Videos: Advocacy of Killing White Babies, and Barack Obama’s Pals Who Saw Little Problem with Such Advocacy
Recall how Khalid Muhammad talked about killing the white women, children, and babies in South Africa?
And how Derrick Bell praised Muhammad, saying we should “appreciate” him because, hey, at least he’s just talking about it and not actually doing it? (Yet.)
Well, it turns out that Muhammad and Bell weren’t the only radicals with connections to Obama who didn’t see the need to denounce those who advocated killing white babies. Bill Ayers’s Weather Underground was also quite fond of the idea:
Isn’t it something, how similarly these radicals thought?
I, for one, am grateful Barack Obama is not advocating killing white babies as our President. I “appreciate” the fact that he merely befriended people who believed that talking about mass extinction of white babies was no big deal.
Thanks to Morgen.
Racists
JD (318f81) — 3/15/2012 @ 7:43 pmI guess we can be grateful that they weren’t talking about killing the “faggots” and the “lesbians” . . . ?
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/15/2012 @ 7:43 pmYeah, that might be radical.
JD (318f81) — 3/15/2012 @ 7:46 pmmy heart is open
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/15/2012 @ 7:49 pmIdk if its this same guy or not but there is a similar video where someone who infiltrated the Weather Underground said they would have serious discussions on the logistics of exterminating millions of capitalists.
These people really are terrifying.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/15/2012 @ 7:56 pmI don’t see what the big deal is. They were just talking about it. Who can’t appreciate that, right Random?
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/15/2012 @ 8:22 pmThat first video sounds like one of my City Council meetings.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/15/2012 @ 8:31 pmI think that you guys are forgetting that Obama voted to allow infanticide when he was in the Illinois State Senate.
Charlie Davis (34bb01) — 3/15/2012 @ 9:00 pmThis morning someone at Lucianne posted an article called Bell Epoque from the Chronicle of Higher Education about the Obama- Bell bromance (their words). You know what’s funny? The very first comment posted there was from a most concerned person who wondered why anybody was wasting their time and attention on such a non-story which was only distracting from discussing “the more important issues”. This was the very first comment in the thread. Almost like certain people are skulking around trying to kill this story. Go figure.
elissa (481b91) — 3/15/2012 @ 9:09 pmWell, I guess turn-a-round is fair play…
The stuff Margret Sanger in Wikipedia is pretty bad (don’t want to even quote pieces of it and start a flame war). Read the whole thing.
BfC (fd87e7) — 3/15/2012 @ 9:22 pmLink doesn’t work.
narciso (6b94ef) — 3/15/2012 @ 9:36 pmI think that you guys are forgetting that Obama voted to allow infanticide when he was in the Illinois State Senate.
— We never forget that little tidbit. In fact, Obama’s legal counsel on that issue posts here quite regularly.
Icy (02b509) — 3/15/2012 @ 9:55 pmHmmm–messed up that link. Here is the bare link to Margaret Sanger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
BfC (fd87e7) — 3/15/2012 @ 9:58 pmo is finally being vetted. Something the lsm should have done in 2008.
Jim (24a875) — 3/15/2012 @ 9:59 pm__________________________________________
Barack Obama is not advocating killing white babies as our President
I don’t know about white ones alone, but he sure has been rather cavalier about such life when it’s merely one step away from the umbilical cord being cut, referring to his desire to keep late-term abortions as pliable and accessible as possible.
I don’t know if he’s as bad as the Margaret Sangers of the world, but if he is, I’ll give him credit if he at least doesn’t fall for the BS belief that liberalism imbues one with such great compassion, humaneness, tolerance and generosity.
Mark (31bbb6) — 3/15/2012 @ 10:16 pmAnd this is not the same as the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem in Europe, how?
Just because they’re not goose-stepping down the Champs Elysees doesn’t mean they’re not Nazi’s.
AD-RtR/OS! (8bf379) — 3/15/2012 @ 10:58 pmComment by Mark — 3/15/2012 @ 10:16 pm
As a State Senator, he certainly had no problem with infanticide as an approved governmental program.
AD-RtR/OS! (8bf379) — 3/15/2012 @ 10:59 pmCan you imagine a klansman president?
sickofrinos (44de53) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:28 amwith Teh 0bama
Colonel Haiku (25ae07) — 3/16/2012 @ 4:44 amIT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT RACE
let’s just get that straight
No, you are a disengenuous liar. You know I never said we should appreciate talking about genocide, per se. I said we should understand that a person outraged that his people, as he seems them (and genetics is as logican and certainly natural a way to define them as is having had his ancestors abducted and enslaved by Americans), mistreated by others in their own homeland — denied all political power and a role in government — sexond class citizens, smeared racially, dying — might cause someone to say some shit, of even engage in warfare.
But he didn’t even do that much.
The “appreciate” part comes from it’s possoble that someone could know him and appreciate him as a whole, without necessarily appreciating his violent rhetoric, provoked by an awful situation.
If some WW2 Pole talked about killing all the Germans but didn’t do so or an American outraged at the treatment of American POWs or just the atress of near-daily kamikaze attacks talked about doing the same to the Japs, Inwouldn’t condemn everyone who knew him or her for “appreciating” him or her in the future.
Muhammad may be a right prick (and indeed so may be the Pole or the American), but I would need more than a rant, never carried out, against the people behind the tyrannical apartheid regime during>/em> the apartheid regime to condemn not only him but those who liked him and those who like the people who like him — just as much as I wouldn’t be condemning a WW2 vet’s or Pole’s wife, children, and friends for “appreciating”btheir loved one — despite an unactioned rant against Germans made in 1944.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:14 am*as he sees them
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:15 amKindly overlook some of the typos. I did this on an iphone and it’s hard to proofread and edit. Especially on this site because a Javascript seems to slow things right down.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:17 amWell Wilson whose friend Thomas Dixon, wrote ‘Birth of a Nation’ who resegregated the DC public schools, was the closest thing to,
narciso (6b94ef) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:17 amLooks like it got caught up in the moderation filter anyway, so I’ll correct typos and repost from my PC:
No, you are a disengenuous liar. You know I never said we should appreciate talking about genocide, per se.
I said we should understand that a person outraged that his people, as he seems them (and genetics is as logicaa and certainly natural a way to define them as is having had his ancestors forcibly abducted and enslaved by Americans), forcibly mistreated by others in their own homeland — denied all political power and a role in government — second class citizens, smeared racially, dying due to lower-quality treatment in umpteen ways — might cause someone to say some sh-t, or even engage in warfare.
But he didn’t even do that much.
The “appreciate” part comes from it’s possoble that someone could know him, including what he’s said in the past, and still him as a whole, without necessarily appreciating his violent rhetoric, provoked by an awful situation.
If some WW2 Pole talked about killing all the Germans but didn’t do so or an American sailor outraged at the treatment of American POWs or just the stress of near-daily kamikaze attacks talked about doing the same to the Japs, I wouldn’t condemn everyone who knew him for “appreciating” him in the future.
Muhammad may be a right pr-ck (and indeed so may be the Pole or the American sailor), but I would need more than a rant, never carried out, against the people behind the tyrannical apartheid regime during the apartheid regime’s rule to condemn not only him, but those who liked him, and those who like the people who like him — just as much as I wouldn’t be condemning a WW2 vet or Pole and their wife, children, and friends for “appreciating” their loved one — despite knowledge of an unactioned genocidal rant against Germans made in 1944.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:40 am*sees
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:40 amAh, I can’t believe I didn’t get all the typos, but anyway, you’ll have to make your way through it as is.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:41 amTrent Lott was objectively worse.
JD (d246fe) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:50 amRandom, this is what you need:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/worse-than-war/the-film/watch-worse-than-war/24/
and also to recognize that Bell’s remarks were more a promise than an apology.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:54 amAnother case of do as I say and not as I do ….
