As I said in the post below, I never followed the intricacies of this case the way some did. When I would argue about the case on blogs, I was often amazed at how much detail some people knew. I guess if I knew that other people clearly knew more about the subject than I did then it would have been wise for me to keep my opinions to myself or at the least to hedge, but I was aware of the general scenario, and I had such confidence in my thoughts about that that it gave me confidence to speak on the matter as a whole. Perhaps that confidence was unwise, but it was there nonetheless, and in hindsight it looks entirely justified.
What I knew was the general scenario. The original local jurisdiction did not charge Zimmerman because they didn’t think they had a case. The State appointed a Special Prosecutor in response to the cries of the PC mob with the assistance of a complicit liberal media because they didn’t get the indictment they wanted from the local jurisdiction, and that Special Prosecutor brought an indictment (surprise, surprise!).
Here is why I think this case is a litmus test. It indicates where a person believes bias predominantly resides. If you asked me who I think is more competent to investigate a potential murder case, the state or the local jurisdiction, then I would say the state because they obviously have more experience, more tools at their disposal, etc. In fact, I could imagine a local jurisdiction that doesn’t deal with this kind of thing much doing a pretty incompetent job of it (unless the local jurisdiction is Sheriff Walt Longmire’s. Then the killer is as good as in jail. ). But this was never largely about competence. Some alleged the local jurisdiction did a slap shot job with the investigation, but the issue of the competence of the investigation was always in the context of the question of bias. What was primarily being debated here was the issue of bias. So here is the issue boiled down: do you believe the local jurisdiction is more likely to be biased because the victim was black and the perpetrator was non-black and that a PC outrage motivated state investigation is more likely to be less biased, or do you believe that the local investigation is less likely to be tainted by bias?
The latter seems so obvious to me that it is hard for me to even frame the question without indicating my own thoughts on the matter. The former accepts the obvious and known bias of the external calls for an indictment, and still thinks that is less bias than the unknown bias of the local jurisdiction. This is almost unfathomable to me. Imagine how much unknown bias you have to presume on the part of the local jurisdiction for that to be more than the known bias that is behind the state investigation. I am no apologist for the police, as anyone who knows where I’m coming from will know. I think police officers often have a power complex and abuse people’s rights. And cops are people so I don’t doubt that they often engage in the same kind of profiling that we all do on a daily basis. But what group A has to presume here is not just profiling or commonplace bias, but that an indictment was not brought because Martin was black and Zimmerman was non-black. In fact, I think it is much more likely that the local jurisdiction was actually more careful to avoid the appearance of bias because of the sensitiveness of the situation and the scrutiny, than it is that they refused to indict Zimmerman because of bias. My assumption when arguing with the anti-Zimmerman crowd was that the motives of the local jurisdiction were likely either benign or excessively scrupulous. This strikes me as a no-brainer, and why I had such confidence in trusting the motives of the local investigators over the obviously politicized state investigators. The assumption of the anti-Zimmerman crowd was that the motives of the local jurisdiction were malign and that the state case was necessary to set that right. This strikes me as borderline delusional.
It’s naive because there’s a very obvious reason why white Americans shouldn’t express their ethnicity in the same way that nonwhites might. The historical status of whites in this country is very different from that of any other group, and to say whites are “not afforded the same right to celebrate their own cultural identity” as others is rather clueless. And no, affirmative action doesn’t change that.
As you say, Red, Jack was merely giving voice here to the conventional right-wing view, but it happens to be wrong. I’ve parroted lines like that too, and it takes work to tear up the ideological script—which Jack has done.
What?! McCarthy just explicitly endorsed the Cultural Marxist double standard that sensible conservatives complain about. I responded and didn’t pull any punches, but I don’t think my response was out of line. Unfortunately, my comment did not make the cut. Since it has been a few days and comments have appeared below mine, I think it’s safe to say that my comment is not going to be approved. Here it is below. You tell me if it was out of line.
“It’s naive because there’s a very obvious reason why white Americans shouldn’t express their ethnicity in the same way that nonwhites might. The historical status of whites in this country is very different from that of any other group, and to say whites are “not afforded the same right to celebrate their own cultural identity” as others is rather clueless. And no, affirmative action doesn’t change that.
As you say, Red, Jack was merely giving voice here to the conventional right-wing view, but it happens to be wrong. I’ve parroted lines like that too, and it takes work to tear up the ideological script—which Jack has done.”
