Category Archives: Race

Western Man Forgives Unspeakable Violence Against Himself And Those He’s Obligated To Protect

Christianity, Crime, Education, Family, Kids, Left-Liberalism, Race, Racism, The Zeitgeist

Kids like Ethan Williams are sent into the world wide-eyed and filled with only wonderment. (Read “Sacrificing Kids To PC Pietism,” 2011 and “Progressive Crazies Are Getting The Kids Killed.”) Nary a warning are they issued as to the reality of crime in America—and beyond. Parents are instrumental in these tragic events, having never given their kids “The Talk,” as John Derbyshire called it.

As a neighborhood to bunk down in, during a visit to New York City, Ethan Williams chose Bushwick (pictured). Bushwick is known as dangerously and diversely hip. Was this reckless decision not made against the background of a lifelong, familial devotion to such displays of hipness, “openness” and an obsession with The Other?

His father, Jason R. Williams, says the kid was all about curing “poverty and violence” and doing “mission work in Rwanda” (as opposed to in white, impoverish Appalachia).

Likely race-related, the murder of this typical innocent do-gooder, Ethan Williams, was masked as a ‘stray bullet.’ Writes his father, who—it has to be said—seems to have helped cement this delusional, progressive-Christian ideation in his kid’s mind:

Police believe our son’s killer mistook him and his friends for rival gang members. They were instead just a group of Midwestern boys on their first trip to see “the greatest city in the world.” If he had been given the chance, without question Ethan would have embraced his would-be killer, asked his name and hung out on those same steps with him swapping stories deep into the night.

From “Sacrificing Kids To PC Pietism (2011)“:

Here is how an alien from deep space would puzzle over the creatures who, by dint of a miracle, still dominate the Western world:

This prototypical Western man is flabby in body and mind. He is fearful and easily cowed. He erupts in tears at a drop of a hat. He is gripped by the culture of apology, and flagellates over sins he has not committed. His eternal state of expiation is driven not by goodness, but by insufferable self-righteousness.

This archetypal Western man forgives unspeakable violence against himself and those he is obligated to protect. He would not hurt a fly, much less repel a foe. An astute alien (from deep space) would notice that, in this regard, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the “conservative” and “liberal” earthling. Both insist on catering to and enabling organized entities—in politics and in other crime— that despise them for their abilities and frailties, and instinctively seek to harm them.

These hostile identity groups segregate themselves voluntarily from the western weakling …
Flash- feral mobs flood places of commerce across the once-great country of America. What does the overwhelmed creature under observation do? “Conservative” or liberal, he refuses to finger his assailants. Instead, his experts implicate abstractions (“risk-taking”), and his media mouthpieces (Daily Beast or and Fox News) point to technology such as social media. Yet another, least logical, bogus causal agent invoked: the racism of the Democratic Party.

Not only does this generic Joe refuse to identify his proud, empowered attackers, but he rejects the possibility that they act out of ingrained animus for his kind. The swarms that descended to take what is his—to hurt him and even kill him—he jocularly terms mischief-makers, teens, twitter-operators, technology savvy youth. Yes, this brow-beaten, emasculated, excuse-for-a-man uses diminutives to describe the contempt-filled stalkers who menace him and who would squash him like the bug he is.

If not for YouTube footage of the racially uniform formations terrorizing businesses in Chicago’s Magnificent Mile, in the upmarket area of Streeterville, in Georgetown, Washington, D.C., in Las Vegas, in St. Paul, Minnesota, in Philadelphia, on and on—our studious alien from outer space would be none the wiser about the hue of hatred on Planet Earth. As the man from outer space has surmised, his strange subjects are certainly impervious to facts.

 

* Image thanks.

FRED REED: The Possible Virtues Of A Salutary Distance

Affirmative Action, Conflict, Crime, Education, English, FRED REED, Intelligence, Law, libertarianism, Multiculturalism, Race

By Fred Reed

Most of the profound anger and apparent actual insanity afflicting the United States stem from racial antagonism: The Floyd riots, the tearing down of statues, affirmative action, the renaming of buildings, hostility to everything Confederate, racial attacks on whites by blacks, critical race theory, the fury over trials. Racial policy isn’t working and isn’t going to. America had better find another approach before, one day, the guns come out.

