Liberals on national defense, self-defense, and the African-American web browser

A. Zarkov writes:

I had a lunch where we discussed the current piracy problem. Every time I suggested that we fight back against pirates I was told it was better to pay them off because fighting them is a futile exercise. I learned that nothing we could do in any arena of conflict was going to be effective. Then I said if we don’t fight then we should deport every foreigner who is a threat to us. I was told that was being like Hitler and the American people would never stand for such a thing.

Thus I learned yet again the end point of liberalism is ultimate self destruction. This philosophy extends down to the personal sphere. Not only a guns banned in some states like Massachusetts, but Tasers as well. Self defense as well as collective defense is simply off limits in the modern liberal conception of life. I am now beginning to think that even the detonation of a nuclear weapon in the US wouldn’t change anything. The surviving liberals would still make excuses and blame Americans for making other countries angry at us. However I suspect such an event would provoke a civil insurrection of some kind.

For another sample of liberal (or rather liberal and black) thought, see what commenter Kevin said on the message board at Technology Blog about Blackbird, the African-American web browser:

Posted by Kevin @ 9:06 PM Thu, Dec 11, 2008

I will make the comment here, made elsewhere on the web that a few of you have completely missed:

White bird already exists. White Entertainment Television exists. They are simply known as the the default, the standard in America.

Our society was founded on genocide (Native Americans) & racism (slavery). The last vestiges of this oppressive system were only lifted in the current generation of adults.

To think that society is now a “color blind”, where everything is equal and dandy is naive and ignorant.

It is almost humorous that some people would joke about the improbability of “white focused” entities as if they do not already exist.

Turn on your television. Flip through some channels, and tell me that the racial representation is indicative of the racial composition of our nation.

Much of what you consider “normal” and “color neutral” is tainted by the fact that white privilege is alive and well, whether the white beneficiaries desire and seek out that privilege or not. To declare otherwise is to belie a certain naivete about the world.

What is the threat to you, why is this idea silly? What is so incomprehensible about a culture wishing to have a tool that acknowledges it?

It is hard to imagine, but suppose this were true:
You are white & the majority/dominant culture is black. Everything about the culture is black. Every TV channel is filled with blacks. Whites appear in token ads, token commercials. White history is largely ignored by public education. TV newscasters are overwhelmingly white, etc..this is the world that blacks in America live in, and yet you would have the audacity to call attempts to highlight their own culture “silly”.

Recommended Reading for you:
-When Affirmative Action Was White
-White Washing Race: The Myth of a Color Blind Society.

Perhaps most telling will be your reaction to this post. Do you dismiss it as the ramblings of a minority bent on making race an issue when it is not? Do you enjoy the ability to read the comment and then for the rest of the day, never think about how your race is devalued by dominant culture?

Or do you sit, and think for a while about the world, and educate yourself before denigrating something you aren’t sufficiently versed in?

But as bad as Kevin’s comment was, it was worth it, because it gave commenter Jacob a chance to take his idiocies apart::

Posted by Jacob @ 10:56 PM Thu, Dec 11, 2008

Kevin,

You’re right. When I turn on my TV, the racial representation is definitely not indicative of the racial composition of our nation.

Instead, blacks are far OVERrepresented, especially in positions of high achievement. The top surgeons, computer experts, pilots, etc. are black. For the last 15 years, every judge on TV and in movies has been represented as black. Every cast includes at least one black person; every legal team, medical team, business department has at least one black person on it. Characters in books who were white are changed to black for the film adaptation. Blacks take the role of “numinous negro” and acts as fonts of general-purpose wisdom, with their words and actions cast in the light of an almost spiritual transcendence (think Morgan Freeman in just about every role.) This certainly doesn’t comport with the reality of our society, where blacks are markedly absent from such positions.

Meanwhile, blacks are not portrayed in the one segment of our society in which they ARE overrepresented in proportion to their numbers: violent criminals. If a violent criminal appears on a television show, you can be certain he’ll be white. Crime shows with episodes based on real-life incidents (“ripped from the headlines”) change the race of the real-life killer from black to white.

So, sorry, no, I don’t see the black race being devalued by the dominant culture. On the contrary, I see it being undeservedly exalted.

As for the market for a Whitebird, I personally have no need for one, but whites, who were 90% of the US population in 1960, are now, thanks to immigration laws enacted by—you guessed it—whites, only 67% and falling. If different racial groups have different interests, there is now a significant segment of our society which presumably doesn’t share the same interest as whites. So what would be wrong with a browser that catered to white interests?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 12, 2008 01:55 AM | Send