Beliefnet
At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Below is a select list of interracial atrocities committed by black perpetrators and white victims. Many more could be added to it.  The reader should note that the very same “anti-racists” who demanded Paula Deen’s head on a platter have uttered not a peep about these outrages.

The Wichita Massacre: In December of 2000, two brothers, Reginald and Jonathan Carr, robbed, beat with golf clubs, tormented, and repeatedly raped three men and two women. They eventually shot all five victims, execution-style, in the backs of their heads before driving over their bodies with one of the victim’s pick-up truck.  Miraculously, one person survived.  Wearing nothing but a shirt, shot and battered, she walked a mile until she found help.

The “Knoxville Horror:” In 2007, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, were carjacked in Knoxville, Tennessee by four men and one woman.  Newsom was raped and sodomized with an object. Stripped naked, blindfolded, gagged, and shot several times to death, his body was then discarded by railroad tracks and set on fire.

Christian was orally, vaginally, and anally gang raped to the point that she sustained severe injuries.  Bleach was poured down her throat and scrubbed over her body so as to remove her assailants’ DNA—all while she was still alive. Bound and stuffed inside of trash bags, she slowly suffocated to death.

Antonio Santiago: On March 21 of this year, Sherry West and her 13 month-old baby, Antonio Santiago, were both shot while going for a walk in their Brunswick, Georgia neighborhood. While the mother survived the bullets to her ear and leg, her baby died instantly when the bullet entered his face.

Joshua Heath Chellew: At the end of June, this 36 year-old man was attacked by four teenagers at a gas station outside of Atlanta, Georgia. In trying to escape the beating that he was suffering, Chellew was fatally struck by a passing car.

Jonathan Foster: On Christmas Eve, 2010, 12 year-old, Jonathan Foster was abducted from his home in Houston, Texas by a 44 year-old woman, Mona Nelson.  The latter bound Foster and then murdered him with a blowtorch.  She discarded his body in a ditch along the road where it was found four days later.  Foster’s remains were so badly charred that his corpse had to be identified by his dental records.

Delbert “Shorty” Benton:  Just last week, the 89 year-old veteran of World War II was beaten to death by two teenagers armed with flashlights. Benton was making his way through the parking lot of one of the places that he regularly frequented when the guttersnipes attacked him.

Chris Lane: The 23 year-old Australian was in the States visiting his girlfriend. While on a run, some reportedly “bored” teenagers shot him in the back.  Lane died shortly afterward.  The thugs had a history of expressing hostility toward whites, and at least one of them was said by police to have laughed and danced upon being arrested.

Fannie Gumbinger: This 99 year-old woman joined Benton and Lane last week when a 20 year-old burglar murdered her in her home.  Police say she died of “multiple injuries.”

Black-on-white violence is a real problem, as evil as it is ubiquitous.  Relatively few people, including conservative media personalities (to say nothing of Republican politicians), dare to confront it for what it is.  Instead, far too frequently, they are as disposed to search out “root causes” of black dysfunction as are their leftist counterparts.

One commentator who isn’t buying this is former South Africa resident, turned American, Ilana Mercer.

Along with her father, a rabbi, Mercer too opposed apartheid.  Yet as she notes in her book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, and as she has labored tirelessly to establish for years in her World Net Daily column and elsewhere, the abolition of this injustice has lead to even greater evils.

And this is one key lesson for Mercer’s new homeland from her old: when race-obsessed visionaries, politicians and activists, issue utopian promises of a “post-racial” era (sound familiar), it is guaranteed to result in worse racial injustices.   Crime in all categories has skyrocketed in the new South Africa, and racially motivated attacks against whites have increased precipitously.

Mercer’s work on this score is must reading for Americans who are concerned with preventing their country from being consumed by the racial evils that have engulfed South Africa.  It is also priceless for the author’s decimation of the “root causes” offered by both left and right.

While conceding that culture “counts,” Mercer also reminds us that the argument from “culture” is “circular,” not “causal.” It amounts to nothing more enlightening than “people do the things they do because they are who they are and have a history of being that way.”

The theorists can debate “root causes” all day long.  The rest of us need to combat evil.

