On ‘The Democrats Drove Them To Riot And Rut’ Reductionism: It’s Doo-Doo

Argument, Conservatism, Crime, Democrats, Morality, Political Philosophy, Sex

“It may be worth watching Tucker tonight,” tweeted Musil Protege. Musil was hoping to hear an impassioned response to a particularly gory South-Africa style homicide, in the course of which a bunch of fellas, during the Puerto Rican Day Parade in Chicago, pulled a young couple out of the car and shot them in cold blood, while gesticulating and hopping about with feral glee.

“He has developed a relationship with Chicago Alderman Raymond Lopez,” posited Musil Protege, “a reasonable law and order Democrat, who has become something of a thorn in the side of Mayor Lightfoot. I don’t think this crime will be disappeared so easily.”

Gyovanny Arzuaga and Yasmin Perez were shot on West Division Street on the Northwest Side around 9:15 p.m. Saturday, hours after the parade had ended.” Both are now dead.

“My mistake,” came Musil’s next tweet. “Tucker Carlson turned to his go-to expert on everything, Candace Owens. Mea culpa.”

Say no more.

Musil is right about Tucker’s disappointing tack. The Fox News host had said that nobody rendered a more “lucid” explanation for the orgies of black crime than Candace Owens’ word salad.

I obviously didn’t get it. To me, Candace’s lucidity was silent (to conjure the great Queensryche ballad, “Silent Lucidity“).  Owens’ tack is essentially the following:  Democrats are just using innocent blacks. With their schemes—their political shenanigans—Democrats drove blacks to do the crime.

To go by Candace Owens, as per her consistent performances on Tucker Carlson’s show, the Democrats made black residents of Oakland CA, simulate coitus and engage in an orgiastic celebration of death and mayhem around the EMT vans.

And in case you don’t know it, US Democrats caused black crime in South Africa, too. My tongue is firmly in my cheek here.

What’s remarkable about these bacchanalias of murder and mayhem is the sexual component: Violence is sexually titillating to these lower-order reptilian brains (with apologies to reptiles).

Pants are often pulled down; and the lower body is thrusting as that of a dog in heat. (My apologies to the canine community for the unfortunate comparison.)

In all, “the Democrats Made Them Riot And Rut” argument is doo-doo. It doesn’t fly. And it’s pretty bad moral reductionism.

*Image credit

MORE Candace fast-talking boilerplate.

A Sizeable Number Of White Americans Are Realizing They Too Belong To A Race

America, Democrats, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Multiculturalism, Race, Racism, Republicans

“White racial consciousness comes out … in such beliefs as the evil of reverse discrimination—whites being discriminated against because of the colour of their skin. Such views are NOT racist in the classic sense of white superiority.”—The Economist

The Economist, to which I subscribe because of its impeccable, intelligent reporting, offers quite a fair and incisive look into “the souls of white folks,” a glimpse you’ll not find in an American liberal magazine or other parrot-cage liners.  (Palatial parrot cage, in the case of Oscar-Wood)

The story of race in America is usually about African-Americans and, more recently, Hispanics and Asians. But it is also about whites.

I excerpt from The Economist’s “White Americans are beginning to realise that they too belong to a race: Anxiety about their country’s demography is fuelling the politics of racial backlash” (May 22, 2021):

“… When it comes to their own race, white Americans divide into two tribes. As left-leaning whites become more conscious of racism, they also think more about what it means to be white. Six months after Mr Floyd’s death, 30% of whites told a poll run by Ipsos that they had “personally taken actions to understand racial issues in America”. …
widespread is a feeling of some responsibility for the plight of African-Americans. Between 2014 and 2019, the share of whites who thought the government should spend more money on improving the conditions of African-Americans increased from 24% to 46%.

The second white tribe is different. Over the past decade, according to calculations by Bill Frey of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, the number of Americans who describe themselves as Latino or Hispanic, Asian, African- or Native American (plus those who identify as from two or more races) has risen by 53%. Over the same period America’s white population grew by less than 1%.

