In short we have fully eliminated shaming from society and all the benefits (personal responsibility being the key one) that came with it.
Naturally, a shameless society will fail. You can make all the laws you want, but without the social norms and mores that force people to be self-reliant, responsible, and respectful units of society, those individual units will revert to their basic human instinct and decay into shameless and parasitical ones. However, there is a consequence to society failing. Specifically, those people who are vested in society and are moral, are going to lose the only thing that matters to them – society. And while a high percentage of them may still be too intimidated or brainwashed to speak out, bluntly and truthfully, a certain percentage of people will realize the cost is too great and start shaming again. Specifically, those people who have nothing left to lose.
Understand that the reason most people don’t speak out against and shame the social atrocities occurring in the US is because they have too much at risk. They have a house, they have a family, they have a career. Their entire lives have been built within this system and are thus dependent on it. And dare they get out of line, and dare they publicly shame the wrong group, the political and social cost for them daring to point out the emperor has no clothes is that they will lose it all. An HR nazi will be auditing your facebook posts. Your hiring manager will get a complaint. An Adria Richards will narc on you. Careers in America are so fragile and employers so spineless, you dare don’t rock the societal boat with shaming. You watch that recent immigrant use her EBT card at your expense and you shut up and like it.
But what if you’re part of a group with nothing left to lose? What if you’re young, endebted by previous generations to the tune of $225,000, facing a lousy job market, and no future? What if you’re part of a group that is just assumed to have benefits and privileges when that is not the case, and you’re constantly accused of bigotry and being part of a “patriarchy?” Oh, and by the way, what if a mental illness has infected the half of society you SHOULD have gotten the greatest joy out of in life and instead corrupted and spoiled them leaving you little-to-no shot in life at marriage of family? What if your future was just plain taken away?
Why you’d be the typical young man in America today.
And it is here where shame is not only going to have a triumphant return, but it is already back in full force.
I hate to inform all the various political groups, victim groups, protected classes, sacrosanct faux heroes and other shameless classes the left has formed, but your strategy to “shame the shamers” won’t work on this group of people. And the reason why is that your strategy hinges on one thing – that there would be an economic cost inflicted on anybody who dares to shame. But if they have no money, no job, no career, no hope, and no future, there’s nothing you can take from them. Worst still, as they slowly start to wake up and realize just how much your anti-shaming campaign has screwed up society, they will blame you (rightly so) for stealing and destroying their futures. And with nothing left to do and at no cost to them, shaming you and your ideological adherents is going to become their favorite hobby.
Political courage my ass, Obama’s just looking to expand his base.
Via NBC News:
President Barack Obama on Monday called for lawmakers in Washington to muster the “political courage” to pass comprehensive immigration reform that he can sign into law “as soon as possible.”
“We are making progress but we’ve got to finish the job,” Obama said at a naturalization ceremony for 28 new Americans at the White House.
The White House has offered support to the efforts of bipartisan lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have been working behind closed doors to craft reform legislation.
Obama said that he expects a bill to be put forward and for debate on the draft legislation to begin next month.
Noting past attempts to address the nation’s immigration issues, the president said the time for merely studying the problem is over.
“We’ve all proposed solutions, we’ve got a lot of white papers and studies,” he said. “We’ve just got – at this point – to work up the political courage to do what’s required to be done.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Found at 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
It is truly said that “America is so rich our poor people are obese.” That seems to grow more true by the moment for the poor, low-information eaters teetering among us on wobbling platform heels or swooping past us in those little electric carts in the supermarkets.
Conversely is also said that “you can never be to rich or too thin.” To confirm that the rich among us are always fooling around with their intake in a binge/purge self-fornication festival. On the one hand many among our rich of pallor have chosen to feed on the lard-laden excrement doled out daily by the current administration and are lining up to by more. On the other hand it would seem that the same wan affluent are lining up to buy food that is so refined and uptight that it has been entirely stripped of what any other culture, any other era, would recognize as… well… food itself. So deep is the affluent American’s longing for thin that we have now arrived at “food free food.”
It is no surprise to anyone paying attention to the long and unwinding national nutrition neurosis that we need to have some new mountain of diet bullshit to climb every five years of so.
Mount Lo-Fat No-Fat.
Mount Creamy No-Fat.
Yes, it is a libidinal landscape made of featureless false and phony foods. It is a dietary desert of drifting sans. Sans lactose. Sans meat. Sans chicken. Sans land animal. Sans face. Salt free. Sugar free. Gluten free. And, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever will be, Kosher.
Up and up the bullshit steams in a never ending inward spinning gyre of dietary dreck and nutritional nuttiness so complicated and so intertwined in morality and self-image that there seems to be, at times, nothing left to eat in a country that has more food per capita than any other nation in the history of the world. To quote that great American philosopher, Chester A. Riley, “What a revoltin’ development this is.”
It now seems to be the case that the food fetish factories of the world, in an effort to separate the American rich from their extra money, have pushed the pedal to the metal now that it is clear the American dollar is about to go the way of the Zimbabwe dollar. Just last month I noticed the store in my neighborhood was selling bags of crispy kelp flakes. That’s right. Kelp aka “Seaweed.” A bag of these unfrosted flakes weighing in at less than an ounce was being offered up “on sale” for $4.99. A quick bit of grocery store math tells you that some company in collusion with the store seemed to feel it could retail its product for $60 a pound. Sixty smackers a pound. For…. Kelp aka “Seaweed.” Weed from the sea….. An offer beyond bogglement.
