Chief Moose is a hero. He deserves credit for his strong showing. But there are white racists out there who want to make him look incompetent. He had nothing to do with the racial profiling of whites. He caught the sniper and should be given credit where credit is due.

Leroy Smitts says, ” … there are white racists out there who want to make [Police Chief Moose] look incompetent.”

I don’t claim to be a news junkie, so I might have missed it — but I haven’t heard or read where a single solitary soul had said anything derogatory about Police Chief Moose — certainly not in any racist sense.

If it was only a few malcontents who said it, can’t we just ignore them?

Well, because radical individualism is so prevalent it is possible that for some people criticism always reduces to criticism of a specific individual. So when Mr. Auster says “it’s not just priests and police that are at fault, it’s our whole contemporary culture” some will take it as a personal shot at Moose despite the nonsequitir.

Matt, your post was both serious and humorous. I agreed with it. But getting back to Leroy Smitts: Mr. Smitts, it gets tedious — really and truly it does — for whites like myself (and doubtless also for blacks who have their heads generally screwed-on frontwards) to hear all the time about anti-black racism that doesn’t exist but is a figment of the left’s imagination. You know, Mr. Smitts, no matter what ethnicity you are, you aren’t helping a single one of today’s societal ills by hallucinating.

Not to belabor the point, but the following is the sum-total of the criticism of Chief of Police Moose which I’ve seen. (It was part of an e-mailed subscriber update from NewsMax.com, and no URL address was included for it in the e-mail I got.) Correct me if I’m wrong, but I see no hint of racism in it. Moose is called inarticulate. That’s not racism. Pres. Bush is often called inarticulate and rightly so.

Here’s the brief NewsMax.com piece:

“WHY WAS MOOSE LEFT IN CHARGE?

“When a string of killings took place in Montgomery County, Md., it was only appropriate for Police Chief Charles Moose of that county to head the investigation.

“But when the killing spree widened, into both the District of Columbia and Virginia, there was a clear and compelling case for the FBI to take charge. After all, the FBI is charged with investigating interstate crime.

“As the murders continued and criticism grew as to why Moose was still in charge, other press reports indicated that the FBI was calling the shots, but behind the scenes.

“Why did the FBI take a back seat?

“A source close to the bureau says the No. 1 reason was the FBI’s fear of getting blamed for the case if it was not solved. Fearing a public relations disaster, and already reeling from its failure to prevent 9/11 or to solve the anthrax attacks, together with the massive politicization of the FBI that took place during the Clinton years, the bureau wanted ‘out’ on this sniper case.

“Old bureau hands knew that the Wayne Williams serial killings in Atlanta took two years to solve, and there was no way to predict how long this could last.

“A source familiar with the Montgomery police described Chief Moose as a ‘good guy’ and liked by police who work for him. But he is not articulate, and word was that once he got over his 15 minutes of fame, Moose was not so happy to carry the ball for the bureau.

“Perhaps we need an FBI that follows Harry Truman’s dictum: The buck stops here.”

I remember the story. It was the closest thing to a criticism of Chief Moose that I have seen also. The guy must have been doing pretty well if all anyone could criticize was that he is “inarticulate” (whatever that means) and that maybe he is just a local cop and shouldn’t have jurisdiction. Certainly his case was solved faster than the FBI’s anthrax case — 12 times faster and counting, possibly forever. Maybe we should ask Chief Moose if he would be willing to take charge of enforcing immigration law.

Unadorned and Matt, it is pretty obvious what Lawrence Auster was trying to imply. Lawrence Auster was trying to say that because the sniper’s profile was wrongly said to be white, John Allen Muhammad got away when the police pulled him over on October 5th because he was black, and as a result 5 people lost their life. He is trying to say that chief Moose is at fault because he put out the profile that the sniper was white. Chief Moose was just taking orders from the FBI. It is not his fault.

The lone angry white male theory had currency because special interest groups (SPLC and the ADL, specifically) are given free reign to propagandize Federal and State law enforcement personel. You really should look at some of the police education packets and “training seminars” that these groups develop. Every time something of this nature happens, almost all pundits, experts and police have a go-to theory that points in the direction of the “radical right” which also happens to be the ideological enemies of well known groups.

Don’t understand. How could Mr. Auster be criticizing Chief Moose and letting the FBI and others involved off the hook? He doesn’t even mention Chief Moose. The only person he specially mentions for criticism is a Catholic priest.

“Every time something of this nature happens, almost all pundits, experts and police have a go-to theory that points in the direction of the ‘radical right’ which also happen to be the ideological enemies of well-known groups [such as the SPLC and the ADL].”

