|
More on Chief Moose
In a recent post , I linked an article by Paul Sperry at World Net Daily showing how Chief Moose failed to stop or examine white suspects in the sniper investigation. When a correspondent said that Sperry had offered no evidence for his charges, I asked him if he was saying that everything we had read about the racial profiling for a white male and the police checking Muhammad’s car 11 times and letting him go was not true? The correspondent replied: “I’m saying that every so-called expert in criminology was wrong in projecting that the killers were white males riding around in a white van. But it does not follow that Chief Moose is a racist who willfully ignored evidence to the contrary. To make such a charge requires far more evidence than Sperry provides.” After re-reading Sperry’s article, I wrote back to my correspondent as follows: Sperry does not call Moose a racist per se, in the sense of saying that Moose had a racial animus against whites and was simply set on finding a white perpetrator for that reason. While I agree that the quote from an unnamed former Portland police officer that Moose “has some very strong bias against white males, especially ones with blond hair and blue eyes” is not backed by evidence, Sperry does adequately demonstrate that, like many blacks AND white liberals today, including his white wife, Moose had a chip on his shoulder about whites, was very ready to blame them for racism and so on. Sperry shows that Moose shared the liberal pre-conception that the shooter “had to be white,” and he gives plenty of evidence of the police ignoring possible non-white suspects, which has been reported in the media generally. Sperry also quotes several law enforcement officials, including one of Moose’s subordinates, showing they didn’t want to give up on it’s being a white guy.
Let me add that our current liberal system—with its assumption that whites are oppressors and that nonwhites are the victims of that oppression—is by that very fact antiwhite. This takes the form a double standard in which extreme black racial violence (e.g. the Wichita massacre) is ignored while various white villains, racial and otherwise (e.g., Richard Jewell and the “white” Beltway sniper) are invented. Sperry shows that Moose personally shared the belief in white evil to a high degree, which, one can reasonably infer, pushed him to go even further than others might have gone in focusing the search exclusively on whites despite evidence to the contrary. However, the assumption of white evil is not the thing that is called “racism” today. It’s the thing that is called liberalism. And of that, Moose is plainly guilty.
Comments
I would add that Moose is also a flaming hypocrite. He has built a career fighting ‘the evil of racial profiling’ and then proceeds to racially profile white males in the sniper case. To quote Ann Coulter: Being liberal means never having to say you’re sorry. Posted by: Carl on November 17, 2002 7:41 PMHad they known the identities of the snipers would the case have been hyped-up as much as it was by the mass media? I don’t think so. They had convinced themselves that the perpetrator (they didn’t even profile the number right) must be an “angrey white male” because it formed part of their ideological wish fulfilment. They were “in denial” for any other outcome. The police at the managerial level, the INS, the judiciary and any other government executive agency and the mass media are in total ideological lockstep with the other. They all had a vested interest in wanting the culprit(s) to be a European heterosexual male. They were blinded to any other possiblity. They would not allow any other possibility. They were salivating on the hoped for orgy of the collective smearing of all “unreconstructed” heterosexual white males as murderous “haters”. If this hadn’t of been the agenda then the whole business would have been obscured. No shrill, constant media bombardment. More a version of the “Zebra Murders” style treatment of occasional and reluctant reporting at national level and publicity kept very much as localised as possible. “The media immediately embraced the Angry White Male theory by sensationalizing the cops’ questioning over the weekend of one Robert Gene Baker. Newspaper reports described him as “heavily tattooed” and “linked” to “militia and white supremacist” groups. The headlines screamed: “Supremacist Sought in Sniping Spree” and “Neo Nazi Named as Sniper Murders Suspect.” But in fact, Baker was never a suspect and had no weapons on him at the time he was taken into custody for an outstanding auto-theft warrant. The AWM theory remains a plausible one, of course. But it isn’t the only one. You won’t hear Katie Couric or Peter Jennings talking about it with their conventional-thinking experts, but there is a significant possibility that the sniper and the sniper’s support system could be non-white Muslim extremists with ties to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network.” and she wasn’t the only one either, with Mark Styen suggesting other possibilites. To try and pretend that Moose and Co did anything other than wish fulfilment “racial profiling” |