But I only wandered in that brave new kelpflaked world beyond bogglement for a bit before I came across, just this afternoon, a new product that offered me even less food for more money. It was something called “Crispibread” and its selling points were proudly displayed on the box:
There you have it. To say this food is “vegan” (as it does) is to underestimate its nothingness. Free of nuts. Free of soy. Free of gluten, wheat, dairy, eggs, and that evil life form, yeast. Free of it all. Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free of food at last!
Our long national nightmare is over.
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Posted on | January 21, 2013
Bottom line up front: “XX” != ” XY”.
Anybody who thinks that the moral fiber of the United States has been diminished since feminism and the sexual revolution disgraced our shores can find a contemporary example of the disease here, emphasis mine:
Start to complain about your preschooler adopting gentlemanly behavior and you quickly discover how out of step you are with the rest of the world. Almost everyone I mention it to thinks it’s lovely and sweet. What’s the harm in teaching little boys to respect little girls?
The implication, of course, is that I’m overreacting, and as a parent, I’ll admit to being prone to the occasional bout of hypersensitivity. For months, I grumbled that the inappropriately breathy tone of Cinderella on Emmett’s LeapFrog Princess laptop was warping a generation of impressionable young minds.
But I don’t think it’s an overreaction to resent the fact that your son is being given an extra set of rules to follow simply because he’s a boy. His behavior, already constrained by a series of societal norms, now has additional restrictions. Worse than that, he’s actively being taught to treat girls differently, something I thought we all agreed to stop doing, like, three decades ago. That the concept of selective privilege has been introduced in preschool of all places — the inner sanctum of fair play, the high temple of taking turns — is mind-boggling to me. How can you preach the ethos of sharing at the dramatic play center and ignore it 20 feet away at the toilet?
Yet as much as this double standard offends me as a mom, it’s nothing compared with how much it infuriates me as a feminist. Forty years after the tender, sweet, young thing in “Free to Be You and Me” gets eaten by a pack of hungry tigers after asserting that ladies should go first, we are still insisting on empty courtesies that instill in women a sense of entitlement for meaningless things. Many women see gallantry as one of the benefits of their sex; I see it as one of its consolations.
As we peer into the wreckage of our culture, wondering how we went from greatness to corruption, we need to point to the Lynn Messinas as the flies in the soup. Thanks to the internet, we can underscore just how false your ideas are Messina, and share some information about the origins of your jacked-up thinking.
This ‘notion of rules’ and sense of ’treating girls differently’ does not end in a ‘sense of entitlement for meaningless things’, as events in Aurora tragically underscored. Without doing a thorough survey, how many of the recent spate of atrocities were undertaken by men who’d enjoyed a stable family life? How many featured a father who, understanding traditional values as pillars of strength rather than the bars of a prison, led the family in traditional roles of worship, character development, and masculine nurturing? I’d fall well short of connecting dots on anything here. I’m not making any correlation-equals-causation argument. Rather, I’m pointing out that the fundamentally good things Messina rejects are not, themselves, apparent drivers for evil at Newtown, Aurora, VA Tech, and so on.
Furthermore, if you ever want to develop the kind of men you need when the fertilizer truly hits the air circulator, you had better read every word Messina writes and proceed to do the opposite as parents. Denouncing the sort of idiocy she seems to encourage is among the minor reasons I blog at all. We, as a culture, need to stand up and oppose people that are throwing Western Civilization under the bus. They seem comfortable making room, not only for abortion, but for the kind of barbaric cultures that can genitally mutilate girls and then dress them in a bags when grown. If Messina was worthy of the attention, one should like to drop her somewhere in Asia for a year or so, as sort of a “homeland appreciation tour”.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Nowadays the first step to take after a school shooting, far from mourning or otherwise feeling sorry for the families whose children were killed by a maniac, is calling for new and immediate restrictions on gun ownership.
The second step is insisting that there must be some external reason why this wonderful, loving 20-year-old would commit such an atrocious crime. He must have been driven to it by society’s unrealistic expectations, our culture of violence, or something else. Certainly it couldn’t be that Adam Lanza was the problem, that he fully understood what he was doing and didn’t care.
Many seem to believe otherwise, though. They act as if it’s our collective duty to find out exactly why everyone—with the exception of Adam Lanza—is responsible for the massacre so we may change our ways and become a model society of enlightened wimps. People and organizations are taking ridiculous lengths to ensure that they don’t offend anyone’s delicate sensibilities for the next few weeks.
Read the entire article at Taki Magazine:
German pensioners are being sent to care homes in Eastern Europe and Asia in what has been described as an ‘inhumane deportation.’ Rising numbers of the elderly and sick are moved overseas for long-term care because of sky-high costs at home.
UK DAILY MAIL Some private healthcare providers are even building homes overseas, while state insurers are also investigating whether they can care for their clients abroad. Experts describe a time bomb’ of increasing numbers unable to afford the growing costs of retirement homes. (Of course not, all the money goes into welfare payments for Muslim parasites)
And they say the situation should be a warning to Britain, where rising numbers of pensioners are forced to sell their homes to pay for care. The Sozialverband Deutschland (VdK), a socio-political advisory group, said the fact that many Germans were unable to afford the costs of a retirement home in their own country was a huge ‘alarm signal’.
