"Top Ten differences between White Terrorists and Others"

Essentially, Juan Cole finds it suspect that the media calls people like James Holmes or Wade Page "gunmen" whereas the archetypical "terrorist" is Middle-Eastern. He feels that Whites should be properly classified as terrorists, hinting at that oh-so-subtle thing we like to call White Privilege. 

Leeeeeet's take a look:

1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”
2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.
3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.
4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.
5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.
6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.
7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.
8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.
9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.
10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.

 As much as I love snarking all up and down on a numbered list, I feel there's one solid, end-game point to be made here: that's our word. "Terrorists," for as long as I've been alive, have been the bad guys that live between Africa and Asia. Of course, it's more complicated than that--what I want you to walk away with is that "terrorist" is an English (White) word, used by English speaking (White) peoples to describe our foes. They get to call us infidels.

As it stands, White people can't be terrorists in the same way that Black people can't be racist; it's only a terrorist attack when a Brown person slaughters White people. Not when White people slaughter Brown people. Not when White people slaughter White people. The same can be said for Asians and (Non-Muslim) Blacks.

White people, when they haul off and kill a bunch of innocents, usually are individuals acting out in rage, or depression, or anxiety, or some other crazy thing. Whites aren't usually spurred to mass murder by religious or political doctrines--and when they are--aren't usually acting out against White culture or religion. How then, could they be terrorists?

They could be terrorists if we called them terrorists. Then, by definition, we'd be able to snap up a lot more of them. This is what bothers me most about Juan Cole's train of thought. Terrorists are subject to all the wonderful civil rights loopholes available to the US government in a way that lone gunmen are not. And what exactly do people like Cole define a lone gunmen?

 "A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US?"

I'm given to understand that Juan Cole is a cool guy otherwise, so no hard feelings.

Mark Adomanis on John Derbyshire

I've kept quiet about the The Talk--and John Derbyshire's blacklisting--in no small part due to laziness. The greater part, though, is due to an apathy inside me that has seen this before. James D. Watson was met with a similar backlash after a similar comment on the hereditary nature of IQ, which I talk about in (a little) more detail here. Setting aside direct discussion about The Talk, I'd like to put part of an article from Forbes contributor Mark Adomanis on the table:

"It utterly baffles me how, in this day and age, anyone, even the most obtuse or egotistical, could possibly think that you would not be put out to pasture for authoring such a humorless, ill-informed, poorly written, and sophomoric screed about the mortal peril that white and Asian children face from African Americans."

I would disagree with the notion of Derbyshire's being ill-informed, but I'm sure that his time at Harvard/Oxford left Mark with a much more intimate understanding of Black Americans than mine. The poor writing accusation won't stand as well, considering just how fresh-out-of-college and overly-horny-for-a-big-article his own writing is. Yes, Adomanis knows how the game is played, as is demonstrated by the article in three major ways:

1) The most integral part of any left-leaning article is to make your opponent's political incorrectness known as often and as pompously as possible. Your opponent is a dim-witted, evil dickface. Mark follows the formula to a tee, using the words "racism" and "racist" a collective thirty times in-between dropping loads of shit much like the one in quotes above. 

2) Ignore the big, ugly truth about Blacks in the US, and reiterate that your opponent is a racist--therefore stupid, therefore a liar. Be sure to leave it at this, because delving into statistical detail will only encourage your opponents and may confuse your audience. Mark wrote an article about how Conservatism is hurt by racist assholes like Derbyshire rather than one on whether or not The Talk could actually save lives. 

3) Use words that will make people think you're smart. Like "screed." Screed, screed, screed.

I also really liked this:

"** I am not (let me repeat not) arguing that the conservative base is uniformly racist. Far from it. But the conservative base does have a much higher tolerance for harsh rhetoric provided that that rhetoric comes from other conservatives. This “us versus them” mentality is very much a basic part of human psychology, but does seem to be particularly well developed among contemporary American conservatives who will countenance almost any sort of conduct provided the person is part of their team."

Translation:

"I'm not saying that all Conservatives are racist--it's just that, on average, they're more likely to be racists. "

Update 810: There goes the neighborhood

I've always lived in a relatively nice area of Flint. Like the Swiss alps, a few major roads form a sort of barrier between the hood and my hood. However, thanks to various government housing programs, my hood has seen increased diversity these last few years. Since my last post (Feb 2nd) I've enjoyed the benefits of a racially integrated community on two occasions worth noting:

1) Relaxing on one of the first nice, sunny days of the year, some friends and I were driving to a park just a few blocks away from my house. Passing a minor road along the way, I noticed 6-8 young Black men crossing the street at an odd angle--and in formation. I noted the peculiarity of said group to my own as we parked around the block. We had time for a collective shoulder shrug before.... BANG. BANG. BANGBANG. BANGBANGBANGRATATATATATATATATATA. Naturally, we put the car in drive and hauled ass away from the incident. A few minutes later, Flint Police Ops tweeted the details. I never followed up on whether or not the victim (or aggressor) died, but it's worth noting that last year there was a murder two blocks down on the same street. Later that night there was a brawl on the corner, too. Just saying.

