PBS Broadcasts Anti-Israel Claims from Writer Who Thinks Jews are Space Lizards

alice walker That’s not a figure of speech. We’re talking about actual space lizards. Or imaginary space lizards invented by a famous schizophrenic who also believes that the moon is an evil hologram. The writer we’re talking is Alice Walker who is ridiculously bigoted. And I do mean ridiculously.

Walker, the ADL statement went on, “suggests that Israeli settlements are motivated by the concept that ‘possession is nine-tenths of the law,’ which she claims is a lesson she ‘learned from my Jewish lawyer former husband. This belief might even be enshrined in the Torah.’” A meeting she describes with an elderly Palestinian woman in the territories is telling about the impetus behind Walker’s hostile attitude towards Jews and Israelis. The woman, upon accepting a gift from Walker, says “May God protect you from the Jews” to which Walker responds, “It’s too late, I already married one.”

So yes, Alice Walker hates Jews, possibly because she hates her ex, possibly because she thinks they’re space aliens… because among other things, Walker is a fan of David Icke. And Icke believes the world is run by space lizards who have a moon hologram to conceal their base.

In the 750-page tome, Icke describes how the human mind is controlled from the moon. The moon, he claims, is actually a “gigantic spacecraft” which sends us a “fake reality broadcast”. In posts on her website, she compared the former footballer to Malcolm X and described Human Race Get Off Your Knees as “the ultimate reading adventure”. Despite bemoaning the fact she didn’t have the scientific brain to fully comprehend it, she “felt it was the first time I was able to observe, and mostly imagine and comprehend, the root of the incredible evil that has engulfed our planet”.

But this is just a harmless eccentricity… right?

Earlier I wrote that David Icke reminded me of Malcolm X. I was thinking especially of Malcolm’s fearlessness. A fearlessness that made him seem cold, actually, though we know he wasn’t really. All that love of us that kept driving him to improve our lot; often into quite the wrong direction, but I need not go into that. What I was remembering was how he called our oppressors “blue eyed devils.” Now who could that have been? Well, we see them here in David Icke’s book as the descendants of the reptilian race that landed on our sweet planet… My partner and I go around saying Oh, Chitauri, whenever we get a glimpse of one or two of the Chitauri offspring, aka Illuminati bloodline families and their puppets, on the telly.

Given this kind of deep thinking, PBS’ American Masters decided to do a tribute to Alice Walker while letting her rant about the Illuminati Chitarui Jews.

The Public Broadcasting Service Master’s Series broadcast “Beauty and Truth” on Feb. 7, is a much publicized paean to Alice Walker… A review in the Feminist Wire describes how “In Walker’s life … beauty exists within a mosaic of truths alongside rabid institutional racism, patriarchy, misogyny, colonialism, heterosexism, and so much else.”

All of which are caused by the space lizards. And Israel.

Toward the end of the 83 minute program, Walker discusses her adoption of the Palestinian cause. She planned to participate in the Gaza Flotilla in 2011, a show of support for Hamas-ruled Gaza. Walker compares the plight of the Palestinians to the black civil rights movement in the South, except in her opinion, Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is “worse.” While other controversial aspects of Walker’s life, like her estrangement from her daughter, are candidly discussed in the PBS film, her denunciation of Israel’s “apartheid” wall and claim that the Palestinians are “just daily humiliated… ground in the dirt,” are aired without any pushback or scrutiny of the validity of such accusations. The American Masters series has substantial support from Jewish donors. One wonders what these donors think about how PBS is using their financial gifts.

Let’s ask the space lizards.

  • tagalog

    The blue-eyed devils who hate blacks are lizards from outer space?

    You mean the claim that blacks are disliked is universal and not restricted to Planet Earth?

    Wow; to be disliked universally, that’s something.

    • Aditya Vivek Barot

      Even G-d hates them. Look what he does to their “countries.”

      • Vanessa Loy

        Humans cause those problems, not God.

        • Aditya Vivek Barot

          Did humans cause the recent earthquake in Haiti? Or the disgusting diseases that kill more sub-Saharan Africans than anything else?