Sez I, a massive step toward racial reconciliation could be achieved simply by deregulating the schools. The races have very, very disparate cultures and want different things. In the integrated schools, either blacks must be forced to learn things of interest only to whites, or whites must be prevented from learning these things. It is hard to see why black students or their parents would have any interest in Jane Austin, Mark Twain, Shakespeare, or Beowulf. Nor is it clear why whites, of either generation, would care more than passingly about Africa. Why, unworkably, force each to do something both alien and of no interest to it?

Many object that the study of mathematics constitutes racism, or is a means of oppressing blacks. Why force math on blacks or, more importantly, prevent white kids from learning them? Similarly, English grammar is now said to be racist. Why should black young of a background having no interest in such things have to be burdened with it?

These difficulties could within an administrative district be remedied by allowing different groups to establish such schools as they chose, for such students as they chose, teaching such material as they chose. Charges of discrimination could be avoided by requiring by law that all students be subsidized at the same per-pupil rate. Further, allow schools to select such students as they choose. If some schools wanted only white students, or black, or racially mixed, so be it. As long as they were given equal resource’s, it would be their business. If some parents preferred schools of mixed race, it would be their business.  Evangelical schools? Fine. Jewish? Equally so. Chinese? Equally.

The right of schools to choose teachers without governmental bureaucracy—most importantly, certification—would be crucial. Certified teachers are often of low quality and always carriers of industrial-strength political correctness. The teachers unions are just that—unions, interested chiefly in the good of the membership, not the students. I would not be allowed to teach either writing or journalism whereas a half-literate political hire would be.

This would also allow parents of very bright kids to use such tests as they chose to find the extraordinarily smart and then to teach them at their level.  Those opposed to testing could avail themselves of schools not engaging in testing. Forcing kids of IQ 140 or better to agonize in classes at the level of “Mommy Beaver had two sticks and Daddy Beaver had two, how many did that have in all” is child abuse. A child in that range in the second grade is reading at the ninth-grade level and school is nothing but an obstacle. Why do this?

In aggregate these measures—we could call them “freedom”—might go far to reduce hostility.

Smaller and seemingly less important matters count in racial relations. Blacks often deprecate other blacks for “acting white.” This is not unreasonable. People naturally want to be around others who share their culture, manners, and ideas of consideration and propriety. I don’t want my children, or people around me, “acting black.” I don’t know what “acting white” means and I don’t care. I don’t want my children wearing their pants below their knees and saying “muggafugga” every second word. These practices do no actual harm, but are extremely disagreeable to most whites. While I do not want to dictate the culture of blacks—it isn’t my business—neither do I want them transgressing mine. Would not separation be the comfortable solution?

Housing is another matter in which less government would be of use. Here again, policy is disastrous. The races obviously do not want to live together. When blacks move into white neighborhoods, the whites leave. When whites move back into the city, “gentrifying,” blacks are enraged. Upon reaching university, blacks often demand dormitories only for blacks, courses only for blacks, student centers only for blacks, and graduations only for blacks. If whites had the same privileges, friction would diminish. By (again) providing these things on a rigid and transparent basis of equal money per student, discrimination could be avoided.

Since the races usually want to live apart, why not simply let them? Those who wanted to live in mixed neighborhoods could, but if a black neighborhood wanted to avoid gentrification, it could vote to do so.

The voluntary separation of races would greatly reduce the very high rates of crime against whites by blacks, and the fear and intensifying hostility caused by this crime. I don’t know how to end crime, but reducing the fear of blacks would go far to encourage racial reconciliation.

Blacks say that white police discriminate against them.  Whether this is true would make no difference if blacks policed black neighborhoods and whites, white. Cities typically burn because white policemen have beaten or shot a black. The blindingly obvious solution is, in racially homogeneous regions, to have the local race do the policing. Friction might in some degree continue between police and policed, but at least it would not be racial.

Further, though it will at first sound strange, I suggest that black and white neighborhoods be permitted to decide what laws to enforce, at least in those matters affecting only the neighborhood. If blacks chose to ignore use of marijuana, drinking in public, selling crack, or driving without a license, why should they not? Do they not know their neighborhood, its needs and problems, better that I? Why are these things my business either way? The result would be vastly fewer arrests of blacks by whites and fewer blacks in prison, both of these contributing greatly to hostility between the races.