When he was running for the Senate in Texas in the mid-1960s, George H.W. Bush opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it “was passed to protect 14% of the people”. He said “I’m also worried about the other 86%.” Ronald Reagan took the same line when running for governor of California. Richard Nixon, while pushing policies that benefited African-Americans, said that minorities were “undercutting American greatness”, a familiar refrain. An unease over demographic transformation now plays a similar role in politics to the backlash against civil rights 50 years ago.

By 2005 the Republican Party had disowned its “southern strategy” of prising white Southerners away from the Democrats. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarisation,” the party chairman told the NAACP pressure-group. “I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” Three years later America elected its first black president. Michael Tesler of the University of California, Irvine, notes that Barack Obama’s victory set off a fresh exodus of whites away from the Democrats. “It took the election of the first black president for some white Americans to work out that the Democratic Party is the party of non-whites,” he says. By 2020 the Republican Party’s lead among white men without a college degree was huge: they backed Mr Trump by a margin of 40 points.

These voting patterns did not reflect only fondness for tax cuts or a dislike of immigration, the most recognisable bits of Mr Trump’s pitch. They also reflected a view of race. According to Ashley Jardina of Duke University, 30-40% of whites say their racial identity is “very important”. This is far lower than the share of black or Hispanic Americans saying the same. But this group of race-conscious whites, who also say they have “a lot” or “a great deal” in common with other whites, numbers about 75m people of voting age. That makes them more numerous than any minority.

White racial solidarity has a murderous past. Recently it has been associated with tiki torches, neo-Nazis and the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. Yet only a tiny fraction of white Americans share such extreme views. The sense of solidarity among whites described by Ms Jardina is broader. In her book “White Identity Politics”, she says that “white identity” is not a polite way of saying “dislike toward other racial or ethnic minorities”. White racial consciousness comes out instead in such beliefs as the evil of reverse discrimination—whites being discriminated against because of the colour of their skin. Such views are not racist in the classic sense of white superiority. Those who hold them reject anti-black stereotypes. But they are likely to discount the effects of past racism, and to believe that African-Americans would catch up with whites if only they worked harder. Like Mr Kroll, the police-union boss, who complained that Democrats accuse those who disagree with them of being racist, or Mr Trump, who claimed to be “the least racist person anywhere in the world”, many are acutely sensitive to accusations of racism.

As America becomes more multiracial, and whites lose the status of dominant group, their sense of racial solidarity may grow and the taboo against white pride may fade. A recent attempt to launch an Anglo-Saxon caucus by Republican House members could be a portent. Already many rural and suburban whites, who in Minnesota might have defined themselves as Swedes or Germans as well as Americans, define themselves as white. They, not Minnesota’s African-Americans, now live in the most racially segregated places of all.

This second white tribe thinks more like a minority than part of the country’s biggest single group. Geographic separation can lead to a reflexive bias that is different from racism in the 1950s but still lethal.”

MORE: “White Americans are beginning to realise that they too belong to a race”

* Image via The Economist.

UPDATED (6/21 FRIENDS): NEW COLUMN: Murray’s Empirical Wisdom Confirms ‘Into The Cannibal’s Pot’s’ Analytical Truths

Conservatism, Crime, Ilana Mercer, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Race, Racism, Reason

NEW COLUMN, “Murray’s Empirical Wisdom Confirms ‘Into The Cannibal’s Pot’s’ Analytical Truths,” is currently on Townhall.com, WND.COM, The Unz Review, American Renaissance, and CNSNews, created by two conservative greats, Brent Bozell III and Terry Jeffrey.

Excerpt:

My 2011 book, “Into the cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” rests on two axiomatic truths, and I excerpt (pp 40-41 & 126-128, 2011):

“In all, no color should be given to the claim that race is not a factor in the incidence of crime in the US and in South Africa. The vulgar individualist will contend that such broad statements about aggregate group characteristics are collectivist, ergo false. He would be wrong.”

“Generalizations,” I continued, “provided they are substantiated by hard evidence, not hunches, are not incorrect. Science relies on the ability to generalize to the larger population observations drawn from a representative sample. People make prudent decisions in their daily lives based on probabilities and generalities. That one chooses not to live in a particular crime-riddled county or country in no way implies that one considers all individual residents there to be criminals, only that a sensible determination has been made, based on statistically significant data, as to where scarce and precious resources—one’s life and property—are best invested.” (“Into The Cannibal’s Pot,” pp 40-41)

In short, generalizations about certain group characteristics are, in aggregate, valid. These, however, do not contradict the imperative to treat each and every individual as an individual.