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Neo (d1c681) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:33 amSarahW, thanks for that. I commented on your comment in a previous post and said that is a much stronger argument.
I agreed with you then; I agree with you now. Bell seemed to agree personally, but more than that. I don’t think Bell’s comments, sly though they were, were aimed at the South African apartheid regime specifically. So I find them more, not less, objectionable than what Khalid Muhammed said. While what Muhammed said was reprehensible, it’s somewhat understandable in context.
Correct me if I’m wrong about Bell’s comments implying a more general desire to kill white babies, rather than a reaction to South Africa’s apartheid regime.
For the record, I’ve known South African whites and like most of the ones I’ve met, sometimes quite a bit. But then, I’ve liked Germans and Japanese and Italians and one of my favorite families in the world at the moment is Iranian. So I’m not really down with genocide, because I know a lot of people don’t support the actions of their government. Nonetheless, if you or the people you are identifying with are on the receiving end of tyranny and racially-motivated tyranny no less, I do get the anger and desire for blood that is natural for men to feel in that situation.
Would that it were different — then we probably wouldn’t have warfare — but it isn’t different.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:36 amI guess what I object to is the argument formulated thus:
Anyone who likes Muhammed or anyone who’s ever said anything violent in reaction to an unjust situation, but not actually done anything significantly violent, is an ahole. I think that is much, much too strong.
You make a stronger case that Bell is an ahole than Patterico has made.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:38 am*was
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:39 amRandom, they are all infected with Marxist or Marxist hybrid revolutionary dogma and the nonsense of great cleanse leading to to an aftermath of purity and plenty for the deserving. It is not disinterested, this utopian vision: it’s motivated by fear, revenge, greed, and narcissism of individuals and the collective. Whatever form the cleanse takes, there is one result.
There is no new man and no new world awaiting, only chaos and tyranny to follow, or fatal pushback.
It’s peculiarly tragic to see the likes of Bell attempt to deconstruct the one system most likely to produce the stated aims of equality before the law or to maximize opportunity to increase in prosperity, and to minimize the relevance of race or ethnicity.
Patterico is perfectly correct that Obama is a saturated sponge of this dogma and means to effect a teardown of that which is in the way of utopia. He’s always known that in America it would have to be by a kind of stealth and long con. He really believes that the western concept of liberty is IN THE WAY.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:09 amRandom,
The only one being disingenuous is you. Anwar Al-Alwalakai never acted on his violent rhetoric, only used violent rhetoric against “unjust oppression,” yet the president says he must be drone bombed into oblivion.
You make excuses for black people because, well, I don’t know and I don’t care. Just this statement alone, ” (and genetics is as logical and certainly natural a way to define them as is having had his ancestors forcibly abducted and enslaved by Americans)” is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever heard. If you feel a special bond with someone specifically because of their RACE, and you despise other RACES because of sins their ancestors committed, well, there’s a word for that: racist. And when you advocate genocide, there is nothing worth appreciating.
I don’t care if Khalid watched a gang of white men rape his mother. That should make him hate those specific white men, not advocate the killing of white babies, let alone the oppressive faggots and lesbians. Who are the gays oppressing again?
In the other thread, you tried to say that David Duke and Khalid Mohammad aren’t birds of the same feather, because Duke is a “supremacist” while Muhammad only wants to kill all the white babies. Both never acted, but only one is excused.
You’re pathetically transparent.
To advocate genocide is evil. That you refuse to understand that speaks volumes to your humanity. And yes, even advocating genocide once makes you worthy of contempt and scorn for the rest of your days, as well as anyone who “appreciates” your violent language, ya know, as long as you never act.
Hell, why is Charles Manson in jail? He never killed anyone…
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:14 amThe difference is in western countries, Muslims can pretty much live as they please, and they’re oppressed if anywhere in Muslim countries. And they’re oppressed by whatever version of Islam is in vogue.
Whereas in South Africa, Europeans came there, took over the country, and eventually officially shunted the black people into being second class citizens, unable to hold political office.
Of course they’d want to war against the whites in that situation. America fought against its own genetic stock because it didn’t feel like being unfairly taxed.
I’m not defending black people, per se. I’m using what should be common sense to understand that if you conquer someone and take political power from them, and set yourself up to receive better services, etc., than them, while referring to them as kafirs or what have you … yeah, there might be some payback.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:18 amSure.
But the world hasn’t bought into western concepts of “liberty” full stop. We’re biological (and religious, for that matter) beings also, and there is a natural reaction when you see your people being dominated by another.
I pretty much agree with Pat Buchanan here. Western concepts of melting pot and constitutional democracy may be noble, but most of the world isn’t there yet, and they really don’t have to be if they don’t want to. Different peoples just might fight each other over different things.
Kind of like how the world has worked forever.
So if you conquer someone and set your race above them, this may benefit you, but if you lose control, this may really put your descendents in a bad spot. Kudos to the black people as led by Marxist yet not murderer Nelson Mandela in resolving that situation about as well as it was ever likely to get resolved.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:26 amAlso this formulation:
enemy does whatever to you, you respond only to those specific enemies you can assign actual blame to
… may work in a legal context, occasionally.
But in a war between vastly different peoples? It’s conceding the ground to your enemy to take any genocidal, racist policy against you; while you reply in measured ways, only occasionally and when fully certain — if you’re still around and exist.
You know, when the Germans bombed London and Liverpool, the allies bombed Dresden. And then there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now we weren’t the aggressors in those wars. Nor did black South Africans invade Holland. But when you start these things, and your side plays unfair; you can’t exactly get to choose just how unfair the other side is going to play when they get power as if you can point to your own rule book and say, “Hey guys, do this!”
The world don’t work that way. They way we evolved, including our aggressive emotions about protecting our own against others, while less than ideal, is more rational than that, in the sense that it all evolved around protecting our genes against other hominids.
White people don’t get a pass that says they can invade black territories and then choose the level of retaliation blacks choose to inflict back.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:33 amThe main reason they war against the west, is their religion teaches them they have a duty to God to form a worldwide caliphate, converting people to Islam by persuasion or by force and/or enslaving them and making them pay a tribute.
It’s not exactly the same thing as a reaction to apartheid.
I don’t support fundamentalist Islam’s goals, but understanding them is the first step to forming a rational policy to countering them. And even if you want to condemn anyone who, for example, expressed vile thoughts towards the Germans or Japanese in WW2, the south or north in the Civil War, the Indians or Americans during the various Indian wars, the Brits during the War of Independence, or the Normans who had invaded Saxon lands, or ….
… even if you see condemning that person’s reaction to what happened, notably war and/or occupation of their people’s …
… it still behooves you to understand it as a natural, predictable human reaction if you want to do anything about it.
But throwing up your hands and saying, “Oh no! Why do the natives hate me and my innocent children so much?” after they’ve seen their homes burned and been driven off lands they’ve lived on for thousands of years … well f—, it’s dumb.
Hatred in response to extreme situations affecting our families and peoples is natural. Not all humans get their emotions from careful readings of De Tocqueville.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:46 amRandom – How do you feel about Hamas and Hezbollah?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:51 amWell I don’t like them. What does that matter?
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:53 amComment by Random — 3/16/2012 @ 8:33 am
You understand that the blacks, aside from a small minority of aborignals in South Africa were imported labor, right? They were immigrants. These were certainly oppressed persons but not “invaded” persons.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:13 amShorter random:
Well, it’s not exactly one hundred percent the same, so you can’t compare them.
In other words, genocide is understandable, depending on who’s genociding. The answer to abject racism and oppression is, of course, abject racism and oppression. And the answer to apartheid is genocide.
And killing faggots and lesbians.
Seriously bro, make sure you stretch before doing gymnastics like that.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:17 amI’m thinking your understanding of the history of South Africa might could stand a brush up.