‘We simply cannot let those people, who built Germany up to be what it is, be deported,’ VdK’s president Ulrike Mascher told The Guardian. ‘It is inhumane.’
Researchers found an estimated 7,146 German pensioners living in retirement homes in Hungary in 2011. More than 3,000 were in the Czech Republic and more than 600 in Slovakia. There were also unknown numbers in Spain, Greece and the Ukraine, as well as Thailand and the Philippines.
According to Germany’s federal bureau of statistics, more than 400,000 senior citizens cannot afford a German retirement home, a figure growing by around 5 per cent a year. This is because many are living for longer while their pensions are stagnating. (Yet welfare benefits for Muslims are growing)
Gatestone The controversial book titled “Germany Does Away With Itself,” a best-seller, authored by 65-year-old Thilo Sarrazin, a prominent German banker who is also a long-time member of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), has outraged the German political elite, who abhor Sarrazin’s audacity to question the status quo of German multiculturalism.
Excerpts from the book, which is written in a highly confrontational style, include the following:
“In every European country, due to their low participation in the labor market and high claim on state welfare benefits, Muslim migrants cost the state more than they generate in added economic value. In terms of culture and civilization, their notions of society and values are a step backwards.”
“No other religion in Europe is so demanding and no other migration group depends so much on the social welfare state and is so much connected to criminality.”
“Most of the cultural and economic problems [in Germany] are concentrated in a group of the five to six million immigrants from Muslim countries.”
“I do not want my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to live in a mostly Muslim country where Turkish and Arabic are widely spoken, women wear headscarves and the day’s rhythm is determined by the call of the muezzin.”
“If the birthrate of migrants remains higher than that of the indigenous population, within a few generations, the migrants will take over the state and society.”
Wanted: a Winston Churchill for the culture war
Published in: Melanie’s blog
The story sounds just too idiotic and outrageous to be true. A Rotherham couple, by all accounts exemplary foster parents for nearly seven years, took on two children and a baby in an emergency placement.
Eight weeks later, social workers came and took the children away — despite the fact that they were thriving — on the grounds that because the couple belonged to the UK Independence Party this was not ‘the right cultural match’.
Astonishingly, the official in charge is still unrepentant. Joyce Thacker, the council’s director of children and young people’s services, has said that the children, who were from ‘EU migrant backgrounds’, had been removed to protect their ‘cultural and ethnic needs’ from UKIP’s ‘strong views’ and apparent ‘opposition to multiculturalism’.
This is as ludicrous and illogical as it is sinister.
This apparently splendid couple have been treated as criminals merely because social workers disapproved of their political views — which happen to be shared, incidentally, by millions of fellow citizens. This is the kind of behaviour we associate with a totalitarian state.
The clear implication is that they were racists. But there is nothing racist about opposing multiculturalism. Indeed, many immigrants themselves oppose it. To damn this couple in this way is an appalling smear.
In any event, this was merely a short-term emergency foster placement. These children clearly needed as a matter of urgency a safe and loving environment — which by all accounts this couple gave them.
Ms Thacker said: ‘I have to think about how sensitive I am being to those children.’ Is this woman for real? Clearly, she is actually doing them harm by putting ideological dogma above the children’s own needs.
The whole thing sounds beyond parody. But, alas, this goes far wider and deeper than this one incident.
In the early Nineties, I unearthed what it is no exaggeration to say was a climate of totalitarianism in social-work training.
Anti-racist zealots had captured the social workers’ training body, and built into the social-work diploma the explicit assumption that society was fundamentally racist and oppressive.
What followed was an utterly chilling degree of intimidation and thought control. Blameless social work students were forced in tears to ‘confess’ to their own racism; some failed to qualify unless they identified racist attitudes even where none existed.
These and other politically correct dogma, and the requirement to enforce them, remain stamped into social-work culture like the name of Blackpool in a stick of rock.
As a result, the needs of vulnerable children and other social-work clients have been junked in favour of the overriding requirement to impose an ideological view of the world in which minorities can do no wrong while the majority can do no right.
Over the years, this has given rise to one horror story after another. Twelve years ago, an eight-year-old Ivorian child, Victoria Climbié, was tortured and murdered by her guardians under the noses of social workers who believed such behaviour had to be respected as part of African culture.
In the early Nineties, Islington council was revealed to have ignored the systematic sexual abuse and prostitution of children in its care because it was terrified of being called racist or homophobic if it disciplined black or gay staff perpetrating such crimes.
In Rotherham itself, the sickening sexual enslavement of under-age white girls by organised prostitution and pimping rings was largely ignored for more than two decades, in part because the abusers came overwhelmingly from Pakistani Muslim backgrounds.
And for years, would-be adoptive parents have been turned down by social workers because they are deemed to be too white, too middle class or in some other way fall foul of the politically correct inquisition.
All this goes far wider and deeper even than the failings of public sector professionals.
The grip of the Left on our culture has meant not just that many perfectly reasonable things are now deemed to be unsayable in civilised society.
Worse still, since political correctness stands truth and lies on their heads, people are vilified as extremists or bigots simply for telling the truth, connecting to reality or standing up for right over wrong.
Let us be clear: the claim that it is racist to oppose multiculturalism is the opposite of the truth. This is because multiculturalism does not, as is so often mistakenly believed, mean being tolerant of other cultures. It is a creed which holds instead that no one culture can trump any other.
That means you can’t uphold human rights, equality for women or freedom of religious belief over cultures that don’t uphold these values.
