Erick Erickson Disappoints on Honest Discussion About Race #Redstate #ErickErickson

We all know that progressives and leftists have a hair-pin trigger regarding racial questions.  Say the wrong word, express the wrong sentiment, and you face severe social ostracism and professional ruin.  Any implication that black people are different from other races, other than in skin color, results in paroxysms of outrage and moral posturing.  However, this knee-jerk reaction is not limited to left wing moonbats; many conservatives suffer from this neurological malady as well.  In my opinion, Erick Erickson of Redstate.com is one of them.

Erickson still insists that the GOP made a mistake in not removing Steve Scalise from his committee position.   This in spite of Scalise's total exoneration of false accusations of racism.  To refresh your memory, Scalise spoke at a Civic Organization many years ago, along with other speakers, on such benign topics as neighborhood watch, how to give CPR and (for Scalise) a tax bill winding through the Louisiana legislature.   Unknown to Scalise, the  hotel meeting room where he spoke was used later that day by an alleged white supremacist group, thereby infecting Scalise with racism by osmosis.  In truth, the dubious attempt to slander Scalise is a typical act of Democrat bad faith.  It's called "guilt by association," an old and unethical strategy to smear one's opponents.  Erickson, however, appears too obtuse to see through it.

Now Erickson has found a new soapbox on which to pose and posture, that of  Dave Agema, a Republican congressman from Michigan.  Dave Agema republished a post from American Renaissance, an online newsletter that I link to (see left sidebar), that has caused liberal Republicans and faux conservatives like Erickson to hyperventilate and do a convincing imitation of the Southern Poverty Law Center.   The article was unflattering to criminal blacks.  Hell, TRUTH is unflattering to criminal blacks.

The article that Agema linked to was written by a public defender, a self-described liberal Democrat.  The article is called Confessions of a Public Defender.  The author describes the behavior and attitudes of blacks that he has represented at trial, as well as those of other racial groups he has served.  His descriptions and conclusions are highly credible and believable, especially if one has read Colin Flaherty's recent book, White Girl Bleed a Lot.

Erickson is now advocating that Agema be removed from his committee post for republishing that article.  His post "The Question on Dave Agema is Not Difficult," tells why.  Ironically, the post is right above another Erickson post titled  "New York Times Endorses Thought Crimes."  Hypocritical much, Erick?

Honest discussions about race are likely to put blacks in a bad light (all those nasty crime statistics, mob violence, incarceration rates, knockout games and such).  Therefore, anyone who wants to discuss black dysfunction will be slandered from here to Hoboken.  Black people, after all, are only white people with dark skin -- a notion that I abandoned after the O.J. verdict in 1995.

To be sure, there are many black people who think and act civilly and intelligently, and are a credit to society.  However, the black underclass is a major problem for society, and those problems should be discussed openly, not suppressed for partisan political reasons.

Erickson states:

On his Facebook page Agema asserts the inferiority of blacks, that they cannot control their impulses, and that they cannot reason.

Erickson is wrong.  Agema did not assert "inferiority," and the comment on impulse control and reasoning ability is that of the public defender who is quoted, not Agema.  The public defender wrote:

However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth [Emphasis added for Erickson's benefit].  As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.

Possibly one of the dumbest things Erickson wrote in his hit piece is the assertion that

The Party of Lincoln should abide no person who cites Klansmen and no person who asserts that black citizens are inferior.

Such egregious moral posing and posturing is truly reprehensible.   With Republicans like Erickson, who needs Democrats?  However, let us see what Lincoln actually did say about blacks vs whites:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

And Lincoln also said this:

Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.

Lincoln's comments were truly outrageous.  We should strip him of his Party credentials as well.  And give a big horse laugh to Erick Erickson, whose ignorance of history (and race) is appalling.

Justine Sacco, Liberal, Latest Victim of a Fanatical Racial Hyper-Sensitivity

Call me obtuse.  I just don't get it.  I don't see the "offensiveness" in the latest public lynching of an apostate to liberalism.

