Black mob attacks white family

From the article, Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family, By Phil Trexler:

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.

But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

Of course the police are not ready to call it a hate crime -- or even one that is racially motivated. For non-whites, the threshold is ridiculously high. But consider if the races were switched: if a mob of white teens attacked a black family. And if they were heard to say, "This is a white world!" as the attack took place. It would be an incident of national import. It would be tracked by all of the "anti-hate" (i.e. anti-white) web sites and organizations; Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be on the scene posthaste.

Note that this event is not listed on the SPLC's map of "recent hate incidents". Not surprising, since SPLC's main concern is to vilify white people and portray them as the sole source of racism in the country. To call the incident in Akron a racially motivated attack would contradict the anti-white theme of their "anti-hate" site.

Reform looms

Over the holiday weekend, though busy clinging to my guns, religion, and ethnic identity, I was also mindful of the blessing of employment when so many in the tech industry are out of work.

But as one would suspect, the unemployment rate for electrical engineers, for instance, which stands at 8.6%, and which, as Rob Sanchez points out on VDARE, is more like 25%, does not deter the immigration "reform" traitors from proclaiming the need for more H-1B visas.

We've heard, time and again, that America does not produce enough engineers, programmers, and scientists to fill the need. Then why the unemployment rate? And in any case, the economy provides an mechanism for fixing this problem. When there is a dearth of skilled laborers, wages rise. This, in turn, brings more students to colleges and universities.

But high tech companies do not want to play by the rules. They want to open the U.S. labor market to the entire world. If, because the payoff is not good enough, American students are not majoring in computer science, companies like Microsoft do not want to raise their wages. Instead, they want to get their employees from India and China. To deflect criticism, they claim that these workers are being paid the "going rate". But foreign workers keep wages down.

One only has to ask: Why would Microsoft spend money to lobby Congress for H-1B visas if it did not promise lower labor costs? Of course more visas will keep wages low. Microsoft knows this as well as the legislators that seek corporate support.

On Sotomayor

Far from heralding a new age, one where choices are race-blind, the election of Obama has done the exact opposite. The media still spout with joy over having a black family in the White House. Obama's race excites them; not his character, abilities, policies, record of achievement; no, what brings tears of joy to the liberal eye, is his race. That Obama is not descendant from American slaves, is as foreign as one can be and still be eligible for the presidency, and is half white, does not decrease their giddy delight. This is no exaggeration. We hear of Obama's race all the time.

And to confirm the true nature of the age we are entering, one of ethnic chaos, where each ethnic group vies for power at the expense of others, we have the spectacle of Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. Does anyone not understand that Obama nominated her because of her ethnic identity? And that surely this is payback to the Latino community for supporting his election? The ethnic aspect of it is so naked and overt, it borders on the grotesque.

Listening to the radio today, the talking heads at CNN and Fox News freely admit that the Republicans must tread on eggs when questioning Sotomayor. Why? Doesn't giving her special treatment defeat the very premise behind her nomination? In other words, we have not become race-blind. It is assumed that the Hispanic community will be enraged if anyone dares question or oppose a person from their ethnic group. All that matters is that Sotomayor is a Latina, nothing more. One commentator today said that everyone knows it is "political suicide" to oppose a non-white candidate to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor may be of purely European heritage, I don't know. But that doesn't change Obama's calculation of her political value, and of his desire to pander to Hispanic voters. Nor does it change the perversion of our system where Senators are constrained by ethnic concerns.

Despite the rise in ethnic politics, white Americans are the only ones voting in a race-blind manner, according to issues other than mere ethnic affiliation. There are no "white" candidates, ones that represent the interests of whites. Ours is the only group that votes against its own self interests; that undermines its own interests with aggressive self-righteousness. And for this reason, there is no doubt that the Senate will confirm Sotomayor.

Immigrants offended by American flag

Debbie McLucas, who had the effrontery to put up an American flag in her office for Memorial Day, was told to take it down. Apparently, it deeply offended a coworker who is from Africa. Now, who is this woman that couldn't stomach the American flag? The article says she has been in the U.S. for 14 years. She's probably a citizen. But her reaction to the flag belies her true loyalties. She is not an American. Any oath she took to become a citizen was a lie, a mockery. Americans know to treat the flag with respect. I was taught that in grade school. But the anti-American woman just threw it down.

"The flag and the pole had been placed on the floor," McLucas said. But McLucas also said hospital higher-ups had told her some patients' families and visitors had also complained.

Who else complained? This is another sign of the end times. We take in immigrants that have no respect for America, have no interest in assimilating, and who take offense at the very symbol of our nation! In any self-respecting country, this African woman would be stripped of citizenship and sent back to her rightful country. Same goes for anyone else who complained. They and their minor children should be repatriated to their native lands. No civil or human rights are thereby violated, because, contrary to what many seem to think, there is no universal human right to live in the U.S.

Struggling to Rise

Struggling to Rise in Suburbs Where Failing Means Fitting In (New York times)

The Latin American Youth Center, whose Maryland branch Jesselyn sought help from, can be thought of prosaically as a social services agency or more grandly as a modern settlement house -- kin to the centers of immigrant aid that arose more than a century ago. If these poorest families are to succeed, as many previous ones did, their progress may depend in part on the efforts of such groups.

The problems of young people like Jesselyn are sometimes called failures of assimilation. But they can also be seen as assimilation to the wrong things: crime, drugs and self-fulfilling prophecies of racial defeat.

As Jesselyn tells it, she assimilated to the surrounding values of gangsta rap. Writing in her eighth-grade yearbook, she celebrated friends as "my nigga!" and labeled enemies "crackers," "bamma" and "whyte."

"If you're Hispanic, people already expect you to steal, to fight, to be rude, to be ghetto," Jesselyn said. "If everyone thinks wrong of you, eventually you’re going to start thinking wrong about yourself."

Regarding the last paragraph: sorry, no. Jesselyn chose the culture that fits her character. If an immigrant assimilates to the values advanced in gangsta rap, he has no one to blame but himself. Coming from a poor family and having been poor most of my life, I know that poverty is no excuse. (Oh, but what am I thinking? I forgot that I was born with a silver spoon of white privilege in my mouth ....) Jesselyn is quick to blame others for expecting the worst from her. Who might these "people" be? Whites, of course. Whites are to blame for all her choices, her problems, her very identity, it seems. Now, if "people" were expecting the worst from me, I wouldn't take to gangsta rap, but set out to prove them wrong. Either that, or I wouldn't give a damn what others thought. I suspect that most whites would do the same.

A richer life

Listening to Fox News the other day, I was appalled to hear a radio spot sponsored by aRicherLife.org. The site, which is part of the propaganda apparatus of the National Fair Housing Alliance, makes some of its "media materials" available for those who may want to indoctrinate their employees, students, etc. These materials will help them to understand what the thought crimes are, and what they must think and say if they are to keep their jobs, friends, academic careers, and so on. To help analyze this specimen of anti-white propaganda, here is a transcript of the spot. The two speakers in the morality play are a white guy (WG) and a non-white guy (NWG). The latter has a slight Spanish accent.

WG: I grew up in an all-white neighborhood.

NWG: I grew up in a diverse neighborhood.

Both: Everyone I knew ...

WG: ... was just like me.

NWG: ... brought something different to the party.

WG: They looked like me, thought like me, acted like me. So my neighborhood always stayed the same.

NWG: They introduced me to different tastes, different ideas, and different ways of doing things. So my neighborhood always got more interesting.

Both: They definitely helped shape the way I look at things.

NWG: And, they prepared me for the future.

WG: They did?

NWG: They did.

Narrator: A neighborhood rich in diversity can leave its inhabitants better off and more able to succeed in the global community we, and our children, will face in the years to come. To better understand the full range of benefits offered by neighborhood diversity, please log on to ...

Both: I want my kids to live a richer life.

The mind reels. In a sense, it's pure comedy. At once absurd and idiotic, it makes us wonder who's minding the store at Fox (and NFHA, for that matter). Yet it was carefully made and must have cost a considerable amount of money to produce and broadcast. I can see the writers sitting around a table, laughing and daring each other to come up with something even more hackneyed than the other. Let me attempt a commentary:

1. The spot says that an all-white neighborhood is bad. It is worse off and less likely to succeed. All-white neighborhoods will not have the "full range of benefits" promised to diverse ones. Therefore, in essence, this is anti-white propaganda. Just substitute all-black or all-Jewish, and see how it goes over.

2. Here we discover that there is no diversity among white people. We're are all the same. This statement is so outrageous it's amazing Fox could countenance this PC dung hill on its airwaves. The spot implies all whites look the same. Isn't that racist? Again, just substitute black or Asian for white: "we all look the same, think the same, act the same". It's offensive to any ethnic group. Yet white people are unique. We have to sit and take it. Any objection on our part is racist hate speech.

