"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. "

Hobbitses

"The system is broken beyond repair. Cultural Marxism reigns supreme. The only solution is to tear it down and start over." ~ Unamusementpark

Sadly, the Park is right again. Cultural Marxism has seeped into the pillars of Western society--filled every crack in the mortar with black mold. Those with sense enough to save it are too few and far between. People like you, Park and myself can see this demise in slow motion, and it isn't pretty. It keeps me up on the right night.

Once every so often, however, it feels like I'm in Lord of the Rings. I'd like to imagine that the men of the West will stand against the armies of Mordor, but I know that won't happen. All we can do at this point, like the soldiers at the Hornburg, is ride to meet a glorious end. Maybe--just maybe--Gandalf will come riding in with the Rohirrim.

LOTR analogies aside, things are going to get bad. They'll get worse until enough people riot that the army gets called in. Then it will be down to the individual soldiers and military officials to decide whose side they're really on. Or at least that's how it goes in the dramatic version. We'll likely see a regime change more attune to the Soviets, in that everybody will just decide to redo everything one morning.

The one sure thing is that Cultural Marxism is resulting in the deaths of innocents and not the ones in the suburbs. Rape, murder, theft, assault--allowed to happen at grossly high rates in the name of multiculturalism. People have been crying for help, but the powers that be won't listen. The fellowship is broken.  We're left to rail against the beast as best we can and hope that Frodo makes it. Or something...

"Hold your ground, hold your ground! Sons of Gondor, of Rohan, my brothers! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of woes and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you *stand, Men of the West!* " ~ Return of the King

Moral Posturing, Part I

As will be the case with a great many of my posts, sleep is going to have to take the back seat for my rage. Take a look at this photo from the tumblr of one Alexis Marie, self-described poet/actress/black woman/writer/human. Her protest sign reads:

"13% of the population (Black people) have always known how fucked up the system is, 86% just learned this… together we are the 99%"

For the type of SWPLs who comprise the OWS crowds, as with any other facet of their lives, the name of the game is moral posturing. As a running definition, we'll call moral posturing the device by which one liberal asserts a kind of passive-aggressive superiority over another. Since it is potentially racist, sexist, or some other -ist to assert superiority by tangible means, moral posturing is the primary dominance tool in most political discussion.

For whites, the moral superiority ceiling stops at holding all the right opinions. This is not the case for our protester, pictured above. Being both black and a woman, she holds something whites can never have: tangible moral authority. Where whites can improve their moral stature by taking on positions of vehement anti-racism, she's its victim.

So even though she's at a protest which demands economic equality, there's still the nagging desire to let everyone know that she's more equal. Never mind the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually on affirmative action programs--forget about the whole 'black' president thing--until black people have no crime or poverty, some form of institutionalized racism is still at work.