I’m so dumbfounded by this response that I hardly know how to respond. The essential element of the Cultural Marxist narrative that we anti-PC forces are trying to combat is precisely that, that ethnocentrism and ethnic identity and pride is OK for non-Whites but anathema for Whites. What is considered natural and good and healthy in non-Whites is the vilest of thoughtcrimes for Whites. This is an obviously obnoxious construct and should be called out and denounced whenever it appears. Either everyone gets to be ethnocentric (the natural order) or no one gets to be ethnocentric (ideological “color blindness”). And historical status has nothing to do with it. Let’s look at an analogous situation. Japan has long oppressed their Korean minority, but do only Koreans in Japan get to have ethnic pride, while the Japanese don’t? When is the last time you saw a PC Enforcer hand-wring about Japanese ethnic identity and pride? As the white nationalists are fond of saying, Cultural Marxist PC is not anti-racist. It is objectively anti-White.
In the Free Beacon article, one of Hunter’s alleged sins is writing for the “paleoconservative” websites The American Conservative and Taki Mag. That “stank” is still on you Daniel, and no amount of front page articles about gay civil rights is going to remove it. I really don’t know who you think you are going to impress with such nonsense. So Daniel, what are you going to do when the long knives of the PC Rightthink Enforcers come after you? I can read the article already. “McCarthy attended meetings of the racist John Randolph Club. McCarthy used to write for the racist … secessionist … neo-Confederate … Lincoln hating … anti-Government extremist … blah, blah, blah … website Lew Rockwell…” And if that happens, who do you think is going to come to your defense? It will be me and people like me who can be reliably counted on to counter attack the PC Beast. It won’t be Jon Huntsman or David Lampro. They’ll be fleeing for the tall grass just like all the rest of the “respectable conservatives.”
The PC Beast must be kicked in the teeth, not placated.
As times before, the modern Baptist/Bootlegger coalition emerges again with the trial of George Zimmerman. Rumors that a riot will come if Zimmerman is not found guilty, come from the money grubbing agents of the local security services--ever looking for a payoff. The race hustlers are assuredly looking for a payoff as well, or the mob gets unleashed–or not, it’s all acting to try and get some coin. The Rent-A-Mob beckons to serve “higher” purpose, be it in Egypt or Florida.
American Hard Right dissidents, of whatever persuasion, recognized right away that this was a case of self-defense that called our attention–not just an apathetic, who cares, but engagement–without regard to who Zimmerman might be, where he came from, what his DNA says. Tales of American “materialism” would have to be put on hold.
A similar effect, though slower developing I might add, has occurred with Snowden (are we harder on our own, or what?) as the dissidents from many persuasions, now Right and Left, follow his case.
The author, David Sirota, has a picture at the bottom. He appears to be white. Can you say “self-loather?
The article is laughable. He babbles about “white male privilege.” It reads like something written buy some race or gender studies academic. How do people like David Sirota look at themselves in the mirror? Has he no shame?
Addendum: I have been struggling to figure out just how to characterize this article. When I first read it I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I know Salon is a liberal magazine, but in my experience it generally attempts to be pretty serious. I can’t imagine William Saletan writing something like this for example. But this article is just not serious. It reads like a paper written by an undergraduate in some gender or race grievance studies class who is desperately trying to impress his professor. I mean he starts babbling about white privilege in the first freakin’ paragraph! Take a breath David. Here is a piece of unsolicited advice: you should probably lead off with a few explanatory paragraphs before you drop the white privilege bomb if you want real people to take you at all seriously.
In yesterday’s spring election in Wisconsin fairly liberal Department of Public Instruction (DPI) head Tony Evers defeated a pretty conservative state Assemblyman Don Pridemore by landslide margin 62-38%. But this result had nothing to do with ideology. Most Republicans thought Pridemore too extreme and did nothing to help him, more concerned with protecting state Supreme Court Justice Patricia Roggensack in her re-election bid (which she won) Even Gov. Scott Walker wouldn’t endorse him. Thus he had no money and no TV ads and in Wisconsin politics you might as well close up shop.
