People are going to have to think less about themselves and think more about me, Fareed Zakaria…

Fareed Zakaria was born into an elite Indian Muslim family and made his way into the global elite via Harvard and Yale. He’s edited Foreign Affairs, Newsweek and Newsweek International; now he’s a host on CNN. As you can imagine, this expertise and background have given him unique insight into the inexplicable horror of the Boston Marathon bombing by two young Muslim men whose family was welcomed into United States as refugees when they were children. Mr. Zakaria has had a whole week to apply his keen intellect and experience to the problem. What has he discerned? That we haven’t done enough to “embrace” Muslims, and should take Europe, with its much larger, more hostile and separate Muslim communities, for our model:

Over the past two decades…European countries have recognized the dangers created by their indifference and have sought to integrate Muslim migrants. Governments at all levels have engaged with Islamic communities, taking steps to include Muslims in mainstream society but also to nurture a more modern, European version of Islam. In effect, many governments are now dealing with Islam as they have other religions, creating Islamic councils, providing funding for cultural activities, representation in public forums and being mindful of religious practices and holidays.

Note the use of “integrate” in place of “assimilate”. This is a long-time trend that has been gaining steam as assimilation has failed due to the sheer number of newcomers, our regnant system of identity politics and the progressive elite’s assault on the concept itself. Assimilation of immigrants is now considered either too ambitious or just so, I don’t know, last millennium in its backwardness.

Of course I’m forgetting the most important question following the bombings. How does this affect the prospects of Fareed Zakaria and his progeny? Without a separate community (and the threat of violence and general social degradation coming therefrom) Zakaria cannot claim to be our diviner of intention, and his rougher poor relations (“Muslim leaders”) cannot appropriate the role of intermediaries. All this talk of “fear” in the elite media–the average American wouldn’t know he was in its throes if the Washington Post didn’t tell him–is just wishful thinking. Your fear is desired, necessary even, and will be presumed whether you like it or not. The lad(ies) doth protest too much. This is all  leaving aside that Zakaria is nearly as alien to the average Muslim immigrant as Barack Obama is to the urban black.

Fareed goes on to reassure us that if we legitimize separate Muslim communities as such and deal with them through a new generation of Muslim political leaders, occasionally somebody will rat out the terrorists before they strike:

The lesson from Europe appears to be: Embrace Muslim communities. That’s a conclusion U.S. law enforcement agencies would confirm. The better the relationship with local Muslim groups, the more likely they are to provide useful information about potential jihadis.
An attack — apparently inspired but also perhaps directed by al-Qaeda — was foiled recently in Canada for just this reason. An imam in Toronto noticed one of his congregants behaving strangely and reported the behavior to the police, who followed up and arrested the man before he could execute his plan. Before briefing reporters on their collaboration, Canada’s top counterterrorism authorities invited Toronto’s Islamic leaders to a meeting and thanked them for their help. “But for the Muslim community’s intervention, we may not have had the success,” said the official, according to one lawyer invited to the meeting.

Of course a moratorium on immigration from Muslim countries is inconceivable. What would become of Fareed’s CNN gig then?
Wait a minute, I think I’ve seen this bit before:

Resourceful Satirical Magazine Finds Americans Not Stereotyping, Ridicules Them For Their Ignorance

Via Steve Sailer, here’s The Onion engaging in accidental self-parody:

Majority of Americans Not Informed Enough To Stereotype Chechens

The peoples’ calm tolerance goes into the media’s Narrate-o-Matic and voila, out it comes as popular “ignorance.” The average American just can’t win–must be why the elites think he’s such a loser.