I am not recommending the abandonment of black neighborhoods to crime, but rather letting those affected decide. For example, blacks often hate stop-and-frisk policing. Why not let those affected make the decision? This would reduce the impression of the police as an occupying army, often white.

Nor am I suggesting the subjection of blacks to a punitive regime. I believe that all citizens should have access to good medical care, that providing schools with textbooks of their choice is a proper function of government, as is maintenance of streets, water supply, and electric supply. If a black university wants microscopes or a computer, it should get them. And universities should be free to hire any staff they choose, depending only on the willingness of the staff to be hired. The various forms of welfare should be continued as there is no choice other than causing great hardship–even hunger.

Since the races are in America, and none is going to leave, finding a workable approach to amity would seem a good idea. What we have hasn’t worked, is not working, shows no sign that it ever will, and indeed things are getting worse. A little distance might go a long way. If there is ever an explosion of the very real, very deep anger in the country that the media are hiding from themselves, it might make Floyd’s uprising seem trivial. In the Floyd riots, the guns didn’t come out.

 

******************************************

FRED REED describes himself as [previously] a “Washington police reporter, former Washington editor for Harper’s and staff writer for Soldier of Fortune magazine, Marine combat vet from Viet Nam, and former long-haul hitchhiker, part-time sociopath, who once lived in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from the Yankee Capital.”
His essays “on the collapse of America” Mr. Reed calls “wildly funny, sometimes wacky, always provocative.”
“Fred is the Hunter Thompson of the right,” seconds Thomas E. Ricks in Foreign Policy magazine. His  commentary is “well-written, pungent political incorrectness mixed with smart military commentary and libertarian impulses, topped off with a splash of Third World sunshine and tequila.”

FRED’S BOOKS ARE ON AMAZON, HERE

FRED’S ARTICLES ARCHIVE

UPDATED (11/22/021): NEW COLUMN: Republicans’ Main Focus: Showing Off How Black-Focused They Are

Argument, Crime, Democrats, Race, Racism, Republicans

NEW COLUMN, “Republicans’ Main Focus: Showing Off How Black-Focused They Are,” is currently on WND.COM, Unz Review, CNSNews and American Greatness.

An excerpt:

For the longest time, the American People—an inchoate concept that sadly no longer means much—have endured great wrongs. Examples of these wrongs are legal and illegal mass immigration, open-borders, the kind of multilateral trade deals that immiserate, impoverish, and hollow out communities once staid and settled. And now, vaccine mandates: Take the State’s hemlock or lose your job.

As a rule, private property—corporations—once shielded the individual from the State. No longer. American Big Business now gleefully enforces the State’s regulatory despotism. There is nowhere left to run.

Ubiquitous black-on-white crime inflicted by a coddled criminal class, native born and energetically imported, is high on the list of State and corporate crimes against the citizenry.

Whether he postures on tv or on the Hill—the arguments advanced by the typical Republican front man against these expanding depredations are, however, empty.

The “objections” put forth by Republicans in defense of their constituency are all theater and farce. It is essential to alert the voter to this void, foretold, for example, in this columnist’s February 2019 warning that, “Every time a manifestly racist, anti-white event goes down, which is frequently, conservative media and politicians can be relied on to dub it ‘identity politics.’ ‘The left is playing identity politics,’ they intone. “They are dividing us,” they’ll lament.

However, “Whatever is convulsing the country, it’s not identity politics, but anti-white politics, pure, simple and systemic.

Identify the bogus argument—and you will have exposed the frauds who want you to send them to live off the fleshpots in Rome-on-the-Potomac. (Actually, as one wag perspicaciously pointed out, “The comparison to Rome [is unfair].” After all, Rome built two great civilizations and is a site of enormous cultural significance.”)

Although not exclusive to him, my example today comes from Fox News’ Jesse Watters. When speaking loudly over his guest—why invite them on, if you intend to drown them out?—Mr. Watters made the usual Republican straw argument against black crime. You hear it routinely from Sean Hannity, Candace Owens and the rest:

Democrats “only care when a white person takes a black life. If a black person takes a black life, they don’t even care at all.”

