"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. "

TheDailyIndoctrination

(Edit: Video was taken down, replaced.) 


I, like many people my age, frequent TheDailyWh.at for the latest in memes and other net-culture related things. As days turned into weeks turned into years, I noticed a slow but steady influx of liberal propaganda. It started out with a left-leaning statement here and there. Hell--maybe it was always there.

Just a few hours ago, I saw this gem. Since elaborating on what thedailywh.at had to say about the video would only serve to piss me off, we'll stick to the video for now...

I've been where Walsh is before--there is no arguing with a liberal. Years of social conditioning have taught them that not only is it uncool to disagree with the party line, but whoever does is fucking evil and doesn't need to be listened to. The video starts just after a conversation I imagine went something like this:

Walsh: (Statement of opinion)

Dude: (Statement of opinion)

Walsh: (Logical explanation of opinion/rebuttal)

Dude: (Statement of opinion)

Walsh: (Logical explanation of opinion/rebuttal)

Dude: (Statement of opinion)

Dude: (Statement of opinion)

Walsh: "I AGREEEEEE WITH YOU ABOUT THAT" (10 seconds in)

  

Not a phrase I'm unfamiliar with; I agree with Dude too. What Dude can't seem to comprehend is exactly what Walsh said--we already have regulations in place to prevent the market from dipping their hands in the fed's cookie jar, and they don't work. Dude, like most OWSers, will only follow logic so far. Why?

On one hand, I can see the incentive for bankers to use their influence in the media and other places to keep the public from putting a lock on the aforementioned cookie jar. On another, South Park park did me proud by pointing out that black people--like, I dunno, Obama--are just impervious to being fucked with nowadays.   Even if a chunk of the OWSers could pay fare for the logic train, it's social suicide to go against the crowd and--more importantly--socially advantageous to go with it. At 1:11, the smiling contempt Chubby has on her face would be enough to make me explode too.