Justine Sacco, a liberal PR representative of IAC, the parent company of the liberal Daily Beast, committed heresy Friday when she tweeted the following:

“Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just Kidding. I’m white!”

Sacco tweeted this from a plane on its way to Africa, and IAC fired her before the plane even landed.  The tweet went viral, with legions of offended liberals denouncing Sacco as the most brazen reprobate ever to befoul the planet.  Indeed, I got into a debate with a liberal commenter at American Power who "felt sorry for me" if I couldn't see the deep offensiveness in this tweet.  I must be a reprobate too, as I still am not the least bit offended by it.  Let's analyze.

1.  First of all, the comment doesn't seem to make any sense.  It's true there is a raging epidemic of AIDS in Africa, because many blacks there have unprotected sex with numerous partners.  The only way Sacco would be in danger is if she joined in on the orgy, which seems unlikely.  And if she did, being white would not protect her.  The comment left me scratching my head until R.S. McCain explained it.

2.  What point was Sacco trying to make?  R.S. McCain of "The Other McCain" posits that Sacco was attempting a snarky put-down of white privilege.  If so, she was merely advancing a key liberal ideology: when blacks screw up, it's white people's fault.  If it weren't for "white privilege," whatever that is, blacks in Africa would be no more likely to get AIDS than white people.  I think McCain's interpretation is correct.

Summary and Conclusions:  Our culture is utterly sick and depraved, not because of rampant racism, but because of a fanatical form of racial hypersensitivity.  Any comment by a media personality that broaches the subject of race (especially the black race), sets off a kind of public frenzy, like sharks smelling blood in the water and then eating their own.  Any mention of blacks compared to whites is automatically assumed to be vicious, "racist," hateful and devolved from the darkest and basest of human emotions -- and to be utterly, reflexively condemned.

The penalty for this racial apostasy is reminiscent of Shirley Jackson's 1948 short story, "The Lottery," wherein a person is periodically chosen at random by the townsfolk to be stoned to death in the public square.  Blood must be shed, though no one seems to know why.  Justine Sacco is the random victim in this case, a periodic sacrifice to the gods of political correctness.  

It's time to oppose and end this insanity, even when it is applied to liberals.  Too many people have had their careers damaged or ended and their reputations sullied by this fanaticism.  It is an evil that helps no one, and only serves to stifle discussion and debate on important subjects.  All of us, conservative or liberal, must stand together to end this oppressive cultural tyranny.

*******

Links:

Prior Issue of "Tales From the Politically Correct" can be found here.

A thoughtful essay on this subject has been posted at Allergic to Bull.  Highly recommended.

The Fascist Thought Police and the Embarrassing Question of Racial Differences In I.Q. #Race #AmericanRenaissance

American Renaissance has reprinted an article from Politico by Jason Richwine, about how politics and social pressure pervert the objective study of I.Q. and how it differs by race.

Richwine holds a PhD from Harvard, and has written about I.Q. and race, and faced the consequences:  liberal rage and media frenzy for telling truths that the left wants hidden.  He writes:

There is a large discrepancy between what educated laypeople believe about cognitive science and what experts actually know. Journalists are steeped in the lay wisdom, so they are repeatedly surprised when someone forthrightly discusses the real science of mental ability.

If that science happens to deal with group differences in average IQ, the journalists’ surprise turns into shock and disdain. Experts who speak publicly about IQ differences end up portrayed as weird contrarians at best, and peddlers of racist pseudoscience at worst.

 So many disciplines are corrupted and usurped by politics today that it is almost impossible to trust the popular media on any of them.  That corruption mainly includes science and history, where both are manipulated (or suppressed) to support modern political goals.  I.Q. as it differs by race is a glaring example.

Read it all here.

Damn the Greek Olympics Committee; Political Correctness Must End NOW

Voula Papachristou

I heard about the Olympic athlete from Greece who was kicked off Greece's Olympic team for telling a mild joke.  I often forget just how vicious and over-the-top the leftwing culture has become, how destructive it is to freedom of expression and liberty in general. Western civilization, so often illustrated with the example of ancient Greek democracy, has been transformed over time into something very ugly, a gross distortion of what it once was and is supposed to be.

