…in an America of “equal opportunity,” success will be determined primarily by intelligence, which can generally be predicted by test scores and is not equally spread over all groups. Therefore, as “equal opportunity” fails to lead to “racial equality,” Coates and other black intellectuals are driven by anger and envy to largely abandon the use of logic, evidence, or honesty in trying to find a way out of the racial morass.
We are trapped in this multicultural swamp because liberals never anticipated what would happened once they created an integrated America. The Atticus of Mockingbird seemed to believe in an America where everyone is equal, but America after the Civil Rights movement is “equal” only in degradation. In an integrated America dominated by black influence on popular culture, traditional European-American culture is denigrated and degeneracy is praised.
Joshua Lieblein writes:
Let’s use a particularly deplorable column in this week’s Canadian Jewish News by the most Official of Official Jews, Bernie Farber, as an example. Bernie is extremely proud of the fact that he and his Official Jew friends had a gala in Toronto where 750 of only the most conspicuous “Ontarians” (he says “Ontarians” so you won’t get the impression that only Jews or Torontonians attended) honoured Kathleen Wynne with the Words and Deeds Award for her “contribution to humanitarian causes and to tolerance, inclusion and civil discourse.”
Unfortunately, Stephen Harper didn’t sign the tribute book, so Bernie takes him to task for “disrespecting the office of prime minister.”
As many of you no doubt noticed, there’s a lot that’s wrong with Bernie’s opinion, but I don’t suggest that you waste your time saying so. Bernie and his Official Jew friends couldn’t care less about what you have to say because you are not one of those 750 gala-going “Ontarians” he mentioned. A Jewish parent asking Bernie why he doesn’t use his connections to the Premier to ease the financial burden on families trying to pay for Jewish school will be ignored, but Bernie will certainly notice that the Prime Minister skipped his gala.
I saw that too, and left a comment which may or may not have survived the amusingly named “moderation” process:
Speaking of shandeh, congratulations to the utterly clueless Bernie Farber, for once again helping perpetuate yet another stereotype about Jews!
His insistence that opinions he doesn’t approve of get wiped from the internet does nothing to relieve gentiles of their pesky suspicions that “Jews control the media.”
And now this. One would almost think that THE priority among liberal macher Jews is to put on high-priced banquets and hand phony “awards” back and forth to each other for their “courage” and “bravery” on behalf of “the community.”
Another comment from another reader:
I seem to recall there being a wee bit of controversy re this dinner, such as the fact that many in the Jewish community were apalled that the Premier was being honored, in the face of her personally eliminating the tuition tax credit that was already on the books at the time. Many in the community boycotted the event. The fact is, the Tanenbaum family put together this dinner as thanks for the Premier awarding their family with a massive contract to build rest stops/gas stations along the highway system. The dinner was about politics, not “humanitarianism”. Farber hates Harper; he made some obscene and embarassing twitter posts about him, (while Haper was singly, among world leaders supporting Israel in last lyears war) and is now piling on. He has zero credibility with the Jewish community. His foray into politcs fizzled as he couldn’t even get elected (for teh liberals) after planting him the most heavily Jewish riding in the country. His personal political vendetta against Harper and the conservatives is tiresome.
Mark Steyn writes:
The videos are devastating to the central evasion of American abortion advocates: Why, they’re not like the rubes; they know the difference between a human being – and a zygote, “a clump of cells”, or “a pile of goop”, in the words of the sitcom actor Lucas Neff. Of course, if the kid were merely a zygote, a clump of cells or a pile of goop, you would not be able to operate a lucrative business selling the brain, lungs, liver, heart, etc, because a zygote, clump of cells or pile of goop does not have any of those things. In that sense, “Dr” Nucatola’s breezy laundry list of what she’s able to cannibalize for parts gets to the heart of the lie American abortionists tell.