Your larger points about human nature, no one can object to, except the Marxists themselves who see a grand new age of man ushered in. It’s the obligation of students of human history to comprehend and check the violence, has nothing even to do with oppression, per se, but perception of privilege and perception of danger and a perception that others may succeed only by keeping you down. Think Hutu, think Tutsi. Think National Socialist and Jew.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:20 amIt’s interesting how Obama doesn’t have to live by his own book of rules. His people pretend Santorum is going to take away your contraception despite his saying his personal views are not his policy agenda. His people say the Tea Partiers who demand merely fiscal sanity and freedom from more government are deemed “extremists” for no apparent reason.
But Obama can pal around with terrorists, racists, endorsers of murder, and it’s nothing. Why? Because of the assumption that liberal extremism is kinda cool and OK and justified, I guess. Something irrational and unfair.
It’s going to be this way until conservatives refuse to play along. Obama’s pals are nearly uniformly wicked people. It has absolutely affected his administration, and he’s got to go come election day.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:22 amAlso, by proxy of the ANC and the terrorists he supported, and his murderous ideology, Nelson Mandela is a murderer on grand scale.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:23 amWell the sheer brazenness is a little shocking, but he’s just ‘over his head’ like President Snow, for instance
nicole wallace (6b94ef) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:25 amDustin, the difficulty is that if Santorum thought he could get away with it, he would most certainly make contraception contraband, not just espouse ideas that it’s perfectly ok for states to do it and that Griswold was a mistake.
Recognition that this reality is unachievable doesn’t make his notions any more palatable.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:26 amI’d be lying if I said I didn’t buy this, Sarah.
However, he can’t get away with it and he knows it.
And of course, the same applies to Obama and his extremism. Apparently what’s relevant is only conservatives with unusual views that they have the sense to keep off their agenda. Liberals can only be judged based on whatever analysis works best for them.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:29 amI think if the extent of Obamas immersion in these doctrines is not widely understood, that he flirted and courted this movement is very much understood.
The long march has been successful enough that popular sensibilities regarding morality/self-sufficiency and the role of government are altered, and tame the impact of his past might mean for the future.
At some point people get the government they deserve and I think they have gotten it good and hard, and will continue to get it.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:37 amI’ve heard this, but it was hardly front and center in my awareness. I did know that they divided the country into 4 main ethnic groups: whites, Asians, coloreds, and natives. I didn’t know what the ratios were between “coloreds” and “natives” were, thinking mostly that coloreds were cross-bred people, whether European/native south African, or from elsewhere. I knew the Asians would have had to have been imported labor and/or immigrants.
I really do appreciate you helping me to understand South Africa’s history better. Opposition to the Apartheid regime was something I was very interested in growing up.
This new knowledge though, about the ratios of which percentage of south Africans were imported labor vs. aboriginal, doesn’t really changes the core issue much, I don’t think.
Some men are still going to be angry when they see their people ruled by others and treated as racially inferior second-class citizens. I mean, America imported blacks from Africa, but … I don’t think the fact that these were imported labor would change a young man in Zambia from being angered at how his geneticall-related people were treated, if he knew about it.
This isn’t the only injustice that’s ever happened in the world. I get that. I’m just saying the natural reaction to this includes enormous anger.
Dr. Peter Breggin (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:40 amsock off
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:40 am*As far as what their percentage of the population of south Africa is….
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:43 amI don’t disagree with you there. I think you’re right, but also that if the population wasn’t put off by Obama’s relationship with a leader of a domestic terrorist organization that bombed the Pentagon and his wife who was convicted for her role in and knowledge of the terrorist-funding-related murders of two police officers and a security guard, I agree with Beldar that they’re not likely to make much of this.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:50 amI actually totally buy that Mccain did not hit Obama nearly hard enough on these issues in 2008. And I believe we now have substantial corroboration of the issue of Obama’s radical views. Fast and Furious, Bell, Van Jones… a lot of this was not on the minds of most voters in 2008.
Let’s try this line. I think the idea that a few of the 52% were conned into supporting a radical is a great way for them to vote against their 2008 choice while saving face.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:56 am______________________________________________
Can you imagine a klansman president?
I previously posted the following, but I find it so fascinating that I’m pasting it again. That’s because the information is rarely, if ever, given public airing. Or I should say that when some on the right have cited the Republican Party as being the party of Abraham Lincoln, I used to pause and sense that such a statement perhaps was overly dependent on ancient history (ie, the Civil War) and certainly didn’t apply to behavior well after the 1800s, much less as recently as the 1990s, when America’s “first black president” was in the White House.
A reality check is in order.
Mark (411533) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:57 amRandom:
So, as I understand your logic, it follows that – because he didn’t personally kill Rosenblum or Grazioli or set fires in Crown Heights or Freddy’s Fashion Mart we should grant Al Sharpton a pass and understand and appreciate his rhetoric.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Old Bob (f359d9) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:59 amI’m with you here. Santorum is completely unacceptable, and his speaking out against libertarians as if we’re juvenile fools (rather than the core behind America’s founding principles), is beyond irksome.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:59 amNo, you’re being a lying dumbass. I’ve already addressed this above, that there is no need to appreciate the rhetoric itself, even if it’s understandable in context that someone could feel that way.
The appreciation was always about whether you could appreciate a person, not a wrong action or statement.
Every person makes wrong actions and statements. The question is which make it impossible to appreciate the person themselves, and make it morally reprehensible to appreciate that person.
People get in fights, they drink, they cheat, whether on tests or spouses, they lie, and so on. People are not perfect.
Does saying something violent forever make a person beyond appreciation? I think that’s very harsh.
Does saying something violent as an emotional reaction to a situation where people are living under tyranny and rule by others, treated as second-class, racially-inferior, racially-insulted citizens move someone so far beyond the bounds of humanity that it is immoral for anyone to appreciate them?
If so, there were a lot of American veterans and Jewish victims of the holocaust and survivors of rape and child abuse and citizens from the Dixie states, or ex-slaves, who deserved lifelong shunning for unacted-upon words.
I think that’s a huge stretch, but if you want to make it, then fine. But don’t lie and say that means I appreciate the actual calls for genocide.
And if that is your position, Old Bob, and you’re not going to back down from it, then I was right: you are a liar.
Logically, your position is similar to you saying that me not automatically condemning a guy who talked about stealing his neighbor’s car after his neighbor actually stole that person’s cousin’s stereo … is equivalent to me saying I appreciate advocating car theft. It isn’t.
But I can understand how a person might want to retaliate against a thief, or against a society that was tyrannically ruling other races, to wit, his.
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:21 am“The appreciation was always about whether you could appreciate a person, not a wrong action or statement.”
Random – With all your spinning I’m confused.
Is your position that you condemn Khalid’s Muhammad’s philosophy of race relations, genocide, antisemitism, homophobia, etc., but appreciate and understand him as a person and see no reason to criticize Derrick Bell for calling him a hero?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:37 amWhoa on there – guess I touched a nerve.
I am suggesting that we hold persons who speak of violence be held accountable when violence follows. I am suggesting that – instead of undertaN
Old Bob (f359d9) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:39 amEven if we do the first, it doesn’t imply the second and third.
At the very least, of course we should always try to do the second.
If we do the second, we still don’t have to do the first and the third.
Yes, violence can follow violent words, and fair enough criticizing it on that basis. But the violent feelings are, I believe, understandable in context.
If America were taken over by Chinese, you weren’t allowed to vote, you saw people you know die because they get less protection/access to healthcare/economic opportunity, etc., and you are demeaned with racial slurs, and you had a friend who said, “We should kill them all; every last one of them; men and women too,” would you write off that person forever, shun him or her, and never talk to them again, and chastize anyone who did so?
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:45 am*women and children, I meant to write, but you get the idea
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:46 amsorry about #57 up there – bloody cat jumped on the keyboard …..
as I was saying —
Instead of understanding and appreciating the rhetoric we need to condemn the speech and the speakers. Instead of embracing the supporters of violent speech (as Bell, Wright, Obama, et al have done) – we need them to be held accountable for the consequences of their words.