“White Privilege” is the latest guilt racket dreamed up by Cultural Marxists. It’s a theory which states that matter of one’s skin color and only one’s skin color is sole proof of a person’s racism because that skin color gave this person an unfair advantage in life, a “leg up” if you will over blacks or Asians or Hispanics. Of course anyone living in Appalachia or Minnesota’s Iron Range or the pockets of white rural poverty across the Midwest, South and West will tell you this is a crock of crap who ultimate goal logically is legitimizing any sort racial economic redistribution of resources (like slave reparation for example) because obviously one cannot darken or face paint their way out of “white privilege”. And such garbage would remain a “theory” and quite harmless unless someone in a position of policymaking in any government institution (like DPI) decides to test such theories out in the same manner the Bolsheviks tested out communism after the Russian Revolution. This is exactly what has happened in Wisconsin in such places like the Delevan-Darien school district just outside of Milwaukee.
Had Pridemore made attacking these guidelines a centerpiece of his campaign, it might have gotten him somewhere, certainly better than 38 percent. The fact the DPI took down the guidelines from its website after online columnists began to shine light upon them shows the sensitivity of the matter. Certainly Evers nor his upper management staff was not going stand up for an educational program which condemns persons for racism simply by the fact of their skin color rather than by word or deed. Indeed, given the fact that whites will no longer be a majority of population by the middle of the century due to immigration and birth rates (and white males even more so), one wonders why anyone in a position of responsibility would entertain such mad if not racially incendiary ideas in the first place? But that’s whole point. If one cannot use white’s majority status as means of guilt no longer, then other means will have to suffice, even if it’s to brand whites with the Mark of Cain to indicate permanent sinfulness (as whites in the South know all to well) which cannot be washed off.
I myself cannot wait for such minority status to take place because it will mean the Cultural Marxists will have a hard time kicking around white people anymore. The fact such theories are being discussed with any kind of seriousness, let alone being tried in a K-12 school, shows their desperation. If one’s proof of “white privilege” can easily be proven BS by any visit to a trailer park, then it will be rewarding to see such awful people get their comeuppance. But what’s sad is that such well-off people who should know better would be willing to deny a person’s humanity and their poverty and their struggles to make ends meet in this country simply because of their skin color. Is that not racism? Such Leftists are no better than those on the Right who want to pretend the class struggle doesn’t exist in the U.S. They just do it for different reasons.
When a high-paid “diversity consultant” promises he can close the Black-White achievement gap, it pays to check out his past performance – otherwise, you might get nothing but more problems. From the Charlotte Pundit House.
The good news is that five racial socialists have been sent to jail for attacking unsuspecting restaurant patrons. The bad news? For starters, the perpetrators benefited from free legal aid from attorneys who agree with the attackers’ notion that anyone branded a “racist” has no rights, so an attack on them is justified.
Particularly ominous is that supporters of the “antifa” (anti-fascist) bullies who commited this assault openly brag about violently confronting anyone they deem “racist.” The Anti Racist Action goons entered the Tinley Park restaurant yelling, “Hey, bitches, the ARA is going to f— up this place.” One “anti-racist” web site said this about the Tinley Park attack: “The Five heroically showed that these [racist] groups have to be crushed sooner than later.” Here’s an account of their “heroic” action:
Panic shot through the small Tinley Park restaurant as quickly as the stream of determined, black-clad assailants marched in, clubs and hammers in hand.
The wide-eyed hostess frantically dialed 911. Old men leapt from their tables and grabbed chairs to fend off the surprise attack.
Instantly batons and fists were flying, launching food, plates and chaos. In less than two minutes, the attackers headed for the doors, fighting off customers and restaurant staff into the parking lot.
Ten people were injured, at least three of them needing staples to close bloody head wounds.
An unpublished restaurant security video viewed by the Tribune of the bizarre Saturday afternoon melee had no sound — but it screams with images of fear and aggression.
Men in their twenties hide behind masks so they can launch a sneak attack on elderly victims. Yeah – real heroic. But the attackers were motivated by noble intentions, you see. They saw the attack as a “pre-emptive” action against “racism.”
That’s the toxic thinking that led to this crime. Now we have the added incitement of Tarantino’s “Django,” in which, as one enthusiastic viewer wrote, an ex-slave “triumphs over white supremacists.” As if that wasn’t sufficiently blood-curdling, here are tweets from viewers who openly call for the murder of whites after viewing the movie.