The only pile of goop in this debate is Lucas Neff, a very characteristic exemplar of contemporary depravity and stupidity. The defense of Planned Parenthood in light of what has been revealed is almost as disturbing as the mound of body parts – because a moral vacuum can never be contained to the one little corner of life you don’t mind it in; it always expands.
Jim Holt writes:
I thought it was simply thrilling. I had never heard anyone say “goddamn” on TV before, or even “queer,” at least in that specialized pejorative sense. I was a “teen for Gene” — that is, a callow supporter of the liberal antiwar candidate Eugene McCarthy — so my political sympathies were naturally with Vidal, who deplored our ruinous imperial meddling in Vietnam, as against Buckley, who was so hawkish that he talked cavalierly of using tactical nuclear weapons against Hanoi. But I was mesmerized by Buckley’s rhetorical deftness, by his eloquent and often deadly ripostes.
I’m no great fan of Buckley but yes, when you grew up watching this stuff, the stupidity of the (below) average “conservative” reader (and, occasionally, editor) can be exasperating.
There goes my ZOG cheque.
The comments will be obviously “JOOOOO!!!!”-y and “Women shouldn’t be allowed to write.” And, I suspect, plentiful.
We’ve already established that I’m a persnickety cinematic party pooper. But come on—at the risk of getting all “Horse With No Name” on you, you must admit that the entire conceit of The Producers doesn’t withstand a moment’s scrutiny:
You’ve purchased a ticket to a musical called Springtime for Hitler.
The theater marquee says Springtime for Hitler.
So when the curtain goes up and a bunch of chorus boys in SS uniforms start singing, “Springtime for Hitler in Germany…” WHY ARE YOU SHOCKED AND DISGUSTED?
Brooks always counters anti-Producers critics (no, Imm isn’t the first) by pointing out the obvious: that he was making fun of Hitler.
But what’s brave about that? Hitler managed to look pretty stupid without much help, and when it mattered, neither The Great Dictator nor (the far superior) That Nazty Nuisance accomplished sweet eff-all.
In fact, Chaplin’s wrongheaded paean to commie pacifism during the former’s finale retains its toxicity.
‘What little remains of the political right in America needs to stop pretending the country harbors a silent, secret conservative majority’
James E. Miller writes:
The United States is a liberal place where personal autonomy is valued above tradition. There is no sense in trying to impose our moral vision on the rest of the country. If American democracy is a game, then conservatives have lost. Fully and openly. It’s true what Mark Citadel says, that “you cannot win within a closed system that does not allow for anti-Liberal policies to stand for any grand length of time.” We may not be able to win, but we can surely lessen the damage that is inevitable.
A good start would be Sen. Rand Paul’s bill to shut off the spigot of federal money flowing to sanctuaries like San Francisco. If city officials don’t want to uphold federal law, there is no reason they should get federal dollars.
‘… [I] asked if he would be willing to pass it along to his editor without telling him who had written it’
He did so, and the editor showed interest. I wanted to remain anonymous and to use a pen name but the editor wanted to know who I was. He decided not to publish the article. My correspondence with him was brief and unsatisfactory, and he never explicitly said that the piece could have published if it had been written by someone else. In any case, it will not appear in that prestigious magazine.
Our country will eventually have to come to grips with what drove Dylann Roof to murder. The sooner our rulers think seriously about these questions the better. My attempt to speed that process failed, and I am grateful to The Unz Review for accepting this article for publication.
Jared Taylor on Dylann Roof:
The press routinely describes Roof and others like him as “white supremacists,” but this is not a useful term. It implies a desire to rule over or dominate other races, and there is no evidence Roof wanted that. Roof, and the many people I know who think to some degree as he does, are profoundly disaffected from American society. The ones I know are unlike Roof in that they are educated, sophisticated, attractive professionals, but like Roof, they reject and even despise conventional attitudes about race.
To understand Dylann Roof, we must set aside much of the framework that shapes the way we think about race. One difficult concept to grasp is that although everyone, beginning with Barack Obama, has agonized over the “hatred” that led to the church killings, Roof did not hate black people in any conventional sense.