Ancient hatreds abet contemporary atrocities – ‘appreciating’ the hatred encourages a continuation of the conflicts.
Old Bob (f359d9) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:50 amA couple guys born in Houston and Pittsburgh sure did produce a lot of hate, which Random seems hellbent on dissembling for.
JD (0e9826) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:53 amAnd as far as violent words causing action, true dat.
And I don’t want babies to be killed on purpose so I think the calls for genocide were too far.
But how did black and colored South Africans not have at least a strong a moral case for war, for violence, as did America at its founding?
I’ve said repetatedly, I’m glad Nelson Mandela showed good leadership during the transition period, and F.W. DeClerk as well — would that King George III had done likewise. However, there was a legitimate, even strong, moral case for war by the oppressed, unrepresented South Africans against the apartheid regime in South Africa during its rule.
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:55 amI see anyone who speaks of murdering children as insane. It’s clear you don’t. And this wasn’t an “off the cuff” comment, this was something Khalid advocated, and was advocating to numerous groups of people.
Yes. Shun them, write them off forever. To embrace, appreciate and encourage others to embrace and appreciate them is to perpetuate the cycle. This, along with wright and ayers is a problem. That the president seeks the intellectual wisdom from a racist professor who appreciates genocidal lunatics is a big freaking problem.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/16/2012 @ 11:00 amAnd I don’t want babies to be killed on purpose so I think the calls for genocide were too far.
But not worthy of condemnation.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/16/2012 @ 11:02 amMaybe you got a point.
I wonder if we should automatically discount anyone who respects Moses?
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 11:08 am“I wonder if we should automatically discount anyone who respects Moses?”
Random – That’s why I asked about your feelings about Hamas and Hezbollah.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/16/2012 @ 11:22 amOn Psalm 137:
Condemn her! Shun her forever!
Condemn them! Condemn the Jews! Shun them forever.
(Let’s not show any mature human compassion and understanding to their, in this case, verbally violent reaction to the injustices done to their people.)
(Well, OK, let’s. But just for the Jews. Not so much for blacks.)
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 11:27 amI want to let my last comment sink in for a bit, daleyrocks, before I reply again to your question about Hamas and Hezbollah, but I hope to get to it later today if what I say below isn’t an on-point response to what you’re asking.
If I understand what you mean, is are the Muslims right to want to wipe out the Jews because Moses did some bad stuff way back then to some other people? No, but when I think about the genocidal slaughters the ancient Jews, accurately or not, record that they committed, it p-ss-s me off. Yes, on one hand, I understand this is fairly natural primate behavior, the sort of thing (and I’m not meaning to be gratuitously insulting; I’m meaning to draw a line giving an example of our evolutionary and behaviorial similarity to a closely-related species) Jane Goodall would have recognized in her work with chimpanzees. She wouldn’t even go into the field without a bodyguard toward the end of her fieldwork since she’d seen interpersonal violence, such as by alpha-male “Frodo”, as well as intergroup violence, and even genocidal chimp wars.
The slavery and genocides the ancient Jews committed and the genocide attempts and/or slavery both the ancient and modern Jews suffered both offend me, often outrage me, and sometimes have shaken me to my emotional core, such as when studying the Holocaust, reading the accounts, and seeing the photos and videos.
Because of that, I can understand how people — especially those more closely involved than me — can get really P.O.’d and think and say some violent crap.
Good thing F.W. DeClerk and Mandela were the leaders at the time they were.
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 11:40 amYou show me smoke, but the fire is still hidden.
Guilt.
By.
Association.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 3/16/2012 @ 11:46 am“If I understand what you mean, is are the Muslims right to want to wipe out the Jews because Moses did some bad stuff way back then to some other people?”
Random – That was the analogy you made, not me.
Plus a lot of people seem to make the comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa, against which you seem to be sympathetic toward violent rhetoric if not actual violent action. Hence the obvious question about Hamas and Hezbollah. No magic.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/16/2012 @ 11:52 amRandom – OK, I just spent a lot of time reviewing the thread to see if I missed something in your argument – I did.
What I missed was a willingness on your part to condemn the violent rhetoric. What I found, instead, was a defense of it through understanding and appreciation of the righteous grievances. Neither did I find a condemnation of Bell, Wright, and (by extension) Obama, et al for their embrace of the rhetoric.
Understanding and appreciating a grievance does not absolve one of the consequences of violent speech (hence the Sharpton reference). Recognizing the potential for violent consequences requires a condemnation of the speech – not appreciation. It follows, then, that a failure to condemn is an acceptance of consequences (or – even worse – a failure to recognize the potential or an outright indifference to it).
I am minded of the book ‘Balkan Ghosts’ in which Robert D. Kaplan indentified the violent undercurrents in pre-breakup Yugoslavia and predicted the post-soviet atrocities of Milosovich, Kosovo, and Bosnia. He heard the retelling of centuries old atrocities and noted the absence of any moderating voice in condemnation. The refusal to abandon old grievances produced a new set of atrocities.
I would suggest, sir, that the current anger, destructiveness, and violence in the Afro-American communities is one such consequence of the Bell, Wright, Jackson, and Sharpton school of rhetoric. I await – likely in vain – Mr. Obama’s abandonment and condemnation of the cabal.
post-script: Before posting this I glanced at your latest entries and welcomed your nod towards a condemnation.
Old Bob (f359d9) — 3/16/2012 @ 11:54 am_____________________________________________
However, there was a legitimate, even strong, moral case for war by the oppressed, unrepresented South Africans against the apartheid regime in South Africa during its rule.
But I wonder how many people, certainly of the left, are just a wee bit less bothered by the political battles and ruthlessness that occur within the societies throughout Africa that are virtually mono-racial black?
I suspect much of the most radical, rebellious reactions of people like Bell, Sharpton, Wright, etc, are not merely because of the unique racial aspects of US history, or countries like South Africa too, but because of their urge to satisfy leftist instincts. IOW, they probably are not much less ultra-liberal even in today’s America, today’s South Africa or what has since become Rhodesia in 2011.
In a similar vein, it would be absurd to believe that Mao Tse-tung was extreme because of racial differences in China, or Fidel Castro was and is extreme because of racial apartheid in Cuba.
Mark (31bbb6) — 3/16/2012 @ 12:19 pmOld Bob, in my beginning comments on this thread, I equated it to a genocidal rant (because it is a genocidal rant), called it reprehensible and a “wrong action or statement“.
I condemn genocide. But I can’t condemn a human being for simply making a violent statement and condemn those who appreciate that human being without also; to be morally consistent and fair; condemning Jews (for the reasons given at 11:27 am and at 11:08 am above); condemning those who appreciate Jews such as all Christians (and some Muslims and atheists); condemning all Muslims (for appreciating Mohammed, who was nasty as); condemning those who appreciate any Muslims; condeminging those who appreciated Jefferson Davis, including General Lee; those who appreciate General Lee; etc.; condemning many American veterans and POWs; condemning the wives and children and friends of commenters who’ve talked about nuking Mecca, etc.
Where does this end if lifelong condemnation is automatic against a person who uses violent words in response to an actual, unjust situation?
The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission did a much better ethical job than the simple black and white ethical model, no pun intended, proposed here.
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 12:23 pmOh good Allah.
JD (318f81) — 3/16/2012 @ 12:33 pmRandom nonsense,
You are full of it. First attributing atrocities of man to God is no small fallacy. Second, according to your logic, Hamas and hizbollah are understandably genocidal towards Jews.
Last, you’re a hypocrite who makes excuses for blacks, despite the fact that the ancient Moors had made slaves out of early Europeans. Hey, turns out, it was all full circle! Yes, before the African slave trade, the Moors brutally oppressed white people.