In the name of “racial justice,” a North Carolina judge has overturned the death sentences of three murderers. Here’s an introduction to the “victims of racism” the court has spared:
A Cumberland County judge has sentenced three death row inmates to life in prison without possibility for parole after finding that racial discrimination in jury selection played a key role in securing their death sentences.
Judge Gregory Weeks issued the ruling on Thursday for Tilmon Golphin, Christina Walters and Quintel Augustine after the challenged their sentences under the 2009 Racial Justice Act.
Walters was convicted of killing two women in a gang initiation ritual. Golphin was convicted of murdering two law enforcement officers at a traffic stop. Augustine was convicted of killing a Fayetteville police officer.
Commenting on the case, Ken Rose of the Center for Death Penalty Litigation proclaimed that the ruling proves “our capital punishment system is infected by racial bias.”
But if that’s true, then SOMEONE had to commit an act of racial bias. Who was it? What exactly did this person do that demonstrated racial bias? Is Mr. Rose going to prosecute that person?
Or is it possible that no single perpetrator can be identified because “racism” is what defines Western society? I think that’s what Rose is claiming. He’s not alone – that argument can be found here. And if that is the case, then the entire fabric of Western culture must be dismantled. Private property, the right of association, inheritance, any aspect of a free society that results in a “disparate impact” for protected minorities is a target.
I’ve seen the Sailer Strategywork in Wisconsin, so I will not say it cannot work at all. However there are many different circumstances which have to be met for it to work and often times those circumstances never come to fruition even in overwhelmingly white areas of the country.
The circumstances included either heavily segregated regions of the country (like the Milwaukee metro area) or areas where there is clear polarization of the racial divide around the two-party system, as one finds in the South. But in areas where there is not a large population of minorities, then other questions and concerns trump race because is not the everyday present reality (such as a state like Ohio where the auto-bailout helped Obama with white voters there). Red asks why white Iowans, Minnesotans, and Wisconsinites don’t vote the same as white Alabamans, Georgians and Carolinians? Well, I think we both know the reason why. Put it this way, you can live in parts of the Upper Midwest your entire life and never meet anyone of different race in person. How do you think that’s going to affect their mindsets as compared to living near county which is in the “Black Belt”?
Now some point out the state’s of the upper South (from West Virginia to Oklahoma) don’t have large minority populations either and voted in huge margins for Romney and Republican candidates, which is true. But in four years you won’t have Barak Obama on the ballot anymore, you may well have Hilary Clinton, you know, Fox News’s favorite Democrat, the woman conservatives turned from a marriage-hating radical into Norma Rae back in 2008. I would be curious to see what those numbers would be if Clinton vs. Romney in Kentucky or Arkansas. In four years we may find out and it may not be pretty for the GOP if there’s a white face on the top of the ballot for the Dems.
Now this is not to say such voting patterns will stay the same. Minority populations have actually grown in many areas that were once all-white due to immigration (which just adds more Democrat votes) which may affect voting turnouts in the future (as they have in Milwaukee). But given the fact the Romney campaign pretty much ran away from any discussion of the President’s birth-certificate, or the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or immigration or any other such items in the campaign which could have increased its percentage of the white vote in theory, why would anyone think any party candidate will make a deliberate attempt to win 70 percent of the white vote in future campaigns (if they had to) given the demographic trends and given the fact the party may very well have a re-think on issues like immigration? Just remember this, when the top ranks of both the GOP and Conservative INC. come to a consensus, they will act in unanimity and cast off those who don’t, just like they did with the Iraq War. And this goes from the think tank leaders down to the talk show hosts to the politicians and as we all know, when you’re on the outside you really are out. Once upon a time publications like the National Review once strongly supported segregation. You can, if you wish, head out to the desert to be a Minuteman and arrest illegals but no longer will Rush Limbaugh laud you publicly or even give you attention on his show.
So the reality is if you really want to see the Willie Horton or the “Hands” ad again from Republican candidates I’m afraid you’ll have to do so on You Tube because you won’t see them from GOP candidates. Will some conservatives object to this and leave the party? Perhaps, until elected officials do so I will not hold my breath because if there’s one thing conservatives know how to do well, it’s to get in line.
After years of stubbornly trying to implement pie-in-the-sky goals that assumed all children are above average, one state school board has decided to give reality a try:
The Florida State Board of Education passed a plan that sets goals for students in math and reading based upon their race.