Likewise, it can be said that Republican don’t much care when a black person takes a white life.

Seldom mentioned in Republican argumentation is the real hate crime in the room: black-on-white crime which is invariably not reported, underreported, or if reported, masked as something other than what it really is, which is systemic, institutionalized, white-hot hatred of whites.

Republicans just can’t seem to protect or stick up for besieged whites and are forever searching their brains for ways to show off their Abe Lincoln pedigrees….

… READ ON. NEW COLUMN is “Republicans’ Main Focus: Showing Off How Black-Focused They Are.” Read it on WND.COM, Unz Review, CNSNews and American Greatness.

UPDATE (11/22/021): For every hate crime unnamed that makes its way into the news, there are countless daily beatings and bullying in public places.

UPDATED (11/21/021): Prosecutorial Duties To Seek Justice Flouted In The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Argument, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Justice, Law, Left-Liberalism, Media, Propaganda, Race, Republicans

Prosecutorial power to bring charges against a person is an awesome power, stress Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Backing him, the prosecutor has the might of the state, and must never “override the rights of the defendant in order to gain a conviction.”

Unlike the defense attorney, whose job it is to defend the accused, regardless of guilt, the prosecutor’s job is to jail only those who are actually guilty. It is not unethical for a defense attorney to get a guilty client off—if the prosecutor can’t meet his burden of proof, it’s not the defense’s fault. But it is unethical for the prosecutor to prosecute someone he does not firmly believe is guilty.

Prosecutorial duties are dual. While acting as the plaintiff, the prosecutor must also take pains to protect the defendant’s rights.

This duty was clearly flouted in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, in which the prosecutor engaged not in a search for truth, but in full-on character assassination of the 18-year-old young man.

The hive media was along for the ride, as is evident from one in many such error-riddled reports in the once-august Newsweek. (They are all like this. Reporter here isn’t even corrected for spelling; she spells Judge Bruce Schroeder’s name two different ways in one sentence!)

The latest news:

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyers on Wednesday asked the judge for the second time in a week to declare a mistrial, this time arguing the defense received an inferior copy of a key video from prosecutors.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi told Judge Bruce Schroeder his team would have approached the case differently had it received the higher-quality video earlier. He said his newest motion for a mistrial would be made “without prejudice,” meaning prosecutors could try Rittenhouse again if the judge grants the mistrial.

Whereas Democrats are forever speaking up in defense of the armed militia of the Democratic Party, BLM thugs and rioters; Republican politicians for Kyle Rittenhouse where nowhere to be found. They do not give a dried camel’s hump to meet Dems on their combative terms on every front: cultural, legal, political.

It is clear that the adults had let young Kyle Rittennhouse down. They failed to explain to Kyle that he now lived in a country no longer free, and no longer based in ordered liberty. They forgot to tell Kyle that America was now systemically and institutionally anti-white. “Don’t do it, white boy.”

Whatever happens, one thing is clear: When Kyle went to Kenosha, “A Folk Hero was Born.”

Young Kyle went to Kenosha, Wisconsin, because he was never confused. He attempted to do the job politicians and police have refused to do. As the city’s mayor and the state’s governor watched Kenosha burn, Kyle confronted the enemies of the commonweal. Unlike the flaccid men of the media and in corridors of power, the 17-year-old rose to the challenge, firing only when he was prone and was being pounded by the feral fiends.

Now, let us all pray.

UPDATE (11/21/021):

* REMEMBER THE RIOTS of The Summer of Love, 2020? It turns out that politicians and the police who either stood down in Kenosha (and beyond) or knelt like ninnies need not have let THE COUNTRY BURN.

REPORTING FROM KENOSHA post verdict, NOV. 19, 2021, (I thought double-barreled surnames were a feminist affectation. Oh, I guess he is a feminist) points out that,

Three hours after 12 jurors found Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges, the front steps of the courthouse in Kenosha are nearly clear of demonstrators. The scores of Rittenhouse supporters and detractors who were there after the verdict are almost entirely gone.

The crowds were likely cleared by the culprits who, only a year prior, allowed the place to burn down.