So the slave trade was pretty understandable, considering what ancestors did to ancestors, right?
And yes, I don’t care who the man is, if Jesus Christ descended from heaven and told me I needed to start killing children, that’s the day I’m no longer a Christian.
Ghost (f02452) — 3/16/2012 @ 12:35 pmWhat a maroon.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/16/2012 @ 12:36 pmNot you Ghost.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/16/2012 @ 12:36 pmLook how far Random has tried to move this conversation away from Teh One hugging and opening up his heart and mind, and exhorting others to do the same, to Derrick Bell. And how Derrick Bell appreciated the words of Khalid Muhammed, advocating genocide against whites, gays, children, etc …
JD (318f81) — 3/16/2012 @ 12:48 pmI haven’t done this at all. I don’t believe in God, so it would be impossible.
Well, yes. Their religion teaches them to be genocidal to Jews, and they face a death sentence if they leave their religion, which they’re indoctrinated in since children and even as adults have to pray vocally facing Mecca 5 times a day, so it is very much understandable. The ability to understand things is actually a plus.
That’s funny, because I usually get called a racist against blacks because I acknowledge there are differences other than skin tone between different hominid populations, including what we refer to as races of Homo sapiens sapiens.
As far as your thing about the Moors? Sure that’s true, but so what? At the time, I suppose it would have been pretty strong justification for enslaving the Moors or at least wanting to. However, people’s emotional intensity drops off a bit when it’s some obscure historical footnote they can’t relate to. When it’s actual tyranny occurring now — Muhammad started making his statements during apartheid and the example I’m about to give again below was also in real time — people have strong emotional reactions to it.
Go, Ghost! Let’s see you explain the moral difference between what she said and what Muhammad said, and why we should condemn and shun him forever and not her.
Go ahead. This oughta be good.
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 12:52 pmI don’t condemn entire races, moron. That’s you. When you “presume” God gave the law to Moses, then you are attributing mans actions to god.
The Moors instituted white slavery years before the African slave trade. The moors were black. So, by your logic, you understand that the African slave trade was a natural reaction to brutal oppression, and therefore, the whites who argued in favor of slavery should be excused.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:19 pmRandom –
My ex-son-in-law is Jewish. Six years ago he made an alcohol-induced mistake. He whined that non-Jews (meaning me) would never understand the agony and unfairness of the historical hatred of Jews. Having joined him in the alcohol consumption I failed to resist the urge to vigorously respond with selected Old Testament passages. The litany of Mosaic/Israelite massacres is long and the celebration of the triumphs malodorous; the term ‘of biblical proportions’ hardly does it justice.
He was shocked that I found this history repugnant – and I am now his anti-semitic ex-father-in-law (but, to my daughter’s dismay, we still get together once a month for drinks and Obama bashing. Some subjects, though, are off limits in our conversations). His ‘but God commanded them’ defense infuriated me then as ‘kill the white women and babies’ does today.
It is (imho) important that we never tolerate, accept, defend, or excuse violent rhetoric. It should (must?) be confronted, rebuked, rebutted, and condemned in each instance. The failure to do so simply encourages a continuation and escalation of the outrageous until violence does, in fact, erupt.
Goodall’s work may have identified an evolutionary basis for human conflict – but we need not be condemned to a forever future of competing tribes with flags. One start to avoiding such a future begins with open and vigorous rejection of the language of conflict. Chimps – with no speech – are unable to reason/negotiate their way out of their cycle of violence. I hold on to a small measure of ‘hope’ that humans can ‘change’ that pattern.
Old Bob (f359d9) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:22 pmAnd by saying that blacks just can’t help but to feel like genocidal lunatics, yeah, I guess you are racist against black people.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:24 pm1. I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
2. There was a link, and the part in blockquote was … a quote. It was someone’s analysis. For my part, I’m sure the Jews believed in God, which I don’t, and therefore I don’t presume God gave them orders. Presumably … the Jewish soldiers would have presumed Moses’ authority derived from communication with God. 😉
3.
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:26 pmFair enough, but I don’t think we can extend this so far as to condemn every individual person for life who spoke violently as an emotional reaction against obvious tyranny … and if we do, we can’t do it once removed. Because if we do that, we’ve condemned almost everybody, including everyone who accepts any of the Abrahamic religions. As you well know.
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:31 pmOh. And awesome:
All I can say is most Jews I’ve known haven’t been so whiny. But some are, and condemning those, according to them, actual atrocities is fair dinkum.
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:34 pmIs this real life?
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:38 pmI’ll add this as food for thought.
Big difference between the (probably a) woman who was behind Psalm 137, and Moses being angered his victorious soldiers had just not killed enough, nor taken enough virginal rape-booty, and ordering his troops to “rectify” that situation (their mercy).
Big difference.
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:39 pmCondemn for life? No. But I refer you to my last paragraph in #71. How long must we wait?
Old Bob (f359d9) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:42 pmYou mean other than calling it reprehensible and a genocidal rant?
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:43 pmI mean that I will stop the condemnation short of ‘life-long’ when the perpetrators apologize for, abandon, and specifically condemn the repulsive speech. Until then they remain co-defendants in the practice.
Old Bob (f359d9) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:52 pmMy appl
Ghost (1a9c8c) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:08 pmI don’t even know what my phone was doing there.
What I was trying to say was, my apologies, I thought you were being originally ignorant. But you were quoting ignorance.
Condemn them! Condemn the Jews! Shun them forever!
I don’t condemn entire races, moron. I don’t need to prove my intolerance for baby killers: it is stated plain as day; you however, excuse people for advocating baby killing, but only certain people. I also don’t defend metaphors, as the entire book of psalms pretty much is. There’s a big difference between a metaphor for the “daughter of Babylon” and “cut off the infidels head.”
You’re a collectivist. That’s why you have to excuse bell and Khalid while trying to draw comparisons to Jews from thousands of years ago, while saying that the moors injustices against whites are too far in the past to make a difference.
I enslaved no man. I chained no man. I held no man down.But because I share The same melanin as someone who lived 200 years ago, it’s understandable that a black guy would want to murder my children.
Ghost (1a9c8c) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:24 pmRandom:
Further thoughts on this subject: You appear to want to divorce the speaker from the speech in a “he’s justifiably angry” apologia. I won’t accept that. The speech defines the speaker as one who hates – no matter the history behind the hatred.
Incendiary speech is an act and the speaker an actor in sole control over the content of the speech – the two are indivisible. Incendiary, violent, and hate filled speech identify an incendiary, violent, and hate filled speaker. The latter fact that the speaker never had the opportunity and/or courage to carry the violence beyond rhetoric does not excuse the speaker’s behavior as an advocate. The plea that “he was just angry and didn’t really mean it” may be judged as either persuasive or disingenuous based upon the speaker’s subsequent behavior (intent may be inferred by acts before, during, or after the event). When, as in the Bell, Wright, Sharpton, and Jackson cases the behavior is not only not repented, but repeated and expanded the intent was clearly malicious.
Unless and until these people, and those who embrace them, abandon the rhetoric then they are justifiably vilified.
Old Bob (f359d9) — 3/16/2012 @ 3:06 pmGhost –
Darnation, and I thought you were offering me some “appl”ause for my comments in #90.
Old Bob (f359d9) — 3/16/2012 @ 3:10 pmMoses did some bad stuff way back then to some other people? Moses did bad stuff? To whom?
Moses did everything he could to protect the Egyptians and became very popular actually. Moses got very angry at Pharaoh (Exodus 11:8) because he was bringing about the tenth plague. Moses intervened to save the Jews from God’s wrath (Exodus 32:10-14.
When God told him to wage war against Sihon, the conquerer of part of the land east of the Jordan, what did he do? He still approached him with peaceful offer. God had to tell him a second time (Deuteronomy 2:24-37)
Sammy Finkelman (8bd44f) — 3/16/2012 @ 3:35 pmThey would rather talk about South Africa and Moses than Bell and Khalid.
