Thursday, March 20, 2014
A black man points out that blacks have always been violent
But he still blames Whitey
By TA-NEHISI COATES
Last week, Paul Ryan went on the radio to address the lack of virtue prevalent among men who grew up like me, my father, my brothers, my best friends, and a large number of my people:
We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.
A number of liberals reacted harshly to Ryan. I'm not sure why. What Ryan said here is not very far from what Bill Cosby, Michael Nutter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama said before him. The idea that poor people living in the inner city, and particularly black men, are "not holding up their end of the deal" as Cosby put it, is not terribly original or even, these days, right-wing. From the president on down there is an accepted belief in America—black and white—that African-American people, and African-American men, in particular, are lacking in the virtues in family, hard work, and citizenship:
If Cousin Pookie would vote, if Uncle Jethro would get off the couch and stop watching SportsCenter and go register some folks and go to the polls, we might have a different kind of politics.
Cousin Pookie and Uncle Jethro voted at higher rates than any other ethnic group in the country. They voted for Barack Obama. Our politics have not changed. Neither has Barack Obama's rhetoric. Facts can only get in the way of a good story. It was sort of stunning to see the president give a speech on the fate of young black boys and not mention the word racism once. It was sort of stunning to see the president salute the father of Trayvon Martin and the father of Jordan Davis and then claim, "Nothing keeps a young man out of trouble like a father who takes an active role in his son’s life."
From what I can tell, the major substantive difference between Ryan and Obama is that Obama's actual policy agenda regarding black America is serious, and Ryan's isn't. But Ryan's point—that the a pathological culture has taken root among an alarming portion of black people—is basically accepted by many progressives today. And it's been accepted for a long time.
Peddlers of black pathology tend to date the decline of African-American virtue to the 1960s. But pathology arguments are much older. Between 1900 and 1930, blacks were three times as likely as whites to be killed. Their killers tended to be black—black were 80 percent of Mississippi's murderers and 60 percent of its victims. According to historian David Oshinsky, the actual murder rate among African-Americans was likely higher. "We had the usual number of [Negro] killings during the week just closed," the Jackson Clarion-Ledger reported in 1904. "Aside from the dozen or so reported in the press, several homicides occurred which the county correspondents did not deem sufficient for the dispatches."
Oshinsky reports that "many of the murders involved liquor, gambling and personal disputes." Did the ghastly amount of violence afflicting black Mississippians spring from poor blacks "not holding up their end of the bargain?" Or was it the the fact that black Mississippians were living in a kleptocracy that had no regard for their lives? As Khalil Muhammad shows in his book The Condemnation of Blackness, progressives and conservatives alike often argued for the former.
Certainly there are cultural differences as you scale the income ladder. Living in abundance, not fearing for your children's safety, and having decent food around will have its effect. But is the culture of West Baltimore actually less virtuous than the culture of Wall Street? I've seen no such evidence. Yet that is the implicit message accepted by Paul Ryan, and the message is bipartisan.
That is because it is a message that makes all our uncomfortable truths tolerable. Only if black people are somehow undeserving can a just society tolerate a yawning wealth gap, a two-tiered job market, and persistent housing discrimination.
Ukip will not oppose gay marriage, Farage reveals as he calls for French-style system with separate legal and religious services
Ukip is to drop its opposition to gay marriage, party leader Nigel Farage revealed today.
The move risks angering disaffected Tories who switched to Ukip after same sex weddings were legalised by the coalition, but Mr Farage insisted: ‘We have absolutely no problem with anybody.’
He said that as part of a review of Ukip’s manifesto, which he has dismissed as ‘drivel’, he would not campaign for gay weddings to be banned.
Ukip previously said civil partnerships were a ‘common sense’ way for gay and lesbian couples to register their commitment ‘in a formal way’. But it warned: Gay marriage is an entirely different thing altogether.’
The party has also been embarrassed by candidates and members expressing homophobic views.
In January Ukip councillor David Silvester was suspended from the party after suggesting the winter floods were linked to the government’s decision to legalise gay marriage.
However, Mr Farage has now insisted that he would fight the next election as a supporter of gay marriage.
He made the remarks while taking part in a Q&A with PinkNews. Asked by a reader if UKIP would seek to abolish the marriages of gay and lesbian couples entered into after 29 March 2014 in its 2015 manifesto, Mr Farage simply replied: ‘No.’
He also called for a move to the French marriage system, where the legal act of marriage is separated from religious ceremonies.
Mr Farage suggested that his party would seek to augment civil marriages with civil partnerships.