In his infinite wisdom, but with a different—strictly empirical approach—social scientist Charles Murray has ushered into mainstream this very same truth. In a luminous little book, “Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America,” Murray counsels precisely that:

“…when mean differences between groups are real, it is absolutely essential to resist generalization; it is essential to accept the reality of documented group differences but to insist on thinking of and treating every person as an individual.”

Next, in “Into the cannibal’s Pot,” I explained that we conservatives and libertarians who oppose affirmative action, set asides and quotas, because of our unfettered fealty for a merit-based, free-market based society are, sadly, promoting “half-truths,” as I put it. Here’s why:

“Free market economists have long since insisted that the rational, self-interest of individuals in private enterprise is always not to discriminate. ‘The market is color-blind,’ said Milton Friedman. ‘No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or atheist; by whites or blacks.’ As Thomas Sowell put it, ‘prejudice is free, but discrimination has costs.’” (ITCP pp. 126-128)

Inherent in these arguments, I had argued, in 2011, is that, while not untrue, they are incomplete, mere half-truths: …

“Arguably, however, [our] good economists … are still offering up a half-truth. Rational self-interest does indeed propel people, however prejudiced, to set aside bias and put their scarce resources to the best use. But to state simply that ‘discrimination is bad for business’ [and that a pure, free-market meritocracy would solve the problem of racial underrepresentation] is to present an incomplete picture.” …

… READ THE REST… NEW COLUMN, “Murray’s Empirical Wisdom Confirms ‘Into The Cannibal’s Pot’s’ Analytical Truths,” is currently on Townhall.com, WND.COM, The Unz Review, American Renaissance, and CNSNews

UPDATE (6/21/021): I am thankful for having quality readers. My writing has drawn wonderful people; giving, good people. Writes one such soul:

Ilana it’s a very brutal world for someone like yourself. When I said that you are alone, I didn’t mean that in the sense that you are banished to isolation or similar. I meant you are unique, you stand out, have value, yet the many are abject cretins, and will never comprehend you, couldn’t give a damn, and on account of their low level of culture will never encounter the likes of you till the end of time. This does not signify you should cease being the thinker that you are, for you must continue, whenever it occurs to you, to impart your intelligence to us. Your great worth will always find fruition somewhere with someone.

So kind and so soulful and, above all, giving. This is a giving person who really wants to impart strength, where he perceives that it’s waning. And he is not alone. “Musil Protege” is such a gem of a friend. Kerry Crowel, too, and David Vance: what a pro. Online, there are Matt Ray and Dissident Mama: good people who “drop by” to strengthen me and give of themselves.

I hope that these fine people find me as loyal a friend as I find them.

MSNBC Celebrates Deep-Tech Speech Crackdowns. Republicans Did/Do Nothing About Deplatforming

Business, Free Speech, Individual Rights, Media, Republicans, Technology

On June 4, 2021, one of MSNBC’s egos in an anchor’s chair said this:

“Social media giant is cracking down on politicians and speech. But is it too little too late?”

I transcribed the statement verbatim but it is not easily found as a URL hyperlink.

This is how illiberal mainstream liberalism has become. And it raises no eyebrows. How dare the US pose as a free society?

My point here, however, is contrarian. Again and again you will hear conservatives, politicians and pundits, complain on Fox News about the calamitous censorship by Deep Tech, as if it’s a problem that began with the Biden Administration.

De-platforming (of a president, no less), banning of legions of powerless dissidents, including detrimental financial de platforming, occurred in a country with a Republican President, a Republican-controlled Senate, a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees, and a majority of whose state legislatures and governors are Republican.”

Republican solutions—anti-trust busting or the repealing of Section 230, which they refused to do when they were in control of both houses, and the presidency, all bandied about shallowly on Fox News—do not begin to address de-platforming, cancellation of dissidents, including the infringement of the right to make a living. (See sub-section, “Flouting The Spirit Of Civil Rights.”)

 I’ve done some theoretical rethinking. More to come.

*Image courtesy here.