JD (0e9826) — 3/16/2012 @ 3:39 pmHeh, we can go with that.
Ghost (1a9c8c) — 3/16/2012 @ 3:40 pmDude, you don’t have to. If Jews en masse read, and read aloud, Psalm 137, and revere it with its genocidal babykilling rhetoric, you can condemn them one at a time and reach much the same conclusion.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 4:24 pmI’ve said on this thread that I think hatred is natural and can be justified.
Am I going to condemn all the American soldiers and Holocaust-surviving (and -perishing) Jews and slaves and conquered natives and jilted lovers for that matter who’ve hated?
To hell with that.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 4:29 pmI’ve yet to meet a holocaust survivor who advocated killing German babies. It takes a special kind of hate to want to murder babies based solely on their race. A special kind of hate that needs to be NOT appreciated.
Likewise, I’ve never heard a Jew say, “I really appreciate the lady that wrote psalm 137.” so I have nothing to condemn, unlike the situation we have with bell and Khalid.
Hey, you’re not the only one who can equivocate.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/16/2012 @ 4:39 pmYou know. I’m starting to get the feeling that this Random character might be a couple of bricks short of having a full load.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/16/2012 @ 4:57 pmMost Holocaust survivors were Ashkenazi Jews who average about 110 IQ (Albert Einstein, Oppenheimer, etc., etc.). Sub-Saharan Africans average about 70 IQ, and Americans of sub-Saharan ancestry, many of whom are mixed race, average around 85 IQ. This 25-40 IQ point difference makes a real difference in how people perceive the world.
Higher IQ people have larger brains (as observed in numerous studies including direct measurement MRI studies) generally as well as larger cerebellums (but not usually larger Limbic systems). The cerebellum is part of the brain, suitably stimulated by the reticular activation system and modified by the basal ganglia, that suppresses emotions originating in the more primitive Limbic system.
Also, the hormonal make-up of sub-Saharan descended people is different. This results in a variety of things including higher levels of prostrate cancer, a deeper voice, greater rates of aggression, less impulse control, a greater tendency toward violent crimes (as seen the world over and certainly reflected in U.S. crime statistics), higher feelings of self-esteem, greater muscularity, and, yes, athleticism.
We’re the same species, but different races can be quite far apart genetically. For example, sub-Saharan black Africans have no Neanderthal genes, whereas Asians, Caucasians, and Australian aborigines having some, in varying amounts (the Australian aborigines have the most, yet they have even smaller brains and lower average IQs than sub-Saharan, non-pygmie Africans, although they have better developed visual centers — perhaps not so surprising for a range hunting sub-population that invented the boomerang, of all things).
In general, lower IQ is associated with more crime and violence and uncontrolled anger, whether within a given population (or family) or between quite different populations.
It’s good that Holocaust-surviving Jews have been reluctant to call for genocide, but … a lot of that has to do with different biology, especially larger brains and higher IQs (or g, general intelligence factor).
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 5:07 pm…and a partridge in a pear tree.
elissa (e9e1b1) — 3/16/2012 @ 5:12 pmAnd now we understand Random’s references to chimpanzees …..
Old Bob (f359d9) — 3/16/2012 @ 5:18 pm#102
Did I say a couple of bricks short?
I meant to say crazier than a shithouse rat.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/16/2012 @ 5:37 pmMy apologies to the rest of you who followed this discussion. Up until #102 I thought I was talking
to a rational person.
My bad.
Old Bob (f359d9) — 3/16/2012 @ 5:38 pmSuppose there was a Jew who verbally promoted genocide of the Germans due to the injustice of WWII and Mitt Romney promoted this person’s views.
Would that be an issue? Yep. I’ve never heard a Jew utter such a thing and it’s interesting that Random has to go back several millenium to find the necessary equivocation and then conclude this is about anti black racism.
The truth, and Random clearly knows it: this is about radical ideology, not race.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/16/2012 @ 5:41 pmThey are doing something right;
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/16/al-qaeda-no-fans-of-fox-news-falls-into-the-abyss-and-lacks-objectivity/
narciso (f1dcf9) — 3/16/2012 @ 5:43 pm“Random has to go back several millenium to find the necessary equivocation and then conclude this is about anti black racism.”
Nonsense, Dustin.
The reason for using the Biblical examples are it’s a common cultural touchtone, particularly on a conservative blog. Most people her identify with either being Christians, and thus believing the Bible is true, or Jews, or Israel-supporters. So those examples are relevant as is the hypocrisy of not condemning Moses or the person behind Psalm 137, but condemning Khalid Muhammad (whoever the heck that is), and people who like him, and people who like people who like him.
I’ve presented more pertinent examples, such as any number of peoples who’ve hated their conquerors … whether that’s enslaved Africans, American indians on the receiving end of the indian wars, American POWs angry at the Japanese or what have you…
… but I specifically presented a very recent, contemporary example of violent rhetoric: the nuke Mecca crowd. Or the turn Iran to glass crowd.
These are usually found on conservative blogs.
Some radical black guy said some hateful things about white children whose parents were oppressing and ruling blacks and others in a racially-based tyrannical regime.
That’s awful, but no more awful than what was done to south African blacks. Since they were just words, probably less sot And in the end, calmer heads prevailed at the l. ueadership level.
Yes, they were hateful words, but it isn’t hard to understand why he’d feel hate. B
Americans have no more reason to hate Muslims or Arabs (or Persians), but you get a lot of that.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 5:53 pmRe #102: Oh dear.
Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/16/2012 @ 5:55 pmWhich part was irrational?
Or inaccurate?
Let me help you out. Explain to me this.
Humans are the animals who occupy the cognitive niche. We are using language, after all, and communicating with each from all over using computers.
Our brains, and definitely not our bodies, our naked relative-hairless bodies with feet that need to be shod (even Shaka Zulu had sandals).
So our brains are the what we use to survive.
How do you propose that humans were separated for thousands and even tens of thousands of years into different geographic niches, including some which presented completely novel problems to us (such as surviving winter and even arctic conditions), and interbred with hominids who’d left Africa tens of thousands of years earlier (but not all Homo sapiens — some didn’t) … and all of this happened leading us to physical adaption in various ways …
… but not cognitive adaption?
Why and how do you figure we changed physically but not mentally in any important way?
It doesn’t even make sense that that would be the case, and the evidence is that it isn’t.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:00 pmYou’re all wrong, Opie von Hussein Dimwit, had NO IDEA THAT Jeremiah Wright was a loony tunes racist, etc etc etc etc…….
Errrr. You mean Obama hangs with BAD PEOPLE????
Gus (694db4) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:10 pmI think SarahW. has made a pretty strong case against Bell based on his own words.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:13 pm“Which part was irrational?”
Personally, I enjoyed the part about black folks being naturally stupid and violence prone. It was like I’d died and been reincarnated in 1890s Mississippi.
But, it was all pretty looney.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:18 pmTurn in your humanity membership, dude. You obviously want no part in it.
Your assertion that a Harvard professor is just too black to be smart enough to eschew genocidal speech is enough.
The blacks just aren’t smart enough to not leap to genocide. Yeah, the people you talked to were right. You’re a racist. You aren’t excusing them because of white guilt or even because you just feel bad for them, you just think they’re mentally incapable of being anything other than mindless animals.
It explains so, so much.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:28 pmMaybe the black people were given too many anti-depressants
JD (0e9826) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:33 pmThey have minds, which are a product of their brains, just like you or I. And they are individuals with varying abilities and personalities, just like you and I.
However, lower IQ brains behave differently than higher IQ brains, on average. They can hardly do otherwise.
