Saturday, December 16, 2006

CNN reports nearly all white Americans may be racists

Post lifted from News Buckit

A new poll from Opinion Research given front-page treatment by CNN shows that many Americans still see racism as a lingering problem. Just not a problem they have.
Almost half of black respondents to the poll -- 49 percent -- said racism is a "very serious" problem, while 18 percent of whites shared that view. Forty-eight percent of whites and 35 percent of blacks chose the description "somewhat serious."

Asked if they know someone they consider racist, 43 percent of whites and 48 percent of blacks said yes.

But just 13 percent of whites and 12 percent of blacks consider themselves racially biased.
The findings so far aren't that surprising, but wait for it... the MSM gem comes in the two paragraphs that follow:
Professor Jack Dovidio of the University of Connecticut, who has researched racism for more than 30 years, estimates up to 80 percent of white Americans have racist feelings they may not even recognize.

"We've reached a point that racism is like a virus that has mutated into a new form that we don't recognize," Dovidio said.
Let's suspend reality for a moment, dismiss the poor journalistic style, and take all of these assertions on their face.

It's safe to assume that the 13% of whites who say they're racists recognize that their feelings come from their own racism. This leaves us with undeclared-racist white America, or 87% of whites. Leaving out the declared racists, Dovidio implies that 92% of this remaining portion may be latently racist (that is, the 80% who may be racists and don't know it, divided by the 87% of whites that said they aren't racists. 80/87=92%.)

To make a long story short... 100% of declared racists plus 92% of undeclared racists means that 93% of white America may be racist.

That's a lot of racists and, apparently, one heckuva virus.

Even if Dovidio meant to include the 13% of confirmed racists in the 80% number, that still makes 80% of whites "possibly" racist. And really, how is that much different than saying 100% might be? (Maybe he declined to say 100% because "100%" wouldn't be believable. 80% sounds scientific, doesn't it?)

Heck, what makes the "actual" non-racists (of the 7% or 20% variety) not possibly racist? Our sagacious media and its sagacious representative from academia leaves that question unanswered.

This doesn't even begin to explain why Dovidio would declare whites and whites alone to be so overwhelming bigoted, simultaneously leaving unmentioned any latent racism present in other races. The poll is interesting, but the article itself -- ever-growing and ever-changing -- is without a doubt a hit job.

I estimate this story is 76.3% likely a result of MSM bias. But really, what's in a number?


`Tis the season, and once again Christmas is under siege by various political and commercial interests. If you haven't heard, for several years, Christmas, including even the word "Christmas," has been under attack. Various groups have been attempting to dilute Christmas by promoting competitor holidays, as well as punish those who attempt to preserve Christmas.

Examples abound, but the most obvious are the replacement of "Merry Christmas," with "Happy Holidays," resulting from such artifices as the artificial elevation of Chanukah, the inclusion of Ramadan and the invention of Kwanzaa as Christmas competitors. Exiling Jesus from Christmas observance is now almost the norm, and even the semi-secular Santa Claus is under attack by Leftist interests.

Before jumping in head first into the business of saving Christmas, it's worthwhile to use an analogy. It's been said that if British fox hunting had been beloved by blacks and gays, rather than white British aristocrats, it would have been embraced by the political Left instead of banned by it. In other words, anti-fox hunting activists are as motivated by their political hostilities as they are by their regard for animal welfare. Indeed, evidence suggests even more so. In regard to hunting endangered animals, which foxes are not, the Left gives a pass to non-white indigenous groups in, for example, Australia and North America, if it is part of their traditional customs. It's as though the animals must not be endangered while said groups hunt them!

One of the unmentionables about Christmas censorship is why this phenomenon occurs mainly to Christian holidays, and generally not to other religion's holy days. Attacks on Christmas started on the Left, and only migrated to the commercial sector after an effective period of demonization.

What is it about Christmas that has provoked such hatred in the Left? Similar to the fox hunting ban, the Left's dislike of white Christians lies at the heart of Christmas phobia. This has resulted in Christmas being placed onto the Left's chopping block. And as with fox hunting, if the American style of celebrating Christmas were less "white," Leftists would be less inclined to ban it. Indeed, they may become the strongest supporters of "exotic" Christmases. The elite Left, majority white, is nothing if not self-hating. Being irrationally xenophilic is their passive-aggressive response to "apple pie" Americana.