Jason Eubanks, don’t forget that of course the “radical right” is also your enemy and mine, not just the SPLC’s and the ADL’s. I and surely you favor neither the radical left nor the radical right, but traditional American Anglo-Saxon normalness. What James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin favored — yes, and what Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington favored (read their works to see what side they’d be on today) — what such as these favored I favor, not any foreign radical left or radical right nonsense that is alien to all which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

Your comment points subtly to one unfortunate consequence of the ADL’s and the SPLC’s policies. By their tendency to tag ordinary normalness in people — the sort of thinking, behavior, lifestyle, and aspirations associated with (to give but one example) what Mr. Auster referred to as “the lawful and normal customs and institutions of local Christian majorities” (http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/000888.html) — by their tendency, then, to tag ordinary normalness in people with epithets like “right-radical,” they push some ordinary, normal people into the sicko-right-radical camp by leaving them no place else to go. They make themselves enemies where they would have had friends and allies for their broader interests.

This is foolish of them, and because Abe Foxman is no fool he is in my opinion mentally ill, likely with a touch of paranoid schizophrenia. (I don’t know what’s wrong with Dees — certainly he’s a scoundrel.)

Do Foxman’s paranoid obsessions help Jews by turning the U.S. into the Muslim country, or the Latin-American country, or the Black-African country, or the homosexual country, or doubtless the Communist country, of his dreams? Do U.S. Jews wish, some day not too far off, to hear the same invitation Ariel Sharon extended to South Africa’s 80,000 Jews after THAT country’s Foxman-like transformation had taken place — that they had better leave their homes and come to Israel where they’ll be better off? Is that the future U.S. Jews aspire to? Are all Foxman’s efforts to tear down the slightest manifestation of normalness in what he sees as a rival majority culture doing one jot to address the alarming prediction that U.S. Jews will be demographically on the ropes in 50 years if not sooner? Is Foxman a relic from a bygone age whose time has come and gone if indeed it ever existed in the first place?

The Jewish Community should get rid of bad rubbish which is harming them, and install instead someone like Rabbi Lapin.

The tendency to reject stereotypes is so ingrained in our culture now that any criticism of a group or broad set of tendencies is deemed invalid. When someone (e.g. Mr. Auster) says something that prima facie criticizes a group or broad set of tendencies, the anti-stereotype mindset has two options. The first option is to interpret the original discourse as not saying anything at all. The second is to interpret it as a veiled criticism of some actual individual(s). Pope John Paul II might say that there is a wrongheaded tendency to view actual individuals as the only ontic objects of cultural discourse, although it is simpler to just say that actual individuals are not all that is the case. I don’t say this so much to isolate and criticize Mr. Smitts as to point out the general tendency within our culture, of course.

To Mr. Kalb:

In defense of Mr. Smitts, he was also referring to my earlier post about the racial profiling of whites leading to the killers being released. However, I don’t believe I mentioned Chief Moose in that post either, so I think Mr. Smitts is being too sensitive. I hasten to join with Matt in pointing out that my last comment is not directed at Mr. Smitts as an individual but at a general trend in our culture.

To Unadorned:

That’s an excellent summary of the madness of the Jewish policy of undercutting the existence of the very societies that make Jews’ safe and civilized existence possible. It seems that the primal impulse to weaken the gentile majority that they always see as (at least potentially) threatening to themselves leads them to weaken even those gentile majorities that are most friendly to them.

And, yes, more voices like Rabbi Lapin’s are needed.

It is not a good idea for a traditionalist to be completely uncritical of the American founders and founding, it seems to me. I’ve mentioned before that Hamilton argued in favor of unrestricted immigration and an unlimited power for the federal government to tax and spend. Jefferson had similar intellectual liabilities from the perspective of a traditionalist. Also in general the idea/implication that our own existence must be perfectly justified in order to be justified at all is pernicious and should be resisted.

“don’t forget that of course the “radical right” is also your enemy and mine, not just the SPLC’s and the ADL’s.”

The “radical right” the SPLC and ADL has in mind means anything to the right of William Kristol.

Again, not to belabor the point — but very strong criticism indeed of Chief of Police Moose is just published in today’s (Oct. 29) edition of www.Vdare.com. The criticism comes from private citizen (apparently) and Vdare.com reader signing as “Paul Mendez,” and is quoted in Peter Brimelow’s piece entitled, “The Washington Snipers: A Revolutionary Wind is Blowing.”

Note, however, Mr. Smitts, that not a single word of Mr. Mendez’s — not one word — amounts to anti-black racism.

I’m waiting to see where anything published by a respectable journalistic source corresponds to Leroy Smitts’ comment that ” … there are white racists out there who want to make [Police Chief Moose] look incompetent.”