You have not viewed any products recently.
Ferguson is on fire? Blacks are looting and trashing black stores, homes, and even churches? Who could have imagined? There is really nothing to be said about such events, as predictable as a celebrity face lift and as unsightly as a Kim Kardashian photo shoot.
Those of us who lived through the 60’s have seen it all before, albeit on black and white television. Remember the Watts riots, when black thugs burned and looted their own neighborhood. It took days, back then, for network reporters to convince the looters that, in boosting tvs and stereos, they were really asserting their civil rights. Back then, race-baiters like Martin Luther King stirred up the violence by predicting it, virtually demanding it, everywhere he went. Taken to task in the Senate for his self-fulfilling prophecies, King repeated that unless they passed the legislation he demanded, there would be blood in the streets. Back then, any honest commentator knew the truth, and some, like the late Edward Banfield in his fine book, The Unheavenly City actually spoke it. That is probably still the one book that best sums up what is going on today.
These days, baffled commentators and lonely young men writing into websites are asking: “Why do they burn their own neighborhoods?” The answers to that are pretty obvious. First, because their own houses and shops are right there, soft targets for thugs too lazy to go across town. Second, because if the Watts looters had gone to Hollywood, it would have been a massacre. The cops in affluent suburbs are hired to protect the taxpayers, and in places like Beverley Hills or Wilmette, Illinois, affluent property-owners hire private protection services that will not hesitate to shoot a trespasser, much less a looter.
Instinctively, the thugs know they are no match for middle class Americans, a high number of whom not only have guns but—unlike the thugs—know how to use them. I have talked to any number of cops and young white trouble-makers who have been shot at by gang-bangers. They love automatic weapons, because of the noise and the spray of bullets, but even with them they are unlikely to hit their target. Every week in Chicago, some child is killed in a botched drive-by shooting whose perpetrators could, literally, not shoot fish in a barrel.
The thugs, whipped up by our latter-day race-baiters, one of whom is in the White House and another heads the Justice Department, are dangerous only because white politicos like the contemptible Jay Nixon refuse to do their duty. Back then, the Black Panthers took to threatening and shooting at Chicago policeman. Old Mayor Daley gave the order, and the problem was, ahem, eliminated.
I feel sorry for the decent people, black as well as white, in Ferguson and St. Louis, who are under siege from these savages, but I have no sympathy for white Obama-voters and middle-class blacks who owe everything they have to the generosity of affirmative action policies and yet still recite the tired old slogans about slavery and Jim Crow. I tell my dwindling number of black friends and acquaintances that they have to choose which side they are on. Perhaps they could wear an identification badge of some kind. For a brief moment of stupidity I thought the badge could have a picture of an elephant, but, as Clyde Wilson would be the first to tell us, the GOP is more culpable in the long run than the Democrats.
The problem is not the gang-bangers who cannot shoot straight or even their race-baiting leaders that TV-watching Americans must be tired of seeing every night on their screens. The problem is not even leftwing Democrats who have something to gain from pandering to a voting base that consists exclusively of whining minorities, welfare dependents and public school teachers (a distinction without a difference), and people who confuse the words reproductive and excretory. No, the problem is Republicans, and, specifically, conservative Republicans who will not tell the truth about anything involving any minority groups, who cannot bear so much as to hear the inoffensive whispers of the truth uttered by John Derbyshire.
For a reality-check on American conservatives, I made a brief visit to several conservative websites. The best comment I could find was a Michelle Malkin column (syndicated) defending the police. The most telling, however, was a column that described Ferguson as the Left’s Benghazi. If the oblique verbiage means anything—and I am not entirely sure that it does—it is either that some die-hard “Libtards” will obsess over Ferguson the way Republicans did over Benghazi or, perhaps that some die-hard “Wingnuts" actually think the Ferguson thuggery is symptomatic of an underlying racial conflict in America. Who knows? The one significant thing about the argument is that the tar baby ain’t say nothing.
Conservatives these days can only look at reality indirectly through the mirror: How will this effect the next election? Look at how Holder and Obama stirred things up! The Left is making hay from white anger. Back in the Cold War, East European intellectuals, avoiding the Gulag and perhaps worse, took refuge in beast fables. Conservative editorialists today, fearing the disapproval of The Washington Post, take refuge in media analysis and “one the other hand” arguments that cover their retreat.
I have been saying this for 30 years: You can’t win, if you don’t fight. And to this one can add the corollary, that you can’t fight if you cannot even fake enough courage to speak out on events exploding in the headlines. As the Panthers used to say, when they tried to hustle me on the streets, “If you not part of the solution, you part of the problem.”
Michael Brown, the "Gentle Giant" committed a racial hate crime assault on an Asian store clerk. He rumbled into the street and made a racial hate crime assault on a White cop. He died for his prejudice. Why are liberals upset?
Ann Coulter's column today was really good.
The good news is the old Amos and Andy radio program is available streaming all over the internet for free. Also the Looney Tunes censored eleven are available on You Tube. Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs is must viewing. As is Uncle Toms Cabana at spike.com YOWZA!
I don't think one could find weaker leadership when it is most needed than the GOP,unless of course one would include the United States conference of Catholic Bishops which thank God has no jurisdictional power whatsoever as a governing body. Bishop Lefebvre was probably the greatest missionary Bishop in the 20 century but believed in bringing tables,chairs, bread, wine and Latin instead of inculturation. Plus his followers are not very nice in the contemporary sense of that word and easy targets for the left!
Conservatives, at least in the 30+ years I have been subscribing to and reading conservative media, have never been very brave about discussing racial issues. Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, Peter Brimelow and vdare.com, and CHRONICLES are the major exceptions (outside of white nationalist circles, which however usually reject Christianity, and thus cannot fairly be called "conservative"; I guess Dr. Francis straddled that divide somewhat).
In fairness, however, what I thought was a surprisingly truthful and reasonable article appeared in today's (Nov.26) Wall Street Journal by an otherwise notorious open borders-ite named Jason Riley (who, other conservatives have felt obliged to note, is black himself). Riley provides much needed commonsense, pointing out inter alia that most killers of blacks are criminal blacks, not cops, white or otherwise; that blacks commit drastically higher rates of violent crime than whites, and that this fact, and not "overpolicing" of ghettoes, accounts for why blacks have such a high percentage of interactions with the police; and that "racism" is not responsible for the continuing impoverishment of black communities (but that outsized criminality is a big factor). Plain sense to be applauded, I think, in these low, dishonest times.
A broader question raised by Dr. Fleming's post is whether those conservative sites he canvassed actually deserve to be called "conservative". Having read his and Prof. Gottfried's The Conservative Movement several times, I am doubtful. I quit National Review two decades ago, after seeing WFB's mendacious obituary of the great Murray Rothbard. Since then I have very occasionally perused issues on newsstands; the magazine cannot be called "conservative", still less "intellectual". I enjoy sometimes glancing at The We(a)kly Standard online, but then again, I enjoy doing so with The New Republic and The Nation, too. Subscriptions are out of the question.
To comment on this article, please find it on the Chronicles Facebook page.