 Of course the real irony here is this failed bit acknowledges a certain amount of information is necessary for “stereotyping”; likewise the ongoing media campaign of obscurantism surrounding Boston (of which this piece is a part) reveals tolerance often requires a certain amount of ignorance. But that’s getting way too complicated for the typically all-knowing twenty-something a couple of years out of Harvard. Easier (and safer) to just to fire away at the usual targets, because as you know, anyone who runs is a vc…

  http://cdn.hark.com/swfs/player_fb.swf?pid=vsvvjftzjp

Strife Begins at Conception

In joking about the newest front in the war on the racial achievement gap–earlier and earlier pre-school intervention–Steve Sailersuggested the disparity in children’s nurturing between lower and upper income homes, which all decent people know is the only possible explanation for inequality, begins as early as eight months, twenty nine days before birth–but not a day earlier!
Cue the New York Times’ Opinionator blog, breathlessly announcing the latest in Promising Studies and Expert Consensus. Specula up, social workers of America! Emphasis added:

By the time a poor child is 1 year old, she has most likely already fallen behind middle-class children in her ability to talk, understand and learn. The gap between poor children and wealthier ones widens each year, and by high school it has become a chasm. American attempts to close this gap in schools have largely failed, and a consensus is starting to build that these attempts must start long before school — before preschool, perhaps even before birth.

 Your womb belongs to the state, er, village, so say “ahh”, Shaniqua, and try not to chatter so much during the procedure…

Tyranny, Hard and Soft

I doubt severe torture could bring me to genuinely care about whatever merit there is behind Femen’s protest of Vladimir Putin, and there must be some merit, him being a Russian tyrant and all, prompting the hysterics. But I appreciate the girls giving me the opportunity to use the word in both its original and later meaning: 
from Latin hystericus “of the womb,” from Greek hysterikos “of the womb, suffering in the womb,” from hystera “womb” (see uterus). Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Meaning “very funny” (by 1939) is from the notion of uncontrollable fits of laughter. Related: Hysterically.

Indeed, this photo looks like one form of hysterics provoking another.

I couldn’t help thinking of our own would-be czar’s recent collision with modern feminist wrath. When I read that President Obama had complimented California Attorney General Kamala Harris on her looks I recognized immediately that it wasn’t a slip of the tongue–as the outraged and apologists alike would have it, sort of latent misogyny leaching out of its own–but, like almost everything about the Wonder Brother, a calculated political move. Every now and then the president, who imagines–or at least is told by his advisors–that he has a special connection with women undergirded by sexual attraction, finds it advantageous to stoke the smoldering embers of this dysfunctional desire. Remember when he pretended to find Debbie Wasserman Schultz “cute”? Be reassured, bubbas everywhere–your president is a regular guy, not averse to telling an awkward and homely girl she’s attractive to get what he wants. And feminist America is at this point one big, awkward girl suddenly all-powerful and settling scores, like Carrie as prom queen, indiscriminately destroying all about in her blind rage.

Masculine charisma was one of the things projected by the racism-consciousness-conditioned masses onto the blank screen that was candidate Obama as a modern Black Hero (along with wisdom, cool, depth of feeling, oratorical majesty–none of which the man, still, evidences any more, and probably less, than the average public figure in modern America; but then, if we really wanted to get down to it, black America only evidences these traits in the romance of film and television). We get a lot less of that now, having been subjected to that skinny, jug-eared face, that narrow-shouldered emaciated frame, that uncertain, transparently false voice and manner, for years now.

The president’s maladroit handling of the grant of assumed sexual charisma just reinforces for me something I’ve suspected for a long time: he isn’t much interested in women and he doesn’t really get them. He has–let’s face it–a rather dull but assertive wife at home who (and can you blame him?) he’s only too glad to leave there to hit the links, court or work (and probably in that order) and who resembles nothing so much as a breed-mare, with her stoutness of height and frame and unqualified black American pedigree; he has a troubled relationship to a mother who absented herself from his formative years, and now half of American womanhood expecting him to bring home the political bacon. The cost of power is indeed high.

But the impression I get from both the methods of Femen and the president’s awkward courtship of American womanhood is that feminism, despite its rhetoric of revolution, is still doing what women have been doing for ages: regulating masculine sexual energy.