Roof reportedly told racist jokes, but someone who hates black people does not have a lot of black friends on Facebook, or choose a black man, Christon Scriven, as his favorite drinking companion. Scriven may have been Roof’s closest friend; the two often got falling-down drunk together. Even after the shootings Scriven told an interviewer, “My opinion about Dylann doesn’t change. . . . I still love him as a friend.” A black school mate, Antonio Metze, also confirmed that Roof had black friends. (…)
Well publicized incidents such as these would have reinforced Dylann Roof’s view that the media are so determined to hunt down white racism that they find it where it may not exist. This is an increasingly common view, and not just among the disaffected whites I know. One need only glance through the comments sections of any on-line newspaper to sense a rising frustration with media that appear overhasty in accusing whites of racism.
Taylor describes the “Knoxville horror” and other under-reported black-on-white, racially motivated crimes that have received relatively scant media (and political) coverage, then continues:
It should now be clear that there really is a lot of black-on-white violence, some of it motivated by racial animus, but neither the media nor politicians pay much attention to it. The contrast with even ambiguous violence that goes the other way could not be more striking. President Obama spoke out in the Martin/Zimmerman case, famously saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” He took a similar position on the Ferguson shooting, saying it cast light on an unfair justice system that “stains the heart of black children” and judges people like Michael Brown “guilty of walking while black.”
Back on the Forbes “Vice” beat, Susannah Breslin reports:
“I could never vote GOP,” says Nina Hartley, the legendary performer, director, and self-described feminist. To date, Hartley has played Hillary Clinton in porn movies a whopping four times, and Hillary’s got her vote, too. “If Hillary got the nomination I’d vote for her,” she says. According to Hartley, Hillary is “a corporate Democrat” and “a creature of the Machine, as well as a Clinton, so I don’t expect her to be a Girl Scout.” While Hartley agrees with Hillary’s stance on health care and reproductive rights, she says, “I know I’d dislike her stance on decriminalizing consensual sex work.” As Hartley sees it, Hillary has “her heart in the right place,” in terms of public service, but she’s “had to compromise to get where she is.” (…)
“Right now, I’m planning on reporting Republican,” Carey says. Still, she says, “I’m very torn between Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.” She’s leaning towards Rubio — for personal and political reasons. “I like that Marco Rubio is married to a [former] Dolphins cheerleader means we’d have a hot first lady,” she says. As for Rubio, “I think he’s the hottest candidate out there, and he would be by far one of the hottest presidential candidates of all time.”
Plus, she says, “I love his stance on foreign policy.”
A more recent example of this seemingly insoluble problem is James Holmes, the young man who entered a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado in 2012 and sprayed bullets into the audience from five different guns, killing twelve people and wounding seventy others. Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist on a regular basis when he committed this horrendous crime. His eruption seems to have been triggered by his failure to pass a test for a Ph.D. He showed many of the symptoms of an Amok killer from an early age. He attempted suicide when he was 11. He was acutely aware that he needed help and had talked to no less than 3 mental health professionals at the University of Colorado in the weeks before he acted. In the course of his trial, in which he was found guilty of mass murder, two psychiatrists hired by his defense lawyer declared Holmes was mentally ill. Two others, testifying for the prosecution, said he was sane – he was aware that he was about to kill and maim dozens of people.
On the day before the carnage, Holmes sent his psychiatrist a notebook describing how he had been buying guns and ammunition and explosive devices, preparing for his rampage. It was discovered, undelivered, after he erupted. On the very day of his crime, Holmes called a mental health hotline, apparently hoping he could reach someone who would persuade him not to act. He twice tried to commit suicide after he was jailed.
Apparently none of the mental health experts to whom Holmes spoke ever tried to commit him to a mental hospital. One of them admitted later that she feared he was dangerous but did nothing to prevent the tragedy.