He said: ‘The entitlement to independent religious views will end up worth a bean in the light of our legal subservience to the European Court of Human Rights. Whether or not you may agree with a position, it does not mean someone is not permitted to hold it.
‘We propose an augmentation of the civil partnership awarding it equal status to marriage and enabling it to be available to all. We would rather the legal and religious endorsements of wedlock are separate.’
Mr Farage said he hoped the party would continue to more lesbian, gay and transgender supporters: ‘We have absolutely no problem with anybody, whatever group or community they come from, unless they have openly and evidently unpalatable views.
‘People who join us do so because they subscribe to our basic position about freedom from the European Union and a less intrusive state.’
He also distanced himself from Mr Silvester’s remarks linking the floods to gay marriage, noting that when he made similar comments as a Tory councillor it did not make headlines.
Mr Farage said: ‘Although his comments were certainly eccentric, and to many unpalatable, they were his opinions, not the party’s and he had long been making them to his local paper throughout his tenure as a town councillor.
‘It was only when he defected to UKIP from the Conservatives, that these regular letters expressing the deep religious beliefs of an actually well-liked and respected elderly man, suddenly made national newspapers as the latest let’s-mock-UKIP-media fodder. It’s hardly balanced is it?’
Muslim woman, 22, who refused to remove niqab in court jailed for six months for terrorising mosque security guard because he allowed non-Muslim women inside
A Muslim convert who refused to remove her niqab in court was jailed for six months today after she terrorised a mosque security guard because he allowed non-Muslim women inside without veils.
Last week Rebekah Dawson, 22, was sentenced to 20 months at the Old Bailey for making three videos glorifying the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby while her husband Royal Barnes, 23, was jailed for five years and four months.
However, today she was sentenced to a further six months after admitting to threatening and intimidating Daudi Yusuf at Finsbury Park Mosque in north London.
Dawson had initially denied a single charge of intimidating a witness but, in a bizarre twist, changed her plea to guilty in January after the jury failed to reach a verdict against her and her brother Matthias Dawson, 32.
She had tried to stop Mr Yusuf from testifying against Barnes, who had assaulted him.
Barnes had angrily confronted Mr Yusuf after they took offence when he let three Portuguese women tourists tour the mosque without wearing headscarves on June 10 last year.
She later returned to Mr Yusuf’s office and confronted him about letting non-Muslims into the mosque asking him 'Why are you inviting naked women in the mosque.'
Dawson then ran off and her husband attacked Mr Yusuf who then reported it to the police.
Two weeks later, on June 23, Dawson returned to the mosque in an attempt to stop Mr Yusuf from giving evidence.
She told the frightened security guard: ‘Now I’ve seen your face you’re finished - you’re not safe’.
Barnes was found guilty of assault and harassment at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in December 2013.
Mr Yusuf said he was left feeling 'worried' about another attack because he did not know what Dawson looked like due to her having her face covered.
A defence statement previously made to the court said: 'She attended on June 23 to ask him why he was lying. 'She did not threaten him or do anything to interfere with him being a witness in other proceedings.'
During her trial Dawson had to remove her veil for a female police officer who then verified that she was the defendant at the start of every court session.
During her trial at Blackfriars Crown Court she refused to remove her niqab - which leaves only the eyes on show.
She claimed her religion prevented her removing the veil in the presence of men but Judge Peter Murphy ruled it was of ‘cardinal importance’ that a jury could see her face while she gave evidence.
In his original ruling Judge Murphy said that Dawson could not expect the court to ‘set aside its established procedure’ to accommodate a ‘particular religious practice’.
Susan Meek, defending, today told the court that Dawson, of Stroud Green, north London, has suffered ‘great intrusion into her life’ due to ‘unprecedented media interest’ for her wearing of the niqab.
She also said that Dawson’s dreams of becoming an English teacher were now in “tatters” and that she wanted to get on with her life being a law abiding citizen.
But Judge Murphy said the court must show that witness intimidation was not acceptable. He said: 'I have given a great deal of thought to this case. Mr Daudi Yusuf was doing his job. Obviously there was a difference of opinion but it did not justify the offence committed against him.'
The judge jailed Dawson for an extra six months for intimidating Mr Yusuf, to run consecutively to her current term of imprisonment, and also handed her a five-year restraining order banning her from contacting Mr Yusuf, going within 500 meters of Finsbury Park Mosque and from entering the Muslim Welfare Centre..
'Your brother said that your husband Royal Barnes had changed your life considerably for the worse - I’m sure you don’t agree with that', he said. 'I have to say I find his evidence compelling and whether you wish me to or not I’m going to take into account my own belief that this offence was committed by you at least partly under your husband’s influence.'
He added: 'It was not a systematic campaign but took place on one occasion and no violence was used but the threats were obviously very real.'
Dawson, who refused to stand in court, bowed her head as she received her latest prison sentence.
Last week Dawson and her husband were jailed at the Old Bailey after she filmed Barnes - a Muslim extremist with links to one of Lee Rigby's killers Michael Adebowale - as he glorified the Woolwich killing in a series of YouTube videos.
Barnes was filmed by his veiled wife laughing hysterically as he drove past the scene of the attack near Woolwich Barracks last May.
The couple ridiculed the memorial flowers left by friends, family, and members of the public for Drummer Rigby and Barnes described the murder as ‘absolutely brilliant’ on videos uploaded on to YouTube.
In the clip shot as the pair drove close to tributes left to Drummer Rigby, Dawson asked her husband to drive around again as he said: 'These kuffar, they fail to realise that their foreign policy is the reason why this Lee Rigby is no more...he got chopped up in Woolwich..
The Insidious Effect of Political Correctness
Dr. Ben Carson
When I was in high school in Detroit, there was a great deal of emphasis on clothing. As I became increasingly interested in fitting in with the "in crowd," fashion supplanted academic achievement in my hierarchy of importance. My grades plummeted, and I became a person who was less pleasant and more self-absorbed.
My mother was disappointed because she thought I had enough insight and intelligence to avoid the flypaper trap of acting like everyone else.
Fortunately, after wasting a year pursuing acceptance, I realized that my dreams went far beyond silk shirts and sharkskin pants. I decided to forsake the "in crowd" and redoubled my academic efforts in time to rescue my sinking grade-point average and gain admission to an Ivy League university.
To say that the "in crowd" was disgruntled when I abandoned their association would be a gross understatement. It eventually became clear to them that I would not rejoin their ranks under any circumstances, and they left me alone.
Despite the insults hurled at me, at the time of graduation, my classmates voted me "most likely to succeed." This indicated that they knew the prerequisites for success but were unwilling to fulfill them, and they wanted others to remain shackled to their underachieving lifestyle.
Political correctness (PC) operates in much the same fashion. It is in place to ensure conformity to the prescribed expressions and lifestyles dictated by the elites.
There are rewards of acceptance and praise for members of the "in crowd" as they attempt to silence or destroy any who dare think for themselves or express opposing views. Similarly, the purveyors of PC seize upon a word or phrase, which they emphasize in an attempt to divert attention away from the actual issue that doesn't fit their narrative.
I have stated in the past that Obamacare is the worst thing to occur in our country since slavery. Why did I make such a strong statement? Obviously, I recognize the horrors of slavery. My roots have been traced back to Africa, and I am aware of some horrendous deeds inflicted on my ancestors in this country.
The purpose of the statement was not to minimize the most evil institution in American history, but rather to draw attention to a profound shift of power from the people to the government.
I think this shift is beginning to wrench the nation from one centered on the rights of individual citizens to one that accepts the right of the government to control even the most essential parts of our lives. This strikes a serious blow to the concept of freedom that gave birth to this nation.
Some well-known radicals have publicly written and stated that in order for their idea of a utopian, egalitarian society to emerge in the United States, the government must control health care, which ensures the dependency of the populace on government. Historical analysis of many countries that have gone this route demonstrates the obliteration of the middle class and a massive expansion of the poor, dependent class with a relatively small number of elites in control.
This is sobering information, and those who want to fundamentally change America would much rather demonize someone who is exposing this agenda than engage in a conversation that they cannot win. Others join in the fray, happily marching in lockstep with those who are attempting to convert our nation to something we won't recognize, having no idea that they are being used.
Vladimir Lenin is sometimes credited with coining the phrase "useful idiots" to describe such individuals.
It is time in America for the people to open their eyes to what is happening all around them as our nation undergoes radical changes without so much as a conversation out of fear of being called a name, of facing economically adverse actions or of enduring government harassment, characterized by the perpetrators as "phony scandals."
Political correctness is antithetical to our founding principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Its most powerful tool is intimidation.
If it is not vigorously opposed, its proponents win by default, because the victims adopt a "go along to get along" attitude. Major allies in the imposition of PC are members of the media, some of whom thrive on controversy while others are true ideologues.
The true believers would be amusing if it were not so sad to behold them dissecting, distorting and repeating words in an attempt to divert attention from the rise of government control.
The American people must learn to identify and ignore political correctness if we are to escape the bitter ideological grenades that are destroying our unity and strength. Political correctness is impotent if we the people are fearless. Let us emphasize intelligent discussion of issues and leave the smear campaigns to those with no constructive ideas.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.