And the first step toward combating evil is to recognize it for what it is.

Last week, I wrote an article in which I argued that unless the Republican Party begins to take stock of the ever growing discontent among its conservative base, it will, deservedly, be a loser in perpetuity.

Among the overwhelmingly positive responses, I also received some criticisms.

(1)There’s no such thing as “the perfect” candidate. 

And?

Disenchanted conservatives are the last people who need to be reminded of the fact that perfect politicians, like perfect specimens of anything, simply aren’t to be found in this world.  But so what?

The disenchanted don’t seek perfection. What they seek are candidates who are conservative.  Imperfection they expect; gross imperfection they reject.

(2)We must choose “the lesser” of two “evils.”

While I’m unaware of them, perhaps there are some ethical traditions in the world that command their adherents to consciously select evil—even if the evil in question isn’t as evil as the alternative(s).  But the ethical tradition to which most conservatives subscribe is Christianity.  According to the latter, it is never, ever permissible to deliberately commit an act—any act—of evil.

Again, it isn’t “imperfection” per se that repels disenchanted conservatives, but intolerable imperfections that give rise to their repulsion.  The “lesser of two evils,” being still an evil, is, obviously, intolerably imperfect. As such, it should repel decent people everywhere.

(3)By not voting for Republicans, conservatives, in effect, vote for Democrats.

To this criticism, two replies are in the coming.

First of all, when the Republicans raising this criticism are those politicians and pundits who persist in their support of just those policies, like his foreign policy, say, that resulted in our last (Republican) president leaving the office with a 30% approval rating while his nemeses assumed command of both houses of Congress and the White House, it sounds more than a bit hypocritical, for it is they who have provided their opponents with more than enough support.

Yet no one is blinder in this respect than those Republicans who endorse amnesty, a policy that is sure to establish Democrat supremacy from this point onward.

Secondly, the conservative’s decision to refrain from voting may very well result in Democrats winning elections, but he is no more blameworthy for this than is a terminal patient blameworthy for suicide who refrains from availing himself of extra-ordinary measures that will buy him just a few more weeks of life—and suffering.  The patient knows that his decision to “do nothing” will hasten his death, but his intention is not to kill himself. In fact, his intention isn’t even to shorten his suffering but, rather, simply not to add to it.

The conservative who decides not to vote is in a similar situation. His country is sick. As much as some media personalities want for him to believe that there is all of the difference in the world between America’s two national parties, he knows that the only difference that has existed for far too long is that between a poison that will kill—“fundamentally transform”—his country quickly and one that will kill it not so quickly.

This is no hyperbole. Traditionally, America has been a country devoted to liberty, or “limited government,” as Republicans put it.  But Big Government is the antithesis of liberty.   Thus, it is the antithesis of America.  The Republican Party, however, is as much committed to Big Government as is its counterpart—even if the other guys (and gals) may want even (slightly) Bigger Government.

The disenchanted conservative, then, refuses to comply with the killing of his country.

Unlike the terminally ill patient in this example, though, the conservative who sits out elections need not have given up. In fact, he remains hopeful that his decision on this front will provoke his party to reverse course. That is, he aims to restore his country to good health. Moreover, the conservative knows well that countries don’t live by politics alone, that there are many ways in which he can fight the good fight for the well being of his homeland.

Republicans’ rhetoric is of little consequence. If Republicans don’t start governing as conservatives, as the apostles of constitutional liberty that they claim to be, then they will deservedly lose more of their base.

But then it will be these Republicans who would have basically voted for their rivals.

 

 

In Florida, a 13 year-old white boy is savagely beaten on a school bus by three black thugs.  Yet it gains not a fraction of the attention paid by the press of the whole Western world to Oprah Winfrey’s claims to have fallen prey to “racism” while perusing a fancy boutique in Switzerland.

The racial double standards accentuated by the juxtaposition of these two events couldn’t be more glaring.

Winfrey is a billionaire, one of the wealthiest, most famous, and, to the extent that she’s done more than rub elbows with the biggest names in Hollywood and American politics, one of the most influential human beings on the planet. If anyone qualifies as “privileged,” to use the left’s lingo, it is Winfrey.