3. Do we have to point out the diversity in white culture? Think of the boring, uncreative, unimaginative, rigidly conformist, and dull writers, artists, architects, philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists that Britain has produced throughout history (never mind all-white Europe at large). Of course, that's the point: the producers of this travesty are too profoundly ignorant of Western culture to conceive that a rich life consists of anything more than living in a multi-racial neighborhood.

4. Since the bad neighborhood is specified as all white, it implies that the diversity we must have is racial. Notice that the non-white guy has a Spanish accent. But here's where things get murky. Why not counter the white guy with another white guy who grew up in a diverse neighborhood? Why give the other speaker an implied non-white ethnicity? His "diverse" neighborhood could have been all non-white. Thus, whites add nothing to a neighborhood. They impart no diversity, no richness.

5. In the real world, ethnic groups tend to auto-segregate. Whites do not force this upon them; it's human nature. So when we hear the guy with a Spanish accent, who grew up in a diverse neighborhood, we understand he grew up in a Hispanic neighborhood. The implication here is that majority Hispanic, black or Chinese neighborhoods are innately diverse. Only white neighborhoods are bad. Indeed, it would be wrong to demand racial diversity in a non-white neighborhood.

6. To reiterate: the required diversity is racial. But then, we learn that racial differences imply differences in tastes, ideas, and "ways of doing things". Really? This is exactly the argument of those who think race is real and that there are significant differences in IQ, character, and behavior among the races. (Hey, I hear American Renaissance is looking for writers ....)

7. Somehow the white guy in the spot has grown up without ever seeing a non-white person. He has never watched television, read books, or learned of other cultures and races in school. Indeed, the white guy depicted here is a functional illiterate, and the other whites in his neighborhood, exact replicas of himself, are stupid too, unable to learn anything about people from different ethnic groups without living in the same room with them.

8. Apparently, white people cannot have "a richer life" by listening to classical music, learning Latin, appreciating the great painters and artists of the West, reading ancient Greek literature, and so on. In short, nothing can be gained from the works of white people. But whites cannot learn, through reading and study, about the great works of Chinese, Japanese, Indian, or Arab culture either. No. The only way to appreciate diversity is to pack your white neighborhood with as many Hispanics and other non-whites as possible.

9. The diverse neighborhood isn't just richer, it's a party!

10. If mono-racial neighborhoods are bad, if they somehow taint a person ("definitely" shape the way we look at things) and make him unable to succeed in the global community, then why do we allow immigration from practical ethno-states? In most of Asia and other parts of the world, we're not just talking about mono-racial neighborhoods, but entire countries. How then can these people, who must suffer from the same malaise as the white guy (otherwise, the argument is utterly hypocritical and inconsistent), impart the magic of "a richer life"? The learning and accommodation is all one way, from non-white to white. The non-whites injected into the white neighborhood are not expected to change. Otherwise, they would become (horrors!) like white people. They can remain as ethnocentric as they like.

11. Asians and other non-whites who immigrate to the U.S. are often as ignorant of their own traditions as Americans are of the Western tradition. Come up to the next Indian you meet and start up a conversation about the works of Kalidasa, the Upanishads, or ancient Indian philosophy. See where that gets you. In LA, where Chinese, Korean, Armenian, (etc., etc.) neighborhoods encrust a Mexican substrate, one does not automatically gain knowledge of other cultures by virtue of mere propinquity. To learn, you have to pick up a book. Indeed, one can learn more from study and travel than by living within ethnic chaos in his own country.

12. How do racially diverse neighborhoods help a country succeed in the global community? Japan is pretty successful, isn't it? Its industries dominate in many fields; it does an enormous amount of business overseas. Its citizens enjoy a high standard of living. Other Asian countries, like South Korea, China, and Taiwan, also have strong economic growth and export an enormous amount of goods. Thus, they succeed by dealing with the "global community". And guess what: they're ethno-states.

13. Contrary to the claims made in the radio spot, there is no evidence that diversity yields any benefit beyond having more choices when looking for a bite to eat. In Europe, mono-racial states did not impede the creation of science, great music and literature, the Industrial Revolution, modern mathematics, etc. Furthermore, it did not seem to impede the West from producing the dominant world powers, and bestowing the blessings of modern medicine and technology (again, invented Europe and America) to non-white peoples around the globe.

A Conversation About Race

Excerpts from this movie are back on YouTube. It can be purchased on its web site.