The Left is animated by hatred of individuals and groups of people in positions of power whom it has rightly or wrongly deemed evil. In America, that historically means the Left hates whites, especially Western European Protestants. That whites, and in particular, Anglo Saxons, no longer have the lock on power they once did in the United States doesn't disturb the Leftist mind. Leftists are equally oblivious to actual threats, such as the Islamic jihad terror movement, which threaten Leftist progressive values more than the once-dominant American Anglo Saxon culture ever did, if it ever did.

In the mind of the American Left, Christianity is intimately connected to American Anglo Saxon culture. As a result, so is Christmas, ridiculous though this is in historical context.

The Left hates the majesty of Anglo Saxon culture, and that includes its Christmas traditions. In attacking the Protestant Jesus, small-town Biblical values, and even Santa Claus, the Leftist, at least subconsciously, feels he is attacking the hated Anglo Saxon. Details like Christianity being a religion of Middle Eastern origin practiced mostly by non-whites are not a concern of Leftists, who operate on inaccurate feelings, not fact. The Leftist is only worried about the people in his world, not the real world. In the Leftist's world, Christianity is the religion of a hated and powerful white majority. Obvious contradictions to this worldview are ignored through the process of cognitive dissonance.

Despite a good show, most Leftists are not really worried about Constitutional issues, such as the separation of church and state. Witness a California school system's inclusion of Islamic teachings in the curricula, including role playing, fasting and memorizing the Koran, which was upheld by the Leftist-dominated 9th Circuit Court. Christian parents are rightly shocked by the Court's double standard that would have condemned out of hand an equivalent instruction in Christianity.

The secret to saving Christmas is to understand that in the mind of a Leftist, other religions, particularly Islam, are "multicultural" religions practiced by "people of color." Hence, they get a pass from Constitutional oversight, while Christmas, the predominate religion of whites, doesn't. Of course, such color-coding of religion makes egregious history. But Leftists are only interested in the feelings of the historically illiterate 60's folk singer. The historical reality of Ethiopian Abyssinians celebrating Christmas while most Europeans were worshipping Odin or Zeus is not a mental reality for Leftists.

So, if Christians want to save Christmas, they need to play the game. Ask yourself-What's more important, reviving the Christmas of Bethlehem or preserving today's degenerated version? Let's face it, even without the Christophobes, Christmas has strayed from its roots.

Now is a good time to call Leftists' bluff. Give them one hell of an international Christmas. Nigerian Christmas meals. Chinese Nativity scenes. American Indian Christmas dances. After all, Jesus was from Nazareth, not Newcastle. I'm betting most Leftists will be much less inclined to attack authentic displays of non-"Eurocentric" Christmases once confronted with them.

Leftists, being more sensatory than factual, are easily swayed by flaws in human logic, known as cognitive biases. Short circuit their thought process by waving some multicultural meat in front of them, and 80% of Leftists will forget all about their appeals to Constitutional principal. It's really a win-win situation, regardless. Christians get Christmas back, and Leftists get another exotic experience with "The Other" to feel good about.

Businesses-no dummies-will sense where the money is moving, and quickly tear down the Happy Holiday signs and return Merry Christmas to its rightful place. The remaining leftists who actually stand for principal-those un-hypocritical few who are truly committed to a strident form of secular government-will find that even the 9th Circuit will have abandoned them once the first American Indian crŠche graces a public lawn or Ethiopian Christmas greeting is posted in a public school hallway. That being said, I'll respect their heavy but even-handed condemnations of all expressions of any religion in government, but then thank God they are only reminders not to abuse our freedom of religious expression, not actual law.

Heck, even traditionalists like me may see more Christmases as an opportunity to boost the traditional American Christmas. Real competition, and not the contrived politically correct kind, will do it good. That's' the American way. I'm confident the American Christmas of yesteryear will make a strong comeback as a partner with other Christmases.