I think everyone is capable of only what their brains can do. In fact, it’s casually determined, now matter how complex the brain. It comes down to physics.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:37 pm*causally
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:38 pmSince we’re talking about brain sizes and IQs where does Meghan MCCain fit into the big picture?
elissa (e9e1b1) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:38 pmShe’s big.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:41 pmI hope that Flynn is right. I think that Murray is right.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:04 pmIf the article bores you, this audio debate is interesting.
And you believe that black people are physically incapable.
Glad we got to the bottom of this.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:25 pmNo, I don’t believe that. Clearly most black people don’t call for genocide, or commit murders, etc.
Behaviors, however, vary between populations, as do other measurable factors, such as IQ, brain size, and serum hormonal levels.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:30 pm*frequency of behaviors, I meant to say, and frequency of other measurable factors
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:32 pmDude, you said, and I’m paraphrasing, “of course the Jews didn’t demand a genocide. They’re smarter and have bigger brains than people from the sub Saharan region.”
Done with you.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:37 pmIf you, Ghost, your you, Old Bob, or Dave Surls, or whomever, have any evidence that different races of Homo sapiens have the same:
1. Brain sizes
2. IQs (or general intelligence factors)
3. Interpersonal violence rates
… and that these do not fall out on a continuum, with dozens of other measurable psychometric factors, with far-East Asians (Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, etc.) on one end of the spectrum, sub-Saharan African descended people (and Australian aborigines) on the other, and Caucasians in between, let me know.
I’m fascinated by good data and would love to take a look.
Besides, I hate the implications of what the data show. I was an adamant, uncompromising egalitarian on race for the longest time, but the facts are what they are, so here I am.
You’ll find my thinking aligns with what the evidence shows, rather than trying to shoehorn things the other way around. Well maybe “you” won’t find that, but that is what I try to do nonetheless.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:38 pmThey are and they do.
This isn’t based on my preference. I can try to wish it away if you like, and see if the facts change.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:40 pmRandom:
Just stop.
Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:05 pmAg80, even if every single data showing differences other than cosmetic between populations was simply wrong, including evidence some of us have Neanderthal genes, and some of us don’t; answer me this.
In view of natural selection, culturally-influenced including sexual selection, and simple genetic drift … how would nature have maintained all geographically-separated populations’ brains and cognitive abilities virtually identical, while we were adapting to niches and evolving in other ways?
How would this have happened? Why specifically would hominids moving into a much more challenging niche, the sub-arctic/arctic, for example, not adapt to that cognitively?
Why smaller noses and larger brains without using the increased processing power of these larger brains to solve problems related to the harsher environment, including finding food, shelter, clothing, and mates within that environment?
Evolution just said, “all humans shall be the same” (except for looks, which don’t count)”
?
Because nature is all about making trivial, appearance changes, and leaving major survival attributes — to wit, our rapidly evolving hominid brains — alone
?
Nature does a lot of things, but equality is not one of them.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:16 pmHow about this, people are people.
Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:22 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzGnX-MbYE4
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:33 pmI totally agree, Ag80.
But I don’t see a conflict between recognizing diversity and recognizing that.
I mean, on balance young people are different than old people, men are different than women, homosexuals are different than heterosexuals, liberals than conservatives, family A vs. family B (including in intelligence, athleticism, health and so forth), person A vs. person B., and group A vs. group B (on average — you can’t deny there are some differences).
Acknowledging what scientific data shows and forming conclusions based on that as opposed to what would be in my emotional or pragmatic self-interest to believe is just what I do — often to my detriment.
I like people of these various races. But I don’t have to believe in their aggregat sameness to like them.
The family I love and respect most in the world at the moment are Iranian. This last 3 years, romantically or as friends, I’ve liked my mixed-race ex (part African, part east Indian, part Brit) — whom I loved and lost and can’t live without, to the point I suspect I will eventually end my life over loss of her affection — I’m just saying this as a factual matter, not looking for a solution as such — but I think it does illustrate that I don’t hate people on account of their races … a variety of people including perhaps most of all aside from her, a most-definitely black woman … a couple Muslim Arabs … lots of blondes … brunettes … and on and on.
But none of this liking was based on the assumption I and they are the same, or that they are the same as each other. They weren’t.
Personally, if it matters (and I think it does to a point), I’m mostly Caucasian (but not Ashkenazi) with some native indian mixed in.
Does acknowledging the realities that my ancestors were different dishonor them? Maybe according to some egalitarian notion it does, but that’s a left-wing concept and I reject it. The fact that America went too far with slavery and now has an irrational fear-based taboo about acknowledging aggregate racial biological differences isn’t my problem.
I just value the truth.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:36 pmAwesome, carlitos! I almost linked to it myself.
Great song. Amazing band. They produced the single most emotionally-impactful song in my life. Was listening to the Violator album yesterday.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:39 pmNo to all your questions. Humans are not other specie. They are the same. Speciation does not occur in homo sapiens.
You are talking about culture and experience.
We are all the same.
We can adapt to other environments, but there are no other homo specie left, except us.
You may value truth, but please stop.
Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:48 pmSo it occurred up to Homo sapiens, and then just decided to stop (except for looks)?
Which are important in and of themselves and also influence biological evolution.
Sorry, bud/lass.
Well that’s true. And it’s interesting that some of our ancestors interbred with the Neanderthals and others’ didn’t. But anyhow.
Speciation still can occur, but I’m not arguing it has. I’m saying different human populations adapted to different niches, and there’s no reason to believe this was solely cosmetic.
In fact, the evidence is otherwise.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:54 pmAnd neanderthals no longer exist.
I also said humans are adaptable and cosmetics have nothing to do with it.
No, the evidence is not otherwise. The evidence is what you want it to be.
Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:03 pm“Speciation does not occur in homo sapiens.”
What about Homo Dumb-as-a-stumpus?
We even have a representative of the species posting here tonight!
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:22 pmWe should keep him around, in case we need to move a couch or something. I hear the mentally challenged have impeccable strength.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:26 pmkill white babies
kill white babies
Obama 2012
kill white babies
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:28 pmWalter E Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, hell, I’ll even put Barahahahahaha ok, I can’t do that with a straight face. All those darkies were too stupid and violent.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:31 pmKill my landlord.
Kill my landlord.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:55 pmWe never forget that little tidbit. In fact, Obama’s legal counsel on that issue posts here quite regularly.
Comment by Icy — 3/15/2012 @ 9:55 pm
Lotrimin, Monistat, Letrazol. Vinegar PRN.
nk We never forget that little tidbit. In fact, Obama’s legal counsel on that issue posts here quite regularly. (dec503) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:19 pmhah! that’s what I was thinking of
here’s the link
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:19 pmhappyfeet is on a roll.
I have enjoyed him a lot more lately.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:23 pmThis comment form is just too liberal. I’m just plain nk. Ok?
Never mind. I’m too liberal, likely, too.
nk (dec503) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:29 pmDustin, the difficulty is that if Santorum thought he could get away with it, he would most certainly make contraception contraband, not just espouse ideas that it’s perfectly ok for states to do it and that Griswold was a mistake.
Comment by Sarahw — 3/16/2012 @ 9:26 am
— And Romney would enact a VAT if you would just turn your head a minute and gaze at those damn bunnies!
Icy (43e147) — 3/17/2012 @ 3:07 amAnd I don’t want babies to be killed on purpose so I think the calls for genocide were too far.
— Random is pro-life? I have a whole new warm fuzzy level of respect for him now.
Icy (43e147) — 3/17/2012 @ 3:17 amYou know. I’m starting to get the feeling that this Random character might be a couple of bricks short of having a full load.
Comment by Dave Surls — 3/16/2012 @ 4:57 pm
— Beg to disagree. Most honorable Random is definitely the full load.
Icy (43e147) — 3/17/2012 @ 3:50 amSomeone seems to believe that he resembles that remark.
Icy (43e147) — 3/17/2012 @ 4:04 amSpeaking of killing babies, the abortion liberals have pushed for generations has killed a vastly disproportionate number of black babies.