The Varieties of Religious Expression

…manifest fabrications [of biblical scripture] should not be regarded as deliberate fraud, done with intent to deceive…they spring from a concept of the nature of documentary proof which is alien to us. Thus, an earnest scribe, believing wholeheartedly that the doctrine of the Trinity was true, thought it merely an accident or oversight that it was not made explicit in 1 John, and therefore saw it as his duty to remedy the matter. He was merely doing constructive work in the cause of truth!
–Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity

There is no doubt whatsoever that Gould’s humane and passionate writing in defense of racial equality will be looked upon by future anthropologists and historians as a beacon of rational positivism in an age in which genetic reductionism was showing alarming signs of resurgence—as indeed it still is, as race-stratified genome-wide association studies continue to dominate research on human variation. As Gould’s longtime friend, the anthropologist Richard Milner, told a correspondent from Discover magazine: “Whatever conclusions he reached, rightly or wrongly, he did with complete conviction and integrity. He was a tireless combatant against racism in any form, and if he was guilty of the kind of unconscious bias in science that he warned against, at least his bias was on the side of the angels.”
Ian Tattersall, Remembering Stephen Jay Gould

We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
The Humanist Manifesto I, 1933

Oh assumption!

Johnson’s “concept of the nature of documentary proof” above–which would better be described merely as faith–is no more alien to us now than it was to his “earnest scribes” of before. They knew the truth, and that all roads of inquiry would end there–in Christian revelation. Likewise the modern “rational positivist” knows his truth–all races are equal in all things–and likewise that no truth can contradict it. In the minds of both morality and materiality intersect at this higher truth, like two ropes tethered to to an anchor.

Conventional liberalism has gone from resembling religious faith to becoming one, and like all religious faiths it bases its logical defense on an appeal to consequences–that any evidence against the absolute equality of races is thereby false, contradicting as it does our moral injunction and fervent desire that all races must be equal. This article of faith has become so dominant, so ingrained, men of science routinely invoke a fallacy they learned to detect in grade-school, without recognizing it!

When they cite, with that stubborn insistence that hasn’t abated through decades of contrary evidence, the “debunking” of the “scientific racism” of the past by such as Gould (debunking that needs no empirical basis according to Tattersall and Milner, but merely the approval of “the angels”), they are reciting their version of Revelation. The conceit is now dogma (fitting that SJ Gould himself proposed science and religion be treated as “separate magisteria”); secular materialism and those who march under its banner have their own unassailable “truth” beyond the reach of reason or evidence. And they are very much on the march.

The religious tendency, which is natural to man, was not killed off with God by the Enlightenment, it has merely adapted; to use a term Gould himself helpfully defined for us, its present manifestation can be usefully viewed as an exaptation:

 (1) A character, previously shaped by natural selection for a particular function (an adaptation), is coopted for a new use—cooptation. (2) A character whose origin cannot be ascribed to the direct action of natural selection (a nonaptation), is coopted for a current use—cooptation. 

 As I’ve written here before, belief in God (or gods, for that matter) distorts less our understanding of the world than does our new regnant faith, which demands an equally unyielding belief in a fantastic view of human nature and thus has immediate consequences for society and the individual in the here and now. The old faith created a fantasy of the supernatural; the new created a fantasy of the natural world.

The Tattersalls of the world may not be as deluded as I make them out to be here, but if they aren’t they’re then banking on none of it mattering in the end–that is, they’re counting on truth itself being of no ultimate consequence, or at least something that can be defied, indeed must be defied, for the good of mankind.

Of course this is the charitable view–they may be more accurately viewed as mere cowards, unwilling to sacrifice their careers, their positions of respect, the esteem of their fellows, for truth and principle. And, curiously, this brings us back to a belief in God–and the attendant belief in His judgment in the afterlife; because if there’s only the judgment of other men to fear, and death brings no accounting, why shouldn’t a man abide the egalitarian lie and get by? Indeed, why not perpetuate the lie with as much skill as one can, as Gould did, and get by very well? Telling the truth is still a mug’s game in the absence of God–maybe more than ever.

We Didn’t Start the Fire…

NBC is facing a defamation suit for deliberately altering the recording of George Zimmerman’s 911 call to make him look “racist”. To recap, the actual recording:

 Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. 

911 Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic? 

Zimmerman: He looks black.

was “abridged”, for time NBC asserts, to this:

 Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

In their response, NBC is asking a judge to stay the case until the misinformation campaign has run its course and Zimmerman is safely locked away:

…if Zimmerman is convicted, that fact alone will constitute substantial evidence that the destruction of his reputation is the result of his own criminal conduct, and not of the broadcasts at issue which, like countless other news resports [sic] disseminated by media entities throughout the country, reported on the underlying events.

If Zimmerman is convicted it will be (indeed, he’s only facing trial) largely because of this lynch-mob narrative of which the dishonest edit in question is part and parcel, and which NBC helpfully documents elsewhere in its response:

[N]ewscasts across the country played relevant excerpts from the recording and newspapers and other publications similarly quoted only portions of it. On March 19, for example, the Los Angeles Times reported that “[t]he slaying has dominated social media and national news outlets in the wake of Friday’s release of 911 tapes in the Feb. 26 shooting. On the tapes is Zimmerman’s call to report Martin. ‘He’s got his hand in his waistband and he’s a black male,’ Zimmerman can be heard telling the dispatcher, saying he’s following Martin.”… Similarly, Fox News reported a summary of the call as follows: “On the 911 call, Zimmerman is heard describing Trayvon martin as a black man who appears to be, quote, up to no good and reaching in his pocket.” PBS’s “McLaughlin Group,” in a program taped March 23 and broadcast the weekend of March 23-24, summarized the Call this way:

MCLAUGHLIN: Here’s Zimmerman on the phone reporting to a 911 operator the presence of a suspicious person. (Begin audiotaped segment) 
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: He’s got his hand in his waistband and he’s a black male. 911 OPERATOR: Are you following him?
 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yeah. 
911 OPERATOR: OK, we don’t need you to do that (End audiotaped segment) 

 Keep in mind their first defense was that it was a “mistake”, now that it’s a time-edit–the first strains credulity because it’s nearly impossible an honest mistake would just so happen to turn an indifferent exchange into a neat narrative fit. The second is no excuse at all–that they edited for time (saving a whole three or four seconds) oblivious or indifferent to an inflammatory alteration of meaning.

Sequester Reveals Government Hiring Bias Favoring Women, Blacks

…is not the title of this article at The Hill about the disparite impact the sequester will have on that massive, perpetually besieged cohort know as Women and Minorities (which covers by my quick estimation something like eighty percent of us, albeit with some confusing overlap), due to their prevalence in government work. I keep waiting to see that headline, but they went with a variation on that old standby World to End, Women and Minorities Hardest Hit. Maybe someday.

Two-Cent Tupac

In the latest incident of fatal black malice two innocents were killed as a result of a car-on-car drive-by on the Vegas strip. Yes, we’ve lost another “aspiring rapper” (see one of his compositions here) and all that potential therein.

All the usual elements are in place here: a confrontation between rivals spills out into the street, shots are fired, bystanders are killed. Inured as we all are to this grotesque cliche, this one will get a little more attention due to its dramatic, gruesome aspect–a taxi caught fire after being struck by the rapper’s Maserati as it rolled through traffic with him (now dead, presumably less sentient than before) behind the wheel–and its similarity with Tupac Shakur’s assassination just blocks away in 1996. So an obscure petty potentate calling himself “Kenny Clutch” gets to go out in high gangsta style, behind the wheel of a fine Italian sports car in a blaze of vainglory.

But he may also have something in common with another rapper (as of this writing still alive), the highly successful Rick Ross, unauthorized namesake of “Freeway Rick Ross”, a drug dealer who almost single-handedly introduced crack cocaine to LA (now putatively reformed and blogging at Huffpo; but of course). Recently the rapper Ross was exposed as a fraud who lied about his criminal resume. Turns out he was in fact gainfully employed–as a prison guard no less.
This does not sit well with the Black Gangster Disciples. When the fake Rick Ross name-checked one of their more renowned killers in a rap they’d had enough. Ross had to cancel several shows when the gang declared he must pay them a tribute or he would be assassinated. Ross was later fired upon as he drove his Rolls Royce in Ft. Lauderdale.

 A commenter over at the L.A. Times reveals this comment was left on Clutch’s Facebook page:

“lil kenny clutch better keep a killaz name out his fukin mouf or he gone stay stinkin…”

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn this was a sort of local version of the Ross situation, or even that Clutch’s killers were inspired by the Black Gangsters’ successful intimidation.