So multiculturalism inescapably involves abandoning certain ethnic minorities to violence, inequality and persecution. And that is truly racist.
Clearly, this row is an electoral gift to UKIP, coming as it does just days before the Rotherham by-election. And now it has spawned another similar accusation that a UKIP member was barred from volunteering for the charity Barnardo’s.
Whether this is all an amazing coincidence of timing, or whether UKIP sympathisers are deliberately leaking the stories at the moment they will gain most attention, the issue at the heart of this controversy is all too real.
For what it illuminates is nothing less than our ongoing culture war, in which political correctness — which should really be called cultural Marxism — is being used by the Left to revolutionise society by undermining and subverting its core beliefs.
So, fundamental values embodied in issues such as immigration, national identity, marriage and family and many others are under systematic assault, while all who seek to defend them are vilified as bigots, swivel-eyed extremists and lunatics.
This has not been achieved by any one organisation imbued with mythical and conspiratorial powers. It has occurred over decades as a result of two main factors.
The first was the steady rise into power, across the universities, media, professions, political parties and civil service, of those whose opinions were shaped in the Sixties and Seventies by the New Left, which believed in the cultural transformation of society.
The second was the demoralisation of the institutions which should have defended our culture — in particular, the Church and the governing class, which had become convinced of their own and their country’s inevitable decline.
The result was what far-Leftists have called ‘the long march through the institutions’ — which all fell like dominoes.
Since this culture war has been fanatically prosecuted by the Labour Party — which consigns anyone who commits a politically incorrect heresy to the third circle of hell — Ed Miliband’s condemnation of Rotherham’s Labour council is the most arrant hypocrisy.
But the real problem is that David Cameron, in his obsession with rebranding the Tories, has not only failed to recognise that fighting the culture war is the great conservative cause of our time, but has even positioned himself on the wrong side.
Recent figures have shown that under Mr Cameron even more Labour ‘cronies’ are being appointed to quangos and charities than under the last Labour government.
And in 2006 he called UKIP ‘a bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’ — thus helping legitimise the kind of demonisation that has emerged in Rotherham.
In the wake of this row, Downing Street said the Prime Minister had not intended people to understand that all UKIP members were racist. ‘Not all’, eh? Well that’s nice of him! Talk about missing the point.
What’s needed is not just root and branch reform of social-work training. It’s a leader who will halt this onslaught on Britain’s core values and its terrifying descent into cultural tyranny. We need nothing less than a Winston Churchill for the culture war.
From Melanie Phillips: http://melaniephillips.com/wanted-a-winston-churchill-for-the-culture-warhttp
Bad News! These rules will also kill old folks. But don’t take that from me, ask a doctor, like Milton Wolf
This is the vicious cycle of big government: Institute top-down, central planning to solve problems, real or imagined. Blame its failures on the greed of others. Institute more top-down, central planning to address those problems, real or imagined. Repeat.
Here’s the government’s latest assault on patients: Medicare fines over hospitals’ readmitted patients.
As of Monday, Medicare will start fining hospitals that have too many patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge due to complications. The penalties are part of a broader push under President Barack Obama’s health care law to improve quality while also trying to save taxpayers money.
Sounds great. What could possibly go wrong?
As one central planner put it:
If General Motors and Toyota issue warranties for their vehicles, hospitals should have some similar obligation when a patient gets a new knee or a stent to relieve a blocked artery, Santa contends. “People go to the hospital to get their problem solved, not to have to come back,” he said.
Weak analogy. Would you hold GM or Toyota responsible if someone drove their new car off the lot and then crashed it because they were driving recklessly? Oh, but patients always follow their doctors’ advice, you say? Uh huh.
But setting aside the obvious structural flaw of this plan that punishes hospitals for outcomes that are beyond their control, consider the incentives it creates. The government is now incentivizing hospitals to deny care.
No two patients are the same. Some are just sicker than others. Some will need more hospitalizations no matter how excellent their care is. Under this new plan, hospitals are incentivized to avoid the sickest patients because they’ll have a higher likelihood of bouncing back and triggering the fines. You better hope your mom isn’t one of them.
And if your mom does get sick again after a recent hospitalization, the government has just created a powerful incentive for the hospital to deny her readmission. Good luck with that.
Scary stuff to ponder, both my parents are on Medicare, the last thing they need, or that I need for that matter, is to have that extra worry when they get sick. More at Forbes
The Obama administration’s latest target for health care cost control is Medicare hospital re-admissions. Nearly 20% of Medicare patients discharged from a hospital require re-hospitalization within 30 days, costing the government $17 billion per year. The federal government regards many of these re-admissions as “avoidable” wasteful spending. Under ObamaCare, the government has begun imposing financial penalties on hospitals deemed to be readmitting too many Medicare patients within 30 days for pneumonia, heart failure, or myocardial infarct (heart attack). The presumption is that the hospitals didn’t provide proper care initially or didn’t assure appropriate post-hospital care.
Last month, the federal government announced the first round of penalties. To many experts’ surprise, the list included some of the nation’s top hospitals including Massachusetts General Hospital (ranked #1 in the latest US News report), Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, and University of Michigan Hospital. Over 2200 hospitals across the country were penalized.
In response, hospitals will undoubtedly seek to improve any truly substandard patient care. But many hospitals may also be tempted to game the system to improve their readmission statistics.