2) Yesterday, an acquaintance of mine called to ask if there were any police on outside of his apartment complex. The police had been called about a group of youths with automatic weapons seen attempting a break-in. I happened to be around, so I told him that the coast was clear. He explained that his cousin, an individual of less than reputable character, had engaged in some form of TNB. A carload of thugs were now cruising through the neighborhood flashing guns and asking familiars for his whereabouts. The thugs were caught on the road with their AKs and bad intentions shortly after my acquaintance and I checked his apartment--wrecked and looted. 

Before anyone says anything, I'd like to stress that I could be dead right now. Had a stray bullet from the first gunfight ricocheted the right way, I'd be dead. Had I been standing outside my friend's apartment just five minutes earlier (or the assailants simply waited inside), I'd be dead. Caught in the crossfire. Kaput. Done. Finished.

Update 810: Hanging Out

For the last two years now, more people have been murdered in Flint than soldiers have died in Iraq. On the plus side, the number of homicides from 2010 to 2011 dropped from 65 to 57. Detroit, on the other hand, went to work this year with a whopping 344. Adjusting for population size, however, Flint still had the greater amount of homicides per capita (note that this is a largely Black phenomenon and be sure to read this post with that in mind). What are we going to do about it?

Well, we probably won't do anything--and not just because it's racist to punish Black crime. This is partially due to our  newly-appointed emergency financial manager--the adult supervision cities like Flint receive from the state when they get too out of hand--trying to balance the budget and cut costs wherever possible, and partially due to the idiots that voted for Dayne Walling. For those of you who might not know who Dayne is or what he stands for, here's an excerpt from his campaign page:

"Dayne knows that people in Flint have the skills and the dedication, and he already knows the groups in Flint which have been working for many years to improve the city. When people work together, our children will be proud to call Flint their home. We will have good schools, good jobs, and good neighborhoods for all people and families. This is what it means to be a great city in the 21^st Century."

Seriously? Good schools, good jobs, AND good neighborhoods for ALL families? Throughout the entire mayoral race, the idea that Flint (namely high-crime areas like Da Nof' End) is a spectacle of rampant barbarism never really came up. Actually, I shouldn't say that; we had a candidate who vowed not to take a paycheck until 50 officers were back on the street. Let's not forget that this same candidate owned a business which he started in Flint, giving him both monetary and moral incentives to follow through. Unfortunately, even mentioning that Flint is particularly violent means you're racist for noticing.

So what do we do about it? What can we do about it? We know for a fact that everything we HAVE been doing HASN'T been working. Democrats have been running the show in Flint for a long time, and have run it straight into the ground. In the face of such ridiculous crime rates, I feel that the only way to really drive home the message is to appeal to Flint's citizens on a more visceral level--bring back public hangings.

Some--most--would call that measure a tad extreme. I feel "fuck you, 57 murders is a tad extreme" to be a fair rebuttal. If people in Flint have such disrespect for human life and the rule of law, they need to see first-hand what happens when you disrespect either of the two. It doesn't have to be public hangings either; all we need is a swift and brutal message of "this shit isn't gonna fly." You can't tolerate criminals out of their behavior--fire with fire.

Liberal Interpretations of Fact and Rhetoric

I've noticed an increasing number of pseudo-liberals pointing out that "more Whites are on welfare than Blacks." Most of the time, they bring these facts up as a counter to Republicans saying the exact opposite. As is to be expected of their ilk, they don't bring these facts to the attention of Republicans, opting instead to parade the information around in front of other liberals so that they may bask in their moral enlightenment. Check out the graphic:

When I see this point being made, I try and point out two things: what the Republican rhetoric really means, and why "more Whites are on welfare" is a bad argument for the welfare state. Starting with what is meant by the rhetoric, I feel like this is just a case of liberals quoting the dumbest people they can find--trailer park interviews, most likely. Anybody with some sense knows that there are more White people on welfare simply because there are more White people. What is meant by "more Blacks" is a matter of proportion.