Unlike Muhammad, they actually did it.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 3/17/2012 @ 11:19 amwell a hell-of-alot of white babies have been killed due to abortion too. so much so that whites are not replenishing enough and will be a minority in a generation or two.
so billy ayres and khalid & bell got their sick wish.
george washington (b94e8b) — 3/18/2012 @ 12:01 amExactly. And here is my point expressed another way. This won’t apply to everyone here, but this will apply to our esteemed (if not entirely morally consistent) host and many.
We’re to condemn, indefinitely, some hothead guy who said awful genocidal things in response to awful racist rule and tyranny … while most of us live and work beside, even associate with or engage in *respectful* political dialog with … leftists who advocate for the right to kill their own innocent, but inconvenient, babies … and in some cases where we personally know the person, have actually done so — killed their own kid!
But they don’t come out and condemn then. But some black guy says but doesn’t do violent things during apartheid and I’m supposed to hate him or something.
Maybe I could do that, but how could I hate him more than the smiling cheery 20-year old telling me about killing their child?
Random (aa39e9) — 3/18/2012 @ 3:13 amYou sure are an apologist for Leftist hate speech. And kind of a dlck.
JD (0e9826) — 3/18/2012 @ 7:11 amRandom–perhaps our “esteemed host” will overlook the observation about him you encased in parenthesis and dropped into a near dead thread at 3:13 AM.
Your obvious zeal to keep this thread going at all costs, your clear attempts to push the discussion away in different directions, as well as a possible goal to get yourself banned over the content of some of your more borderline racial comments has already been duly noted by others.
elissa (b5cd37) — 3/18/2012 @ 7:41 amelissa, you are a simplistic thinker at best.
Amphipolis made an interesting comment tgat brought up an important ethical point. Ethics 101 is that things aren’t always black and white, that you are often trying to do the right thing in complex situations balancing competing interests yours and others (and others). This leads to actions and choices being “better” or “worse’ rather than simply “right” or “wrong”.
Whay to do then becomes a hierachy of options instead of a flow chart.
I noticed you did not address the ethical content of my comment. In order not to disadvantage ourselves socially and economically, many of us often overlook specidic instances of what many of us deem to be murder and instead, at certain times and events (such as protests, anonymous political conversations on blogs with people who mostly agree with us, etc.), oppose the act and refrain from condemning the person.
Many of our forbears did the exact sort of thing in regards to the fact their neighbors, fellow revolutionaries, etc. owned — and sometimes severely disciplined — human bengs: Mr. Muhammad’s forbears.
Of course talking about planning to kill white children is bad. But so is the actual killing of children of any color by their parents, as Amphipolis rightly noted — and so was apartheid.
What I’m asking is are those who arr condemning an unpopular deceased radical black leader for awful things he said in response to an unjust situation against what he identified with as his people, a kooky black deceased black professor, and a black President President we already didn’t like, going to condemn the fellow attorney or paralegal from the office whom we have sandwiches with, our friend whom we’ve known for years who makes or has made that decision, or even refrain from polite constructive discourse with all Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, such as Giuliani, in any area of life guilty of supporting the violent, if thinly-disguised, rhetoric calling for the death of babies at yhe hands of their parents’ doctors?
Because this leads to a milion American babies’ deaths a year of people who, let’s be fair, are guilty of being inconvenient products of their parents’ orgasms.
If we’re not going to condemn — and I mean come out and consistently condemn them by name each time every time — well at least you’re showing admirable moral clarity by condemning an angry black man, angry that his ancestors had been forcibly taken to America and enslaved, and that the people who he is closer related to than you and I are being tyrannically ruled by the descendants of European immigrants on their own continent (too).
As for my willingness to, like “esteemed” (or at least noted) conservative thinker Charles Murray, one of the main intellectual forces behind the welfare reform passed by Gingrich and also the thinking on education reform currently being talked about by Santorum, look into the science of human populations’ biological differences, entirely explicable and predictable by evolution; what this means in the world; and your not so subtle call for me to be banned as a result; blow it out your ear. Then tell it to respected Professor of Law Eugene Volokh.
Random (aa39e9) — 3/18/2012 @ 8:53 amLast comment written on iPhone. Please work your way through typos.
Random (aa39e9) — 3/18/2012 @ 8:55 amAs for my willingness to, like “esteemed” (or at least noted) conservative thinker Charles Murray,
Elissa referenced our host, Patterico, not Murray. Your dreck and act has long since become tiresome. But what do I know? I hate the troops and children. Bugger off.
JD (0e9826) — 3/18/2012 @ 9:25 amI know she talked about Patterico, moron. I referred to Murray and I hild him in both intellectual and humanitarian esteem.
I’m still noticing a lack of people jumping up to pledge to condemn their bosses, and co-workers, and pretty 20-year old women, and doctors and nurses and their sisters, brothers, military comrades, neighbors and others who support pro-choice rhetoric or actually carry out this baby killing.
Once you all do that, then I’ll give a second look to condemning angry black people (as individual human beings) saying vile, but unactioned, things in response to tyrannical racist rule.
What he said was scary reprehensible. Was it worse than the cheery, social photocopy girl and her ambitious young hardworking boyfiend did?
Random (aa39e9) — 3/18/2012 @ 9:56 am*hold
Random (aa39e9) — 3/18/2012 @ 9:57 amYou are a racist Scientologist clown. You have gone to great lengths to distract from their actual words, and to express your sympathies and understanding of their call for genocide. Plus, you quote quacks.
JD (0e9826) — 3/18/2012 @ 11:08 amThis one is a pro at erecting, then savaging, entire armies of straw people.
JD (0e9826) — 3/18/2012 @ 11:10 am“…saying vile, but unactioned, things in response to tyrannical racist rule.”
Make up your mind, dude.
I thought they were doing it because black people have itty bitty brains, and are just naturally violent as a consequence.
At least according to you, that’s the case.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/18/2012 @ 11:29 amJD, you’re a flat-out liar, actually deigning to tell me what my religion is, and tell other people what it is. As if religion isn’t very personal and something an individual is in a better position to know than you are.
You are a dishonorable cretin.
Random (f946fc) — 3/18/2012 @ 12:08 pmI’m still noticing a lack of people jumping up to pledge to condemn their bosses, and co-workers, and pretty 20-year old women, and doctors and nurses and their sisters, brothers, military comrades, neighbors and others who support pro-choice rhetoric or actually carry out this baby killing.
— He’s right, you know. Why, just the other day I was in a business meeting when one of my bosses suddenly stood up and shouted:
“We kill the women in the womb. We kill the children in the womb. We kill the babies in the womb. We kill the blind in the womb. We kill the crippled in the womb. We kill the crazies in the womb. We kill ‘em all in the womb. We kill the faggots in the womb. We kill the lesbians in the womb. We kill them all in the womb!”
Now at first I was kinda scared, see, ’cause my boss has a lisp, and I thought he was saying “kill the lesbians in the room.” Turns out it was all just talk. He wasn’t inciting anyone to actually act out his violent rhetoric.
See, he explained that he was venting through parody, like Eddie Murphy on SNL (“C-I-L-L my land-lord!”) and we all said “oh yeah, we get it.” And then we enjoyed some punch and cookies — and all was forgotten.
[“But why do you want to be called a lesbian, Icy?” Don’t you oppress me! It’s my right as a man!]
Icy (820f58) — 3/18/2012 @ 12:20 pmJD, you’re a flat-out liar, actually deigning to tell me what my religion is, and tell other people what it is. As if religion isn’t very personal and something an individual is in a better position to know than you are.
Is not violent rhetoric, in and of itself, a bad thing?
You are a dishonorable cretin.
Guess not.
Icy (820f58) — 3/18/2012 @ 12:23 pmMy apologies. Scientology is not a religion. But I should have said Scentology-esque. And racist.
JD (318f81) — 3/18/2012 @ 12:33 pm