There’s already worrisome precedent for such gaming. A recent article in Health Affairs reported a sharp rise in hospitals transferring sick ER patients to short-term “observation” beds (for up to 72 hours sometimes), which don’t count as true hospital admissions. This rise coincided with Medicare payment rules aimed at reducing hospital admissions. Hospital admissions fell, but patients received lower levels of care and likely incurred greater out-of-pocket expenses.
The ObamaCare rules will also pressure doctors to delay re-admissions. Dr. Shabbir Hossain described caring for a woman as an outpatient whose congestive heart failure recurred shortly after hospital discharge. Despite his best efforts, her condition deteriorated daily. He admitted breathing “a sigh of relief” when he got her safely past the 30-day “clock,” which meant the local hospital would be more willing to re-admit her.
Much more at the link, and it will scare you. Odd, Liberals have often decried the role that cost plays in health care, they loathe “greedy” insurance companies that consider cost, yet, ObamaCare has made that worse than ever, and in universal health care, which many Libs long for, there IS no option other than government care. I guess it is OK with the Left if the government pulls the plug on you to save money.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
According to the federal government, only 15% of Americans turn to it for help during the hard times it creates. Clearly this means Big Government’s work is not done:
More Americans rely on their families for assistance than the government, so federal officials have undertaken an effort to help people to apply for federal assistance.
“Given that only 15 percent of you turn to government assistance in tough times, we want to make sure you know about benefits that could help you,” USA.gov announced today. The ”government made easy’ website has created a “help for difficult financial times” page for people to learn more about the programs.
The site conveniently makes it much easier to help yourself to other people’s moneythan it is to find a job with Obama’s boot on the neck of the private sector.
Only in the world of bureaucrats could the 15% figure pass the laugh test, when Obama has that many on food stamps alone, and federal programs to redistributewealth are beyond number. Once again we see that math is not our socialist rulers’ forte.
On tips from J, Bob Roberts, TrickleUpPolitics, and AC. Hat tip: Jammie Wearing Fools.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Via Beltway Confidential:
A federal appeals court upheld Texas’ right not to give Planned Parenthood taxpayer money Tuesday, a blow to the abortion provider’s bottom line.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a district court judge’s earlier temporary injunction that forced Texas to fund Planned Parenthood.
Texas law has always prohibited state agencies from contracting with “entities that perform or promote elective abortions or are affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions.” But until Gov. Rick Perry’s administration, the statute was never given force with an implementing regulation.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Posted on | August 15, 2012
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has objected to a variety of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) ranging from .porn and .sexy to .wine and .bar and .bible, according to records of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
Can you imagine the barrage of shrill, tedious lectures on the need for tolerance if, say, Dan Cathy had had the mindless, medieval morality to express an opinion less than fully supportive of a gTLD for the LBGT crew? Instead, we won’t hear peep #1 from that ‘victim’ category.
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously noted:
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.
It’s one thing to note that two ideas are in tension, e.g. the individual vs. society, and resolve the friction in a mature way. It’s quite another to dive into the Postmodern cesspool, reject Truth, and be reduced to a hedonistic Lefty animal, for example, an #Occupy loser. Where is the nobility in childishly screaming for pleasure, unless silenced by some bully threatening violence?
For my part, I’m weighing in around libertarian on this one: I don’t care what others are doing. Though I hope what they do edifies.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Posted on | August 15, 2012
And why not? If you Google her name with Chick-fil-A and Family Research Council, you get more than 450,000 hits.
It therefore should be obvious that Maddow’s hateful rhetoric against Chick-fil-A and Family Research Council incited today’s shooting at FRC’s office in Washington, D.C.
Now that we have determined the shooter’s motive and found a scapegoat to blame – remember that I am a professional journalist like Brian Ross of ABC News — we can start worrying about, y’know, facts and stuff.
UPDATE: OK, we don’t actually know the named of the so-called “suspect” — and by “suspect,” I mean the guy who walked into FRC’s office and shot the security guard, as opposed to the person who is really responsible, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.
For those of you who don’t want this Brian Ross-style professional journalism, check in with Michelle “Just a Blogger” Malkin.
UPDATE II: The so-called “suspect” — whose name we don’t know, but who was obviously president of the Rachel Maddow Fan Club – was carrying Chick-fil-A promotional materials and food as well as weapons, though the FBI has not yet confirmed.
I got that at Twitchy, which isn’t really professional journalism, since they haven’t joined my Brian Ross-style hunt for a scapegoat, which is what professional journalists do.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
“To remove God is to eliminate the final restraint on human brutality” – Alister McGrath
This quotation from McGrath is a variant of the Dostoevsky quote translated as “Without God all things are permitted”. The evidence that McGrath and Dostoevsky are correct is quite simple: The Twentieth Century. — Bruce Charlton’s Miscellany
from American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
King Samir Shabazz — direct recipient of special treatment from the sympathetic Obama Regime (see here and here and here and here) after he tried to scare whites away from a Philadelphia polling station in 2008 — declares that a military must be created to skin white people and murder white babies:
Good news for Ms. Williams, Samir Shabazz, and other militant black racists. Their feet are already on our necks. As Voltaire put it:
Posted on | August 1, 2012
I saw the Mike Huckabee support call, and, given I work a couple blocks from a store, was hungry, and cannot abide the Orwellian hijinks of these disgusting Lefty activist bozos, I trundled over for a bite:
So, take that, you degenerates who’d attack a restaurant for an opinion held by the company President! You’ve managed to unite Americans so much, this blog has to offer props to Lindsey Graham! Some in DC are enjoying the Chick-Fil-A to the point it blows their drawers off. (This blog reaffirms its commitment to safety consciousness while partaking of Chick-Fil-A.)