If we take a look at the 2010 census, we see that Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites--as the three major recipients of SNAP welfare--comprise roughly 13%, 16%, and 78% of the US population, respectively. Putting this in the context of the graphic above, we paint a much different picture:

78% of the population received 34% of SNAP--White
13% of the population received 22% of SNAP--Black

16% of the population received 16% of SNAP--Hispanic

It seems to me that Blacks receive nearly double the amount of welfare than Hispanics, despite comprising less of the US population. Whites, as a much larger part of the population, receive significantly less than both when accounting for population size. I'm no stranger to the fact that there's a difference between White people and White trash, so I sort of understand where the liberals are coming from--evil Republican racists just want to shift the focus towards Blacks so they can feel better about being such ignant, racist bigots. The idea is that Republicans--all of them--are the same White trash losers as the majority of SNAP beneficiaries. 

This allows for these liberals, whose sole motivation in politics is moral posturing, to ignore any real problems that minorities have while at the same time looking down on other White people. Confronted with the real statistics, the usual response is "that wasn't even what I was talking about." If they acknowledged that more blacks are, per capita, on welfare, then they would be wrong. This can never happen.

Update 810: Streets Still Not Safe

A guy who works at a gas station I frequent was fiddling with his front teeth when I stopped by yesterday. The owner, an Iraqi man who bought the place a few years back, brought his voice low and said, "The fucking brothers jumped him." The employee then brandished a foot-long hunting knife, which he said was, after the incident, his new self-defense system.The full story of the attack went something like this:

He was walking down Saginaw street and had stopped at the Sunoco when three upstanding African-American citizens approached him. One of them threw a hook, which the employee ducked. He backed away from the trio and was greeted with a ceasefire--the initial attacker extended his arm and offered a warm "Nah man, we cool." There was, as he described, not time enough to glance back up after looking down at the attacker's outstretched hand before the second sucker-punch landed. The three victims of racist oppression then literally beat his teeth out.

We--meaning I--here at The 810 Diaries feel that three crucial mistakes were made by the employee that night:

1. Being on any part of Saginaw Street, at any time of night, on any day of the year, and in any weather. I can't stress enough that FLINT IS A DANGEROUS PLACE FILLED WITH DANGEROUS PEOPLE.
2. Not owning a gun. Michigan is an open-carry state, meaning that someone as young as 18 can carry a legal gun in plain sight. Our guy is over 21, which means he should have already had one holstered under his coat when he made mistake number one.
3. Sticking around. If you're ever in a rough part of town without a gun and you see three Black guys coming your way, you cross the fucking street. You might feel like a good little anti-racist for giving them the benefit of the doubt, but the alternative is losing some teeth--or worse. (Look it up yourself, if you don't like the source.)

I don't care that the police won't ever bother to go after the attackers. I don't care that this wouldn't be considered a hate crime. I don't even really care about the guy who got his teeth knocked out--that's what he gets for mistakes 1, 2, and 3. What really gets me is that there are people out there who would excuse this behavior--we all know that White racism is what really jumped the guy, who probably said something racist to provoke it anyway.

Stormfront for Blacktivists

A few days ago, I was reading fellow blogger Gucci when he linked to what is either a clever troll or a relative of everyone's favorite mulatto martyr. This guy--assuming that he's not a troll--is one of the few Black nationalists I've ever really seen or bothered to read. Endlessly offended by everything the White man does or says, he represents the golden standard that every pseudo-intellectual African-American should aspire to. I speak, of course, of Abagond.

Where most Blacktivists are content with being more equal than Whites, Abagond is of a special breed. Instead of preaching tolerance and understanding for the elimination of White rassism, he preaches hatred for the White race and demands we recompense Blacks for historical wrongs. Abagond openly admits to being a racist, claiming to vastly prefer any given member of his race over any given member of another--especially Whites.

Hailing from New York, it's strange that someone with such a penchant for truth and moral accountability could live in such close proximity to Blacks and hold the opinions he does. Even if he doesn't associate with Blacks in the big apple, there are tens of thousands of historical and contemporary pieces on the mannerisms of Black people which date all the way back to Middle-Eastern interpretations of their... Culture. He chooses to ignore the reality right in front of his face, opting instead for intense denial and shifting the blame.

Why, you ask, would an otherwise intelligent, thoughtful person deny the obvious nature of his people? It's quite simple: Abigail, in his vehement denial of fundamental truths--i.e., human biodiversity--thinks of himself as his race. If there is something wrong with Black people, then there must be something wrong with him. Again, an otherwise intelligent, thoughtful person would realize that an average is not a reflection of the individual. Abby doesn't believe in such trifles as "averages," because that's just a word racists use to legitimize hate.

I, on the other hand, fully recognize that the law of averages holds true for all races. Traditional bell-curve IQ distribution, as a contingent fact of humanity, is something I can't just ignore. Are there Whites who are just as ignorant and crime-prone as low-IQ Blacks? Sure--I'm related to quite a few. This doesn't mean that I fall under that category, nor does it mean that I should make excuses for those who are.