The Florida boy who was beaten senseless, like the shop clerk whom Winfrey accused of “racism,” is an obscure figure of modest means. Again, parroting the left, he is among the “powerless” or “voiceless.”

The racially-oriented cruelty to which Winfrey’s allegedly been subjected consists in her having been denied the opportunity to inspect a nearly $40,000.00 pocketbook.

The cruelty to which the 13 year-old from Florida was subjected is a vicious beating by three black cowards.

Within the last couple of days, Winfrey’s “victimizer” has staunchly rejected her accusation.  Immediately thereafter, Winfrey began backpedaling, going even so far as to apologize for all of the attention that this incident has received.

Winfrey, you see, was less than fully truthful, if she wasn’t outright dishonest, about her treatment at the proverbial hands of the white shop clerk in Switzerland.

The 13 year-old, however, really did suffer at the literal hands of his assailants: he was beaten mercilessly and then robbed. The incident was caught on video and his tormentors have confessed to the charges against them.

Still, Winfrey’s non-incident throws the world off of its axis while the plight of this poor 13 year-old is neglected. The media rushes to elicit sympathy—and guilt—for another alleged black victim, even if she happens to be among the most fortunate human beings to have ever lived, and even if the “indignity” to which she was supposedly subjected is not exactly the stuff of which the annals of human suffering are filled.  At the same time, the media rushes just as quickly to suppress the deeds of black victimizers—even when they engage in acts of sheer barbarity.

Moving beyond these two events, there seems to be no end to the racial double standards.

First, loudly and proudly, we’re all supposed to decry racial discrimination when the discriminators are white and those discriminated against are black. To do otherwise is to betray one’s “racism.” However, unless one loudly and proudly endorses so-called “affirmative action”—racial discrimination in favor of blacks—one is “racist.”

So, the “racist” is he who seeks to place blacks at a disadvantage with respect to whites. No less of a “racist” is the person who refuses to give blacks an advantage over whites.

Second, it is “racist” for a white person to render judgments about “black America” on the bases of the actions of individual blacks.  This explains why, say, “racial profiling” is held by the professional “anti-racists” to be morally obscene.

Yet it is not “racist” for blacks (and whites) to complain endlessly about the transgressions of “white America.”  Very few white Americans—including Southerners—owned slaves or had anything but contempt for those whites, like the men who beat and murdered poor Emmet Till, who aspired to treat blacks cruelly.   Moreover, if not for the gallant efforts of legions of white Americans, the injustices of the past would be the injustices of the present.

And yet whites are judged collectively while blacks are freed of such an oppressive restraint.

Third, when whites flee those areas that lower and underclass blacks begin to inhabit, it is called “white flight” and chalked up to “racism.”  But when blacks do the same, it is called “movin’ on up” and applauded.  Though as John Perazzo noted in The Myths that Divide Us, at least as many blacks fled the chronic dysfunction of the black underclass in the 1980’s and beyond as did whites in preceding decades.

Fourth, for the scandalous rate of criminality and violence among blacks, young black men in particular, an explanation in “root causes” is always sought out. Yet “root causes” are never, ever invoked when it comes to accounting for “white racism.”  It is understandable, even justifiable, that blacks should harbor a violent, even murderous, rage toward whites for centuries of oppression.  But that whites may be wary of blacks is chalked up as the species of some raw, uncaused prejudice.

Finally, blacks commit a vastly larger share of interracial crime than that perpetrated by whites.  Relatively rarely are they charged with “hate” crimes. For example, five black guttersnipes in Knoxville, Tennessee carjack, abduct, rape, torture, and murder a young white couple, but because some of the assailants had white girlfriends and because, as far as could be determined, none of them had used any racial epithets in connection with their victims, race is deemed not to have played any role whatsoever in this outrage.

Every effort is made to discern the intentions of black perpetrators.

Such is not the case when it comes to whites.

According to the doctrine of “institutional racism,” white society is incorrigibly “racist”—even if white individuals have the best of intentions. More exactly, even if whites are consciously well meaning toward blacks, subconsciously they entertain the most degrading of stereotypes concerning them.