Speaking of events that could blow your knickers away, what the Left really needs to do is start planning. When Barack Obama has significantly more free time, commencing next January, he’d make a swell spokesman for “Dog-Fil-A”. Being head of his own private sector company would give Barack Obama his first chance in life to do something to earn his wage and #Occupy his time.
Think about it.
More at Legal Insurrection.
Update: Linked by Jackie Wellfonder.
Update II: Katz scratch fever=>
Update III: More at Nice Deb.
Update IV: Also partaking: Daria Anne.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
It takes spine to stand for what is right in opposition to what is politically correct. Once again, the Boy Scouts prove they have it:
After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.
The BSA is supposed to instill Christian values. Obviously these do not include the homosexual depravity that has become so politically fashionable among our ruling elite. Equally obvious is the danger of sending kids into the woods with Jerry Sandusky types.
But there is a price to be paid for standing up to the degenerate establishment. Here’s the lead paragraph in Truthdig's take on the story:
The Boy Scouts of America confirmed its position as one of the most bigoted groups in the U.S. after a confidential two-year review led it to uphold its ban on gay and lesbian members.
To be called a bigot by notoriously bigoted liberal elitists may be the highest honor Scouts can achieve.
On tips from StanInTexas and Son of Taz.
Exactly when did self-sufficiency and hard work became bad traits?
Via Daily Caller:
One in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the government is pushing to enroll more — in many instances working to overcome Americans’ “pride,” self-reliance or failure to see a need.
“Our common goal is to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” the United States Department of Agriculture explains on its “Outreach Toolkits” page. “Our purpose is to ensure that those going through difficult times can feed their families healthy, nutritious food. By working as a team, we can accomplish these goals.”
The USDA has adopted a range of strategies and programs designed to bring more people to SNAP, including taking on “pride.” A 2011 Hunger Champions Award document reveals that local assistance offices have been rewarded for “counteracting” pride and pushing more people to sign up for benefits.
The Ashe County Department of Social Services in Jefferson, N.C., for example, received a “Gold” award for confronting “mountain pride” and increasing food stamp participation by 10 percent.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Now The Obama Regime is “Pushing” More People to Get Food Stamps Through a Multi-million Dollar Advert Campaign? Can O’Sucka Get Any Lower?
One reason the use of Food Stamps is exploding is that our rulers are deliberately recruiting as many people as possible so as to get them hooked on free government cheese — or free government Cheez Doodles, as the case may be. Your tax dollar paid for this ad intended to convince potential parasites that Food Stamps make you physically fit:
What exactly is being purchased with all these Food Stamps? Our rulers won’t say:
Americans spend $80 billion each year financing food stamps for the poor, but the country has no idea where or how the money is spent.
Food stamps can be spent on goods ranging from candy to steak and are accepted at retailers from gas stations that primarily sell potato chips to fried-chicken restaurants. And as the amount spent on food stamps has more than doubled in recent years, the amount of food stamps laundered into cash has increased dramatically, government statistics show.
But the government won’t say which stores are doing the most business in food stamps, and even it doesn’t know what kinds of food those taxpayer dollars buy.
It doesn’t know because it doesn’t want to; bar code technology would make it a cinch to add up how much goes to cookies, how much to candy bars, how much to soda pop, et cetera.
Why isn’t the Nanny State concerned that people spend the money in a manner that will give them behinds like Michelle Obama’s? Corruption is why.
Coinciding with lobbying by convenience stores, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program in conjunction with states, contends that disclosing how much each store authorized to accept benefits, known as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), receives in taxpayer funds would amount to revealing trade secrets. …
Legislation seemingly designed to protect the industry goes so far as to say that anyone who releases the amount of food stamp dollars paid to a store can be jailed.
Profiting from the poor’s taxpayer-funded purchases has become big business for a mix of major companies and corner bodegas, which have spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the USDA to keep the money flowing freely.
The National Association of Convenience Store Operators alone spends millions of dollars on lobbying yearly, including $1 million in the first quarter of this year.
Under oligarchical collectivism, there is no better return on your dollar than bribing the wealth redistributors through lobbyists.
Even without bureaucrats’ help, we can determine what Food Stamps are buying: a habit of government dependence.
On tips from AC.
General Mills Needs to Stay out of The Pinko Commie Fag Movement – If Not Then We Will Stop Buying Their Cereal
This can’t be reality. John Waters is directing an episode of the Twilight Zone on behalf of the left wing of the Democrat Party, and I’m somehow trapped in it.Confirming evidence:
The Minnesota food giant that brought to the nation’s parents, and especially their children, the Honey Nut Bee, Lucky the Leprechaun and the Silly Trix Rabbit now publicly is supporting homosexual marriage, leaving critics surprised at General Mills’ abandonment of traditional values families.
General Mills CEO Ken Powell announced this week at a Minneapolis homosexual pride event that his company opposes the marriage amendment on the Minnesota ballot in November.
Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota, but supporters of the traditional marriage initiative say that the constitutional amendment would keep marriage safe from activist courts and even legislators who may attempt to usurp state law.
General Mills’ official duckspeak attempts to spin this disgusting bend-and-spread on behalf of homosexual activists as somehow reasonable.