On Tuesday, the board passed a revised strategic plan that says that by 2018, it wants 90 percent of Asian students, 88 percent of white students, 81 percent of Hispanics and 74 percent of black students to be reading at or above grade level. For math, the goals are 92 percent of Asian kids to be proficient, whites at 86 percent, Hispanics at 80 percent and blacks at 74 percent.
Naturally, this evoked the expected howls of protest from the usual suspects:
But Palm Beach County School Board vice-chairwoman Debra Robinson isn’t buying the rationale. …
Robinson called the state board’s actions essentially “proclaiming racism” and said she wants Palm Beach County to continue to educate every child with the same expectations, regardless of race.
Handy word, “racism.” In this case, Robinson is using it to defend the old “anti-racist” policy of penalizing teachers and dooming children to failure in the name of upholding ideological bias. “You’re equal, dammit! Act that way!”
The cult of egalitarian multiculturalism is collapsing before our eyes.
In 2009 it was revealed that the ruling Labour Party had purposefully flooded Britain with several million immigrants, without consulting its citizens, in order to socially engineer a “truly Multicultural” country. The huge increases in migrants over the previous decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt to radically change the country and to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity,” according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair. He said mass immigration was the result of a deliberate plan, but ministers were reluctant to discuss this for fear that it would alienate the party’s “core working class vote.”
Lord Glasman — a personal friend of the Labour Party leader — in 2011 stated that “Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration… and there’s been a massive rupture of trust.” He admitted that the Labour Party had sometimes been actively hostile to the white natives. In particular, they tended to view white working-class voters as “an obstacle to progress.”
To my knowledge, these shocking revelations of a Western government virtually launching a full-front attack to crush its own people have so far not caused a single word of protest from political leaders or mass media in any other Western country, although these acts could be construed as a policy of state-sponsored ethnic cleansing targeting the white majority population. In my country’s mass media, these public admissions from Neather were hardly mentioned at all, although journalists never miss an opportunity to warn against the dangerous tide of “white racism and xenophobia” that is supposedly sweeping the Western world today.
Ron Unz’s recent self-parody of an article on IQ and race has been completely demolished by Richard Lynn and Helmuth Nyborg. A rational person at this point would graciously admit defeat. Expect Unz to prattle on.
The usual suspects are pointing and sputtering over Mitt Romney’s aid’s common-sense and factual statement that Obama does not understand the “Anglo-Saxon heritage” shared by the U.S. and Britain. Or that “we are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he [Romney] feels that the special relationship is special. The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have.” Of course, this makes perfect sense. As Thomas Fleming notes:
The most obvious point is that the anti-European Obama administration, which sent back a bust of Winston Churchill given as a present, and which has made clear its contempt not just for British but for all European and American traditions, cannot understand such quaint notions as the rule of law.
One might also mention Carl Jung’s archetypes where Jung believed that people are more likely to appreciate and preserve a tradition if it’s of their own ancestral / racial archetype.
But in the propositional United States of America, where anything is possible (where horses are sheep and 2+2=5, if only people will believe), some want to bend over backwards to prove Obama is a WASP – such is the ridiculous post by Walter Russell Mead. Americans seem to be offended by any hereditarian notion that X cannot be Y. After all, in the great Blank Slatist, Cultural Marxist US of A, X can be Y, if it so desires, although later it may be more fashionable for X to be Q.
Unfortunately for the Cultural Marxists, modern genetics shows otherwise. As someone said on a popular email list: “Regarding Cavalli-Sforza’s genetic distance charts, although Obama indeed has some English ancestry, his Sub-Saharan black ancestry would create an enormous genetic distance between him and the English. For instance, the English would be about 60x more closely related to the Danes than to Obama. Obama is no Anglo-Saxon. Obama is no WASP.”
But heaven forbid that someone point out the obvious!
As part of Ron Unz’s “ongoing love letter to Hispanics” (as commenters have characterized his essay), Unz recently has cherry picked data from various IQ sources to attempt to disprove a hard hereditarian basis for IQ and race – and seems to make some of the same cherry-picking errors as the Unz we’ve all come to know and expect. Of course, the gist and underlying motive of Unz’s essay is to send the message not to worry about mestizo immigration. After all, shorter Unz: IQ is flexible and it’s probably only matter of a few years before Mexicans revolutionize the field of physics and the state-of-the-art Mexican space agency is landing on Mars.