Rather than voice the dark feelings the incident invokes in me, I will let Lawrence Auster speak for me, by reprinting his article on the subject.  He writes:

ANOTHER NAÏVE WHITE MOMENTARILY FORGETS ABOUT THE SACREDNESS OF BLACKS, AND HAS HER CAREER RUINED

Jumper Voula Papachristou has been ejected from Greece’s Olympics team for saying on Twitter, “With so many Africans in Greece … At least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!!!”

A nothing joke, a garden variety, harmless joke, a joke that does not contain any actual negative statement about anyone, and it gets a woman thrown off her country’s Olympics squad, just before the opening of the Games that she has spent years preparing for. I did not know that the Greeks were so PC. I thought they were tough types, not hysterical liberal weenies.

As I was reading the story, my jaw was literally (not figuratively) hanging open, not because I was shocked that this would happen, and not because I didn’t know that anyone in a mainstream position who says anything public under his own name that is in the slightest degree “iffy” about blacks is taking his livelihood and his future in his hands, but because, for a few moments, I was at a loss as to how to respond to it. What do you say about a society (Western society) in which you don’t have to say anything actually negative, anything actually biased about any protected group, particularly blacks, to have your career and place in society destroyed, you just have to tell a garden variety joke? A society in which, even if you issue the most profound apology for your garden variety joke, as Papachristou did, that will not rehabilitate you? No. In liberal society, the society that worships not God but the nonwhite Other, there is no forgiveness.

The attitude of the Greek Olympic Committee can only be described as extreme and totalitarian.  Greece is a bad joke.

The Demise of White America

Recently it was disclosed in the news that 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 America.

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 therein.

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.

However, the 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 Party.

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 past decades.

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 freedom.

Cinco de Mayo!! Hola, Hispanics!

Ah, it's that storied day of celebration of a Mexican victory over the French, Cinco de Mayo.

Good thing it falls on a weekend, otherwise lots of high school students wearing American flag t-shirts would be scolded and sent home.

Just for the record, I have come to know a lot of Hispanics, many of them from Mexico, here in Hollister.  For the most part, they are very good people:  hard workers, good friends, good neighbors, and good customers.  When they learn that I am studying Spanish, that I think Spanish is a beautiful language, and that Hispanic culture has a lot of worth and beauty, they respond with warmth and friendship.  I don't view Hispanics as "the enemy."  Some are, most are not.

My Spanish teacher at Gavilan College and I have become rather close friends.

Do you know that I can sing "Besame Mucho" and "Cielito Lindo" completely in Spanish?  Also "Rancho Grande" and some other tunes.  When I sing these songs, the alley cats of Hollister join me in the chorus until someone calls the police.  It's fun anyway.

Does this mean that I support illegal immigration?  Not on your life.  But the great majority of Hispanics I have met over the past year are here legally.

One more thing:  Hispanic women are hot, hot, hot!!  Just the facts, ma'am, that's all.

Yes, race is often important -- but it is not all-important.  Keep things in perspective.

The Hyper-Sensitivity of Racial Themes in America

For many years now, journalists, politicians, educators and ministers have defended the equality of black people.  That in itself is fine, but politicians will generally take a worthy theme and and transform it into some grotesque mutation in order to create a political weapon.  Legitimate sensitivity to black people's concerns has, over time, become a paranoid hypersensitivity where any reference to black ethnicity is seen as "RAAAAACIST."

Some examples.  Don Imus referring to a women's black basketball team as "nappy headed hoes."  Imus was trying to be cool and employ the language of youth.  He was trying to pay the players a compliment on being tough cookies who won games.  The unfortunate reference exploded in his face, resulting in him losing his radio show and becoming the target of wild paroxysms of public outrage with its resulting shame and humiliation.  He had to apologize to the women's team in person and prostrate himself before the gods of political correctness to beg forgiveness.  Ridiculous.