Supporters of traditional marriage say that General Mills couldn’t be more wrong in calling its support a business decision, but that is precisely how General Mills is voicing its opposition to the idea that state residents could define marriage for themselves.
“General Mills doesn’t normally take positions on ballot measures; this is a business issue that impacts our employees,” said Ken Charles, General Mills vice president of diversity.
Vice president of… What the hell? Why don’t they try hiring a vice president of MAKING CEREAL? Then they could leave shoving the homosexual agenda down our throats to the “mainstream” media, and not have to alienate the vast majority of their customers.
By: Stogie over at Saberpoint
white births in America are now less than 50% of all births. Many conservatives
find this fact depressing, as do I. I am far from a “white supremacist” or
“white centrist,” but I find myself struggling to understand the far-reaching
implications of white decline.
Around 1965 the left changed America’s
immigration policy to allow in far more non-whites, thus setting in motion
long-term demographic change in the United States. The America I grew up in was
overwhelmingly white, or “European-American” if you prefer the polite term.
Today we can foresee a time when white people will be a minority in
I think there is a Marxist component to this managed change in
our demographics, changing the population and its basic political beliefs, its
long held culture, so that a new, emerging demographic might be more open to
radical changes in the American system of government. If the population
wouldn’t hear of these changes, then you simply change the population. It’s
worked before, particularly in China, where conquered or dissident regions are
simply bred out of existence. Move in a few million Chinese and in a generation
or two, the old population has been effectively subsumed. I understand the
Chinese are now doing that to Tibet, engulfing it slowly the way a Boa
constrictor swallows and assimilates a rabbit, through Chinese immigration
In centuries past, many Muslim populations were once Christian,
Jew or Hindu. The Muslim invaders who conquered those regions did not win over
the hearts and minds of the newly conquered. However, they did win over the
hearts and minds of the generations that followed. The old populations were
simply bred out of existence. They were replaced.
truth is that culture is the real target here. There is nothing inherent in the
genes of Asians, Arabs, Hispanics, East Indians or other minorities that compel
them to embrace collectivism and strong central governments. However, many
migrate from countries where these things are a concrete fact, and the
immigrants less reticent to accept such change in their newly adopted home.
Many come from countries and cultures outside of western traditions, values and
beliefs. The tolerance for large scale immigration of Muslims in Europe is
undoubtedly the most disastrous for the long-term survival of western
civilization — not because of the immigrants’ race, but because of their
customs, traditions and beliefs, all of which are hostile to western values of
constitutional government, free markets and pluralism.
That is why
liberals enthusiastically accept Hispanic immigration, legal or not. They
surmise, quite correctly, that these immigrants will vote for the Democratic
The real enemy, however, is white people themselves. Not because
they are inherently evil as many radical Hispanics and blacks want to believe,
but because we are breeding ourselves out of existence. Whites are not
reproducing themselves. Whites are no longer having babies like they did in
The goal for me is not racial purity — we are all human
beings. To me the goal, probably unachievable, is to graft western values –
republican, constitutional, limited government and capitalism — onto
populations that have not previously valued these ideas and institutions.
If that could happen then all peoples and races would be subsumed…by
When Liberal Feminists talk about a woman’s “right to choose”, what they really mean is a right to kill her baby in the womb
Feminists have one issue that they focus more of their energy on than any other. That issue is abortion, or, as Feminists like to say a woman’s right to choose. Ah, how nice does that sound. After all who can’t get behind a woman being empowered, Feminists LOVE the word “empowered”, to make choices for herself right? But, what do these Feminists really mean by choice?
Well, if you were to ask any number of women who are Conservative politicians, writers, speakers, or bloggers you would quickly realize that Liberal Feminists do not much approve of, or support these women’s rights to think as they choose, much less to express those views. Women like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Sarah Palin are often vilified by the Left, yet no Feminists rush to their defense, and often join in these attacks. Often these attacks focus on the very things that Feminists claim to be so offended over. Attacks on the looks, sex lives, and intelligence of Conservative women go unanswered by the Feminists.
What do Feminists say when women choose to pose for bikini shoots, or for a men’s magazine? Do they defend these women, and their choice? No, rather they verbally assault these ladies as demeaning and sexualizing other women. The fact that these women CHOSE to pose for the camera matters not. Apparently Feminists only defend a woman’s right to choose if that woman chooses to abort her baby. It is also apparent that Feminists have no plans to begin defending women who express Conservative views either.
Despite these obvious holes in the Feminists claims of being defenders of women’s rights, many women still fall victim to the propaganda the Feminists preach. Smitty has a perfect example of this at The Other McCain. Some actresses who are so brainwashed that they made a “funny” video that ought to revolt every mother. The video, which features Kate Beckinsale and celebrates that “wonderful right to choose”. To kill your baby that is.
What a creepy, sick, Orwellian world these feminists live in. Remind me again why any mature, masculine male would want to be in the same room as these abattoir-vaginas, much less offering them any essence to destroy? I guess I should say “choose to destroy”.
The sickness of the government-worship implied in this clip is only exceeded by the crypto-incest of talking about their dads and their vaginas at the end, if you can make it that far.
The video is disturbing because it shows how brainwashed these women are. They have been convinced that EVERYTHING about them revolves around the right to abort their babies. They have joined in the cheapening of human life that the Left is neck-deep in. And when I say Feminism has helped lead the charge of cheapening human life, I mean exactly that. Don’t think so? Well how else would you classify a “bowling for abortions for 14-year-olds” fundraiser?
