Category Archives: Affirmative Action

UPDATED: Left-Liberals & The Erotica of Racial Subjugation

Affirmative Action, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Race, Racism, Sex, The West

White left-liberals display an almost erotic enjoyment of racial subjugation.

More so than internalizing racial contempt for themselves and their kind, this sub-species seems to enjoy taking punishment for being white, being pretty in a white way, etc.

Or is it, rather, that these liberals love the phony, showy self-righteousness that they’ve cultivated in the course of apologizing for their skin color?

Either way, if you get off on taking punishment for doing no harm to anyone other than existing in your skin—you probably deserve the real punishment that will invariably follow.

But do your kids? (Read “Sacrificing Kids To PC Pietism.”)

Here are some white men and women—cattle, really—who’ve offered up their faces for branding, as part of University of Wisconsin Duluth-Superior’s “Un-Fair Campaign.” The young have been mentored by the older generation; the imbecilic pedagogues can’t be saddled with all the blame.

Via Fox News Insider:

A PSA released by a university anti-racism group has drawn criticism after it displayed messages on the faces of white men and women. The messages said things like “it’s not luck, it’s privilege,” and “society was set up for us.” The Un-Fair Campaign at the University of Wisconsin Duluth-Superior says the ad is meant to highlight that institutional racism exists in the area because of economic and educational advantages of white people compared to minorities.

UPDATE (3/14): “Attention White People!” BY Tom DiLorenzo:

“…the state of Wisconsin is about to require all white students to wear white wristbands to constantly remind them that they are ‘privileged white people.'”

Desmond Tutu NOT An Example Of Black Privilege

Affirmative Action, Israel, Neoconservatism, Race, Racism, South-Africa

I am not sure why the authors of Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream, reviewed by philosopher-pundit Jack Kerwick on FrontPage Magazine, picked on Desmond Tutu as an example of black privilege in South Africa.

It must be an authorial tic peculiar to neoconservatives, and applied to anyone with an anti-Israel position, for which Archbishop Tutu is famous. It is also typical of the neoconservative’s reflexive ahistoric approach, where a proposition or an idea (black privilege) is applied without nuance, to any and all annoying blacks (Tutu is that alright).

Horowitz and Perazzo even show that black skin privilege transcends continents. Alluding to South Africa’s Bishop Demond Tutu, they write: “What white spiritual leader could support the torture-murders of South African blacks, compare Israel to Nazi Germany, and still be regarded as a moral icon? A black cleric like Bishop Desmond Tutu can.” (Indeed, as occasional Front Page Magazine contributor and former South African resident Ilana Mercer amply demonstrates in her, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, the new South Africa is black skin privilege on steroids.)

(From “Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream” by Jack Kerwick.)

I don’t think Desmond Tutu is an example of black privilege. He supports it, but doesn’t exemplify it.

If anything, the elderly Archbishop, whose inauguration I attended and with whom my father and I took afternoon tea many decades back, embodies the old-style, old school African man. Tutu grew up in wretched poverty, received—and gladly accepted—a decent education courtesy of the Church, and worked his ministry so hard as to reap the rewards. (In “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” I discuss the wonders the white-run churches had done in South Africa, as do I mention what was for me a memorable meeting with the Archbishop. From that occasion I took away that he was fond of my father and respectful of dad’s Jewish faith and scholarship. How good an equalizer were some schools in the old South Africa? You be the judge. Tutu and I, and tens of thousands of other Africans, belong to the same alma mater: UNISA.)

Sure, Tutu is a left-liberal. But to me, as I said in “King Tut(u) Not So Terrific,” his impiety stems from never having piped up about the ethnic cleansing of rural whites, Afrikaners mostly, from the land in ways that beggar belief. Saint Mandela has also remained mum about these Shaka-Zulu worthy murders.

And so have our neoconservatives!

Witness the authors of Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream, who, it would appear, protest Tutu’s alleged support for the “torture-murders of South African blacks” (by which I am told they meant white South Africans), but say nothing, seemingly (just like Tutu), about the targeted slaughter of whites in South Africa, and then only when it’s politically safe to do so. (Watch Barely a Blog for commentary about Oscar Pistorius.)

Jack Kerwick, of course, is correct (and most kind) to subtly remind neoconservatives that it is “the new South Africa [that] is black skin privilege on steroids” (and that a rightist has already plumbed the depths of this topic).

David Mamet Packs Heat, Sheds Light

Affirmative Action, Conservatism, Constitution, Government, GUNS, Hollywood, Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Race, Republicans, The State

In “Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm,*” the talented Hollywood playwright, author, director, and producer David Mamet motivates for his individual right to defend life, liberty and property.

As a conventional conservative or Republican, Mamet’s positions are often pat, lacking philosophical depth. For example: He fingers The Bureaucracy as ineffectual because lacking in compassion and common sense. However, like most members of the right-leaning establishment, Mamet is incapable of explaining the underlying dynamic or structure that accounts for the inversion of economic incentives in the bureaucracy, irrespective of the good intentions and good character of the bureaucrats.

Mamet also mouths the conventional conservative talking points about affirmative action: that it is based in the mistaken premise that “black people have fewer abilities than white people,” a notion Mamert calls “monstrous.”

The “I love blacks, so I want to make them compete on an equal footing” mantra is as prevalent a platitude among conservatives as it is stupid. Affirmative action is based on the immutable fact of blacks’ lower aggregate scores in academia and in other fields. The “monstrous” part of it is that quotas treat all individual blacks as part of an underachieving, oppressed cohort. As does it lump all whites—the poor, the underprivileged and the victimized too—in a group that needs to suffer for the sake of black upliftment.

Also lackluster or absent is Mamet’s defense of a natural right that predates the constitutional right to bear arms. But Mamet should be appreciated for writing very well, and for being a lone voice for reason and rights in Hollywood, writing that,

…there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.
The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.
Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.
Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.

[SNIP]

* Chelm: From Mamet’s reference to Chelm, I concluded that he is probably Jewish (and well-educated, of course, which he is).

Thoughts On Gun Debate, Republikeynesians & The Practice of Proctology

Affirmative Action, Democracy, Democrats, Feminism, GUNS, Healthcare, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Political Philosophy, Politics, Regulation, Republicans, Socialism

GUN LOBBY MADE ‘EM DO IT. Have you noticed how Democrats and their media lapdogs counter arguments for the natural right to self defense? They blame the “gun lobby.” Accordingly, it is not the gun owners who assert this right, but a monied gun lobby. This variation on the ad hominem argument allows these statists to bypass the debate about the right to defend life, liberty and property.

HOW LIKE DEMOCRATS. In arguing their case, tit-for-tat Republicans use the exact arguments their opponents use. Thus, instead of making a point against affirmative action and for individual merit, you find Fox Rinos like Dana Perino and Kimberly Guilfoile asking, “Where are the minorities” in Obama’s cabinet?

THE OBAMACARE SURVIVAL GUIDE. It’s a best-seller; # 47 on Amazon. I am sure that, like me, you know Obama-heads (doctors too) who shrugged off the idea that a further centralization of healthcare by “Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists”— a modest healthcare expansion totaling $2 trillion—will cost them anything at all. I’m already feeling The Care. How about you? TAWE (The Ass With Ears) has sent the health care we had to hell in a handcart, for the ostensible benefit of less than ten percent of the population. In any case, if this “2,700 page law” made life easier, would the author of the ObamaCare Survival Guide be selling so many guides to so many perplexed people?