In 1999, a white staff member of D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams used the word "niggardly" in a private staff meeting to describe the administration of a fund.  Black members were offended and the staff member, David Howard, was asked to resign.  However, "niggardly" has no racial connotations whatever -- it is an ancient English word from the time period of 1520 - 1530 and means stingy, miserly or cheap.  After a public outcry against the stupidity of Howard's dismissal, he was rehired.

In the same year, a college student took her English professor to task for using the same word in a lecture:

Student Demands 'Niggardly' be Prohibited at University of Wisconsin (02/03/99)

Student Amelia Rideau is upset that her professor used the 'N-ardly' word at least twice: Once on Jan. 25 during a class on 14th-century English poet Geoffrey Chaucer, and once in a subsequent class to explain the word’s meaning.  Ms. Rideau was outraged, and is demanding the UW implement a speech code which would punish anyone using what she described as 'offensive' language - including the 'N-ardly' word.  She urged the university not to require proof of intent before punishing verbal villains such as her professor.

Amelia Rideau is a good example of the extreme racial hypersensitivity that liberalism and political correctness have produced.  In her universe, any word or language deemed "offensive," no matter how innocent, is to be repressed and the perpetrator punished. The only proof of a crime is to be that some black person, somewhere, somehow, was offended by the remark.  Such hysteria resulted in colleges attempting to impose "speech codes" and to effectively abridge freedom of speech.

In the past twenty years I remember a lot of racial hysteria that I consider ridiculous.  A group of black city councilmen in Georgia wanted to remove a cotton patch from a town heritage display because it was "a painful reminder of slavery."  A football tournament in the South issued an advertising poster with a Southern mansion in it.  The poster had to be recalled due to this "painful reminder of slavery."  A group of black students on a field trip by bus were asked by the driver to "move to the back of the bus" so passengers not of their party could more easily enter and depart.  The NAACP had a field day over that one as racial hysteria reached epic levels.

Some people, like reader Mnut, are still over-sensitized to racial issues and see "racism" where there is none.  In fact, he has been scouring the web for my comments at other sites in order to prove me "racist."  Good luck on that, Mnut.  By the left's definition, as described in the above paragraphs, I am already a racist, as are my black conservative friends who do not engage in such racial histrionics.

This is not to excuse real racism (wherein the racist hates essentially all members of a certain race, or believes essentially all members of that race to be inferior or advocates second-class citizenship for same).  Bad taste or social insensitivity do not a racist make, not by my definition.  Sarcasm or ridicule directed at members of the racial grievance industry over their exaggerated claims is not racism.  Such people, of whom Jesse Jackson is one, are legitimate targets for satire, sarcasm and ridicule.  Contempt for one race hustler does not logically imply contempt for the entire race of which he is a part.  This is something Mnut and other liberals have not yet figured out.

Liberal blacks, race-hustlers and shake-down artists like Jesse Jackson, are legitimate targets for criticism.  We as conservatives cannot allow manufactured race hysteria to result in self-censorship.  That is what the liberals are counting on:  that from fear of false charges of "racism" we will self-censor, i.e. that we will not criticize Barack Obama and other black liberals or hold them to account.  The phony charges of Tea Party "racism" is designed to inspire self-censorship.  They just want us to shut up and the phony racism charge has worked so well for that in the past.

This use of racial hysteria as a gag for conservatives has gone on far too long.  Fortunately, more and more people are seeing through the scam and it is losing its effectiveness.  Charges of "RAAAAACISM" today more often bring contempt for the accuser rather than fear and loathing for the accused.  The race card has been played many times too many.  The public has caught on to the scam.

Criticism of liberal blacks is legitimate; however, the use of insulting ethnic stereotypes for ridicule is not.  A Photoshop that some fool created a few months ago showed the White House lawn planted with watermelons.  That is not a legitimate criticism of liberal blacks, but an insulting stereotype of the black population as a whole.  Such "humor" is never appropriate and I will delink and disassociate with anyone who uses it.