Ward Connerly to extend his campaign for racial colorblindness after his anti-preference win in Michigan

Building on his success in Michigan, Ward Connerly announced Wednesday he is exploring possible ballot measures in nine more states to ban racial preferences in public education, employment and contracting. Sacramento-based Connerly led successful efforts to prohibit preferences in California in 1996 and Washington state in 1998 before notching his latest victory in Michigan last month. "I think we need another critical mass, if you will, of states that are in the race-free zone," the former University of California regent said during a telephone conference with reporters, suggesting voters want to put the divisive issue to rest.

Exploratory committees have been established in nine states, Connerly said: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Connerly said a decision will be made in 45 to 60 days on which of the states have the best "resources" to place the issue before voters on Nov. 4, 2008, when the nation elects its next president. "There are only 23 initiative states -- three down and 20 to go -- and we don't need to do them all," Connerly said. "But if we do a significant number of them, I think that we will have demonstrated -- without doubt -- that race preferences are antithetical to the popular will of the American people."

Connerly, who founded his American Civil Rights Institute in Sacramento in 1997, said residents in several states under consideration have invited his organization. "We will be going there and meeting with people and learning more about their signature-gathering process, learning more about the political dynamic of those states, what it would cost us to go in ... (and) how much support we can expect," Connerly said.

Andrea Guerrero, a San Diego attorney who has written a book on the impact of Proposition 209, which banned racial preferences in California, maintains that Connerly's preference for the ballot over the legislative process shortchanges minority voters. "He's consciously going to voters knowing that conservative, white, elderly, male voters are overly represented in the voter rolls and at the polls," Guerrero said.

As a UC regent, Connerly led the effort in 1995 to end racial preferences. He acknowledged Wednesday that the percentage of some minorities attending UC has dropped. At UCLA, for example, there were only 96 African American freshmen this year in a class of 4,800 -- and 20 of them were athletes, according to university officials. Connerly said these numbers reflect a return to a "colorblind ethic" as mandated by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "We strayed from that with this notion that we have to use race to get beyond it," he said.

John Uhlmann, chairman of the American Civil Rights Foundation -- Connerly's legal defense entity -- called him "an American hero." Connerly, however, has come under criticism for drawing roughly 10 times the median compensation of a chief executive officer of a nonprofit in Northern California, according to a survey done earlier this year by The Bee. In 2004, he received more than $1 million in compensation, including salary and speaking fees, as head of the American Civil Rights Institute. "In my eyes, it's blood money," Guerrero said. "Money that he's earning is money earned by taking away opportunity from disenfranchised minorities."

Connerly took umbrage at the suggestion that by expanding his movement into more states he will make even more money. He said he did not take a full salary for several years, and his compensation includes money he earns from speaking engagements. No other CEO, he said, spends as much time on the campaign trail under as much duress. "They do a lot of work, but they can sit at their desk and do it," he said. "They don't have to go out and be subjected to barbs and life threats and other things."


Hate Crime to Hate Speech: The Road to Perdition

By Selwyn Duke

The precedents you set really do matter. In my recent piece, How We Will Lose Our Freedom of Speech, I mentioned that the concept of "hate speech" is a corollary of that of "hate crime." The brief reference was probably glossed over by most, but it is in fact such a significant element in our Orwellian gutting of the First Amendment that it warrants exposition.

In an older work of mine, Hate-crime Laws and Evolutionary Tyranny, I endeavored to prove that hate crime laws are an attempt at thought control. The same could be said of hate speech legislation, but the relationship between these two categories of law is much more direct than a mere sharing of a common goal. Let's examine this. (Note: Henceforth when I use the words hate/hateful, I mean them to be understood as "ideas defined as hateful by the powers-that-be.")

The effect of hate crime law is that it empowers the authorities to administer harsher punishment when hateful motives are discerned. For example, let's say that two identical violent acts are committed. The first act is deemed a regular (I suppose, politically correct) crime, and the perpetrator is sent to prison for ten years. The second crime, however, is labeled a hate crime, so the perpetrator receives twenty years. Now, this begs the question: What are the extra ten years imposed in the second crime for? Well, we know that ten years were all the act itself warranted because that's what was handed down when only the act was considered. Thus, I would assert the following: The additional punishment is for the ideas or thoughts expressed through the act.