There are more racial double standards that could be listed. Space precludes it here.  Still, these five are plenty enough to get going that “honest” discussion of race that Eric Holder says he wants.

 

 

George W. Bush left the White House with an approval rating hovering around 30%.  Courtesy of his tenure, and his second term specifically, by 2008 large numbers of conservatives ceased to identify themselves as “Republican,” such was their shame.  At least one million of them refused to vote for John McCain.  But two years before this, their enthusiasm had already begun to wane considerably, for the Democrats hammered Bush’s party, regaining control once more of both chambers of Congress.  By 2012, even fewer conservatives showed up at the polls to pull the lever for Mitt Romney.

If all of this fails to convince the GOP that it is hemorrhaging its base, the party’s leaders would be well advised to look carefully at the comments’ sections of any number of “conservative” leaning publications—including those that are most friendly to the Republican Party.

The internet has been a great equalizer, the one outlet—the only outlet (sorry Fox News and talk radio)—for conservative-minded Americans to give uninhibited expression to their views. To judge from these views on race relations, immigration, and everything in between, it would seem that perhaps a revolution of sorts is beginning to brew among those whose voice has been marginalized and suppressed by the self-appointed guardians of Political Correctness—both Democrat and Republican.

Yet whether this is a real revolution or not, this much is clear: from the perspective of the great unwashed conservative masses, things are not looking too good for the Republican Party.

In the court of public, on-line opinion, Marco Rubio, for example, has been tried and convicted of traitorous conduct toward both his party and his country for his tireless support of amnesty.  McCain and Lindsay Graham long ago had this verdict visited upon them, but their latest attempt to secure Democrat Party rule in perpetuity via amnesty has renewed with vigor the contempt in which legions of conservatives hold them.

But everyone knows that McCain and Graham are has-beens who’ve gone as far as they are going to go.  Most troubling for the GOP is that its newest line of “conservative” stars is fizzling fast.

Paul Ryan and Chris Christie are as unpopular among the conservative base as is Rubio—and for essentially the same reason: they are viewed as “RINO’s.” What this really means, though, is that they are regarded as fake conservatives who talk the talk when they need the base of their party but dance with the Democrats at all other times.

Even Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are not above suspicion.  The former has made it clear that he supports amnesty—“a pathway to citizenship”—in principle, even if he eventually refused to endorse the specifics of the Gang of Eight’s bill.  As for Cruz, that he was once one of the architects of Bush II’s immigration reform plan back in 2000 is enough to raise concerns.  That he hasn’t done more to lead the charge against the Gang of Eight’s bill compounds those concerns.  Lip service is one thing. Going to the mat against amnesty in the manner in which Rubio and his gang have gone to the mat in favor of it is something else entirely.

The point is this: unless the Republican Party poses a genuine alternative to what the Democrats are offering, its base will continue to erode.  The formalities of its platform aside, it has shown itself time and time again to be, at best, but a lighter version—and only a slightly lighter version at that—of its rival.

Amnesty is guaranteed to consign the Republican Party to oblivion.  It also promises to expedite the left’s agenda to “fundamentally transform” America.  Far from being just one more policy among others, nothing less than the fate of our country depends upon it.   Why, then, should any conservative vote for a party that wants amnesty?

Yet it isn’t just amnesty that is dampening conservatives’ spirits.  While championing “limited government” out of one side of their mouths, Republicans actively encourage anything but the “humble” foreign policy that Bush II claimed to want back in 2000.  But Big Military is Big Government. Moreover, Americans of all stripes believe that the American soldier, being an American soldier, and not a soldier of Planet Earth, shouldn’t be deployed around the globe to fight for the sake of some abstract ideal like freedom, equality, or Democracy.

If the party of “limited government” wants to be treated seriously by both their one-time friends and foes, it has got to radically revise its stance on Big Military.

The GOP has some major soul searching to do. Unless it does so soon, its base will continue to shrink.   Anyone with any doubts on this score will have them dispelled quickly enough by the most casual perusal of what conservatives are saying at any number of places on-line.