CNS News reported:
The National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF), who last month raised over $400,000 for abortions through its Bowl-a-Thon, touted that it provided money for a 14-year-old’s abortion as part of the group’s “real stories of abortion access.”
On its website in a post entitled, “Getting an abortion means getting a second chance,” NNAF highlights the story of Darcy, a 14-year-old who terminated her pregnancy with the help of the group’s “George Tiller Memorial Fund.”
“I’m pretty smart for 14, I think,” Darcy writes. “I love biology, especially the stuff on animals. I’m pretty sure I’m going to be a vet — I definitely want to start my own practice so that I make enough money and when I have kids I can be home with them,” she said.
After finding out she was pregnant, the girl writes she did not want to tell her mother, “But in the state where I live, minors can’t get an abortion without permission from a parent or a judge,” she said. “So I did end up telling her.”
Darcy said a clinic put her in touch with NNAF because the “abortion was going to cost more than our rent.”
“There’s no way that me and my mom could have come up with that much,” she said.
Ain’t Feminism grand? Of course if Darcy ever feels any guilt over her abortion, and many women do, do not expect any Feminists to hold another bowl-a-thon for her. And God help Darcy if she ever leans Conservative. Beware the “tolerance” of Feminist wackos like Cher
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
If Abortion is So Wonderful, why Are We So Reluctant to Say to Our Friends: “I’m So Glad I Aborted Mine!” Let’s print Some Tee Shirts!
“If abortion is so wonderful, why are we so reluctant to expose it to the light? ”
Why, at the clinic, do they use the word “procedure?”
Why, when gazing into the bassinet of our friend’s newborn baby do we not tend to exclaim: “Adorable! I aborted mine!” Everyone’s on board for the sex, but no-one likes to think of what transpires afterward for the woman who aborts. No long, hot kisses then. — Heather King’s Poor Baby
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Goodness, what a fuss!
Would I like to offer some kind of sniveling apology for the piece? In your dreams, pal. I haven’t sniveled since about 1952, and I’m too old to reacquire the habit.
I say what I think, and I’m very much obliged to Taki’s Mag for letting me do so. If you don’t like the kinds of things I say, there is a very simple remedy available to you: Don’t read me.
To Read John’s Article go to Taki’s Magazine at the link below:
The Talk: Blacks and Whites – Interesting Article That Caused John Derbyshire to Be Fired From National Review
“Sean O’Reilly was 16 when his mother gave him the talk that most black parents give their teenage sons,” Denisa R. Superville of the Hackensack (NJ) Record tells us. Meanwhile, down in Atlanta: “Her sons were 12 and 8 when Marlyn Tillman realized it was time for her to have the talk,” Gracie Bonds Staples writes in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
Yes, talk about the talk is all over.
There is a talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids, too. My own kids, now 19 and 16, have had it in bits and pieces as subtopics have arisen. If I were to assemble it into a single talk, it would look something like the following.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
(1) Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as black, and whom I shall refer to as black. The cumbersome (and MLK-noncompliant) term “African-American” seems to be in decline, thank goodness. “Colored” and “Negro” are archaisms. What you must call “the ‘N’ word” is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks.
(2) American blacks are descended from West African populations, with some white and aboriginal-American admixture. The overall average of non-African admixture is 20-25 percent. The admixture distribution is nonlinear, though: “It seems that around 10 percent of the African American population is more than half European in ancestry.” (Same link.)
(3) Your own ancestry is mixed north-European and northeast-Asian, but blacks will take you to be white.
(4) The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen. That is basic good manners and good citizenship. In some unusual circumstances, however—e.g., paragraph (10h) below—this default principle should be overridden by considerations of personal safety.
(5) As with any population of such a size, there is great variation among blacks in every human trait (except, obviously, the trait of identifying oneself as black). They come fat, thin, tall, short, dumb, smart, introverted, extroverted, honest, crooked, athletic, sedentary, fastidious, sloppy, amiable, and obnoxious. There are black geniuses and black morons. There are black saints and black psychopaths. In a population of forty million, you will find almost any human type. Only at the far, far extremes of certain traits are there absences. There are, for example, no black Fields Medal winners. While this is civilizationally consequential, it will not likely ever be important to you personally. Most people live and die without ever meeting (or wishing to meet) a Fields Medal winner.
(6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences.
(7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.
(8) These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior is a degree more antisocial yet.
(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.
(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.
(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”
(12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth.
(13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.
(14) Be aware, however, that there is an issue of supply and demand here. Demand comes from organizations and businesses keen to display racial propriety by employing IWSBs, especially in positions at the interface with the general public—corporate sales reps, TV news presenters, press officers for government agencies, etc.—with corresponding depletion in less visible positions. There is also strong private demand from middle- and upper-class whites for personal bonds with IWSBs, for reasons given in the previous paragraph and also (next paragraph) as status markers.
(15) Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous. To be an IWSB in present-day US society is a height of felicity rarely before attained by any group of human beings in history. Try to curb your envy: it will be taken as prejudice (see paragraph 13).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
You don’t have to follow my version of the talk point for point; but if you are white or Asian and have kids, you owe it to them to give them some version of the talk. It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves. It may save their lives.
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email firstname.lastname@example.org to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/print#ixzz1rUvLEFka