But it's more than that. Through it, yes, but more to the point here is that the extra punishment is without question levied because of what was expressed during the event. After all, the hate patrol discerns the nature of the crime based on what the perpetrators say before, during or after the commission of it. If you beat someone over the head with a club while spewing garden-variety curses or nary a word, your punishment is less severe than if you hurl racial epithets at your victim as you do so.

Ominously, it is only then a short leap from the practice of punishing hate speech uttered during a violent incident to the practice of punishing hate speech uttered apart from one. For, if the expression of hateful ideas is so injurious to society, why would we limit their prohibition to one narrow context? But the salient point here is that the expression of certain ideas is already prohibited in a de facto sense in that context. Another precedent . . . .

Thus, I find it an inescapable conclusion that hate speech laws are an inevitable consequence of the embrace of hate crime laws. If we accept the proposition that it truly is legitimate to punish hateful ideas, why should we think that what serves as evidence of their existence would mitigate or exacerbate the consequences? It is logical to assume that someone who merely speaks out of hate wouldn't be punished as severely as someone who speaks and assaults out of it, but this is only because the latter case involves a decidedly violent act. But the punishment levied for an act is a separate thing entirely from the extra punishment levied for the thoughts that motivated the act. If it truly is legitimate for the government to proscribe the adult expression of certain ideas, then it is inevitable that government will eventually have a role whenever and wherever those ideas are detected. And if those certain ideas in and of themselves warrant a certain degree of punishment, it then is not hard to make the case that they warrant that degree of punishment regardless of the context in which their existence is revealed. This is why the validation of hate speech laws is a corollary of the validation of hate crime laws. To accept the latter is to pave the way for the former.

Caesar should undertake only that which is his rightful province and leave unto God the things that are God's. Thus, while spiritual betterment consists in striving to hurt no one in thought, word or deed, only the last of these is the concern of rulers. But it now seems that government would don a divine mantle as it proscribes not just harmful deeds, but words as well. One should shudder to think what might befall us if little "g" ever developed the technology to read thought.

After my article about the loss of free speech was published, I was deluged with email, and some of these respondents wanted to know what could be done about our impending loss of freedom. So now I'll present a few suggestions. In keeping with the principle that "The best defense is a good offense," we traditionalists need to take the offense. It's not enough to just combat the movement toward hate speech laws - we need to eradicate the hate crime laws that are just one step up on the devolutionary ladder. Thus, instead of just seeking to maintain the status quo, we must attack the source and try to get Big Clairvoyant out of the hate business.

As to this matter, while pressuring legislators to rescind hate crime legislation is imperative, the bureaucratic machinery of the hate police must be dismantled as well. Here's what I'm talking about. In previous pieces I included many examples of individuals who were persecuted for unfashionable use of the tongue. And while many others document these cases as well, what's usually not emphasized are the bureaucracies that do the dirty work. So, here's what you must know: These bodies are often known as "Human Rights Commissions," which, once empowered to play God, often develop adjuncts known as "Human Rights Tribunals." Of course, whatever "human rights" they purport to protect, the right to free speech is not among them. But one example involves the case of Hugh Owens, a man I mentioned who was punished for criticizing homosexuality. He ran afoul of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and its tribunal.

And here is what is truly chilling: Most of our states and many of our localities already have human rights commissions. And more are being spawned every year. Oh, they're not punishing people for violating the hate police's precepts yet, but just wait until those precepts become law. These Orwellian institutions will be positioned to hit the ground running. But "Human Rights Commission," ah, it has such a ring to it. Only an ogre sporting a white sheet would oppose an entity with a name that suggests such a noble mandate. And hate crime sounds as bad as human rights commission sounds good. And now that we're accepting a new boogeyman of a category called hate speech . . . .

It's sad really. One of the best things about man's nature is that most people can't be seduced into embracing evil knowingly. One of the worst things about man's nature is that most people can be seduced into embracing evil unknowingly. You certainly can fool enough of the people enough of the time.


No comments: