Chumming the Water

Usually. it is the black race industry that keeps the fires of anger hot. The result of this is that a discussion of ideas cannot move forward. It IS very difficult to have ANY discussion about race in America. It’s people like Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan and their followers and supporters who keep it that way.

I would bet money that if Sharpton or Jackson or Farrakhan read this post of mine the only words they would see and want to discuss are: “people like”.
They would attempt to make me feel defensive by accusing me of a racist attitude. “What do you MEAN ‘people like’”???!!! yada yada yada Hours later, if we are even talking to each other, they would probably be still accusing me of being a racist and I will still be defending myself. During this time we will have never even discussed the core issue. Finally, the discussion will have ended and I, a white guy who is not a racist, will leave resentful of the accusation and frustrated and angry by my attempt at a rational discussion.

I’m sure A LOT of whites have had experiences similar to the one I paint here at some time in their life. I have.

The end result is that people shy away from ANY discussion of race. They also stop caring about the issue. Then when blacks as a group see that many whites as a group ignore the issues involving race, they interpret this as a sign of white racism and injustice. The “victim mentality” kicks in. Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan keep these fires burning hot also. The cycle feeds upon itself.

So the problem persists. If the likes of Jackson, Sharpton, and Farrakhan are still around in 30 or 40 years then nothing likely will change, except maybe that by that time, the vast majority of blacks will be living behind bars.

Usually. it is the black race industry that keeps the fires of anger hot. The result of this is that a discussion of ideas cannot move forward. It IS very difficult to have ANY discussion about race in America. It’s people like Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan and their followers and supporters who keep it that way.

I would bet money that if Sharpton or Jackson or Farrakhan read this post of mine the only words they would see and want to discuss are: “people like”.
They would attempt to make me feel defensive by accusing me of a racist attitude. “What do you MEAN ‘people like’”???!!! yada yada yada Hours later, if we are even talking to each other, they would probably be still accusing me of being a racist and I will still be defending myself. During this time we will have never even discussed the core issue. Finally, the discussion will have ended and I, a white guy who is not a racist, will leave resentful of the accusation and frustrated and angry by my attempt at a rational discussion.

I’m sure A LOT of whites have had experiences similar to the one I paint here at some time in their life. I have.

The end result is that people shy away from ANY discussion of race. They also stop caring about the issue. Then when blacks as a group see that many whites as a group ignore the issues involving race, they interpret this as a sign of white racism and injustice. The “victim mentality” kicks in. Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan keep these fires burning hot also. The cycle feeds upon itself.

So the problem persists. If the likes of Jackson, Sharpton, and Farrakhan are still around in 30 or 40 years then nothing likely will change, except maybe that by that time, the vast majority of blacks will be living behind bars.

The fact of the matter is, despite Denis’s observation about how crime rates often are directly tied to unwed mother households, there is both leftist and even moderate right wing taboo about discussing this subject because people don’t want to appear to be a racist at any cost EVEN IF it helps to silently perpetuate racist ideas!

Let’s say Denis is right: It would do well then to discuss the topic, out in the open, and give AA’s an opportunity to show that the situation on everyone’s minds is due to socio-political factors and not due to race. However, who wants to be on the devil’s side of the debate even if only for hypothetical reasons? That’s precisely what Bennett was doing and they’re attempting to crucify him for it.

Apparently, he’s one smart cookie and isn’t going to back down and give his opponents an opportunity to kick him while he’s down.

The fact of the matter is, despite Denis’s observation about how crime rates often are directly tied to unwed mother households, there is both leftist and even moderate right wing taboo about discussing this subject because people don’t want to appear to be a racist at any cost EVEN IF it helps to silently perpetuate racist ideas!

Let’s say Denis is right: It would do well then to discuss the topic, out in the open, and give AA’s an opportunity to show that the situation on everyone’s minds is due to socio-political factors and not due to race. However, who wants to be on the devil’s side of the debate even if only for hypothetical reasons? That’s precisely what Bennett was doing and they’re attempting to crucify him for it.

Apparently, he’s one smart cookie and isn’t going to back down and give his opponents an opportunity to kick him while he’s down.

Bennett was commenting on a question from a listener about the controversial factoid that comes the book Freakonomics.

Yet another example of the erosion of basic communication in which the intent of the speaker or of an image is secondary to the perception of the listener or viewer, real or imagined.

He may as well have called someone niggardly while he was at it.

Bennett was commenting on a question from a listener about the controversial factoid that comes the book Freakonomics.

Yet another example of the erosion of basic communication in which the intent of the speaker or of an image is secondary to the perception of the listener or viewer, real or imagined.

He may as well have called someone niggardly while he was at it.

In the 50s and before that the crime rate was low in the Black community. Divorce was also low. And black students did attend school and learn. At least that is what I have read. These occured while the communities and families lived in a segregated society, and in some places where lynchings were not uncommon. We should not turn back the clock but this proves that even under a discriminatory society people and families can find some measure of happiness and fulfillment from intact families.

It wasn’t until the government stepped in with it’s many forms of “help” did the Black familiy disintegrate. More than 70% of Black kids today don’t have a father living with them and supporting them. This has been going on for decades.

And now the various government entities are going after all the other fathers to separate them from their children.

Sometimes I think what the government did to the Black community was just a “test case” meant for wider application in society to further a socialist domination of society.

It will take generations to undue the damage the government did to the Black community.

And the rest of us better wake up to what the government has been doing to all fathers for 40+ years.

The person responsible for doing a crime is the person who actually did the crime, but I believe the government is culpable for a lot of it also.

In the 50s and before that the crime rate was low in the Black community. Divorce was also low. And black students did attend school and learn. At least that is what I have read. These occured while the communities and families lived in a segregated society, and in some places where lynchings were not uncommon. We should not turn back the clock but this proves that even under a discriminatory society people and families can find some measure of happiness and fulfillment from intact families.

It wasn’t until the government stepped in with it’s many forms of “help” did the Black familiy disintegrate. More than 70% of Black kids today don’t have a father living with them and supporting them. This has been going on for decades.

And now the various government entities are going after all the other fathers to separate them from their children.

Sometimes I think what the government did to the Black community was just a “test case” meant for wider application in society to further a socialist domination of society.

It will take generations to undue the damage the government did to the Black community.

And the rest of us better wake up to what the government has been doing to all fathers for 40+ years.

The person responsible for doing a crime is the person who actually did the crime, but I believe the government is culpable for a lot of it also.

The “poverty causes crime” argument sounds like a cop-out used by both race baiters and those who wish to avoid being finger pointed as racists alike (not to say you’re using it in that way.) I remember growing up in a poor working-class German-Polish neighborhood in the states and I don’t recall high crime rates. Just the opposite, really.

The “poverty causes crime” argument sounds like a cop-out used by both race baiters and those who wish to avoid being finger pointed as racists alike (not to say you’re using it in that way.) I remember growing up in a poor working-class German-Polish neighborhood in the states and I don’t recall high crime rates. Just the opposite, really.

Crime is related to poverty and the proportion of young men vs. the rest of the population. I believe Bennett was discussing the book Freakonomics which I just read and the part of the book which said that legalized abortion managed to decrease the population of poor people so it was responsible for the drop off in crime in the mid-90′s.

I think it is a shame that these issues cannot be discussed without bringing out race baiting but Best of the Web (WSJ) of Sept. 30th says that things might be changing because the race-hustlers don’t have the same power they once did. I hope this is true.

By the way, crime in Britain and parts of France have increased in the past decade. Could this be because of a large number of disaffected Muslim youth?

Crime is related to poverty and the proportion of young men vs. the rest of the population. I believe Bennett was discussing the book Freakonomics which I just read and the part of the book which said that legalized abortion managed to decrease the population of poor people so it was responsible for the drop off in crime in the mid-90′s.

I think it is a shame that these issues cannot be discussed without bringing out race baiting but Best of the Web (WSJ) of Sept. 30th says that things might be changing because the race-hustlers don’t have the same power they once did. I hope this is true.

By the way, crime in Britain and parts of France have increased in the past decade. Could this be because of a large number of disaffected Muslim youth?