          I was making an off-color joke. However, upon closer examination I am compelled to agree with my statement and realize that there is much truth in jest.

  • fatebekind

    I for one welcome our blue eyed jewish lizard alien overlords…

  • DogmaelJones1

    Tell me, Alice: Are these lizards of the same species that Captain Kirk had to fight in that early Star Trek episode? I mean, did he lose that fight, and we’re all now under the thumb of those lizards? Tell me, Alice: Do those lizards have thumbs? Only you would know.

    • BS77

      She and Le Roi Jones were abducted by dumb aliens , taken to Planet Stupid and trained to be irrational goofballs. DUH!!!!!

    • rxpc

      Clearly, the lizards are the descendants of Captain Janeway and Lt. Paris. Left behind in the Delta quadrant. They are both blue eyed.

      • CaoMoo

        Oh God that was a dumb episode … or maybe it was an autobiography.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Official class victims can say or do what they want. It’s the new oligarchy.

  • James

    I was unaware that PBS had a comedy show. Darn, always the last to know

  • UCSPanther

    It’s just as the Stone Tablets (Stained, dog-eared notepaper covered with drawings that make sense only to a demented mind) predicted…

    • Larry Larkin

      that should read “stoned”

  • truebearing

    Walker is not only greatly overrated as a writer, she is nuts. Her hypocrisy on racism is incalculable. Like so many blacks, she thinks racism is limited to the black experience when in fact, blacks are arguably the most racist race alive.

    Walker is yet another black that rode to success on the back of the civil rights industry…an industry that allows no criticism, or charges of racism will fly like shrapnel. I can just see the liberal book reviewers holding their noses as they work feverishly to find something to praise.

    I prefer the company of space lizards over deranged idiots like Walker, regardless of eye color. Come to think of it, I have blue eyes…does that mean I’m related to the space lizards or am just a typical blue eyed devil?

    • hiernonymous

      “…blacks are arguably the most racist race alive.”

      One imagines that it would be a contorted and defensive argument, to say nothing of pointless.

      “I prefer the company of space lizards over deranged idiots like Walker”

      The space lizards must find this an uncomfortable endorsement.

      • truebearing

        Pointless? Only to the terminally obtuse, or dishonest. In my experience, I have never seen another ethnic group so ruled by racial identity.

        Blacks in the civil rights cabal, and white leftists as well, make racist attacks Jews and whites all of the time. Calling out their incredible hypocrisy is not only legitimate but necessary. If blacks are ever to be free of their obsession with race, someone will have to point out their hypocrisy.

        The overwhelming majority of blacks vote for the leftists who have inculcated them with envy and a deep racial hatred toward whites and Jews. Blacks have, in large percentages, have accepted the premise that whites are their oppressors and the cause of all of their problems — even whites who had no ancestors in the US when slavery was practiced, or whose ancestors fought for their freedom, sometimes at the cost of life or limb. This is indisputable, though some who are ideologically allergic to truth, or paid to lie, will still try.

        I suggest you take a midnight stroll in a black neighborhood, in any large American city you choose. How about the southside in Chicago? Let me know how it turns out, if you’re still alive. Sometimes stereotypes are what they are because the empirical evidence is so overwhelming. I look forward to your delusional response.

        The Democratic Party uses race to demonize opponents, even for adopting black babies. Young blacks think it’s funny to knockout, and sometimes kill, unsuspecting, defenseless white people. This list of black on white crime is as long as the FBI crime statisics ( even with the massive under-reporting of black crime by many cities). Listen to any black leader, or black talk radio. It is always the same message of victimization, hate, and racism towards other races, but primarily whites. Black social issues are always someone else’s fault, and the Left wants blacks to think that way so that they can always count on that monolithic voting block, and if need be, can use the threat of black mob violence to silence the majority.

        I apologize for mocking your belief in the fascinating theories of David Icke.

        • hiernonymous

          “I have never seen another ethnic group so ruled by racial identity.”

          And you conclude that this is a function of racial racism, as opposed, say to the environment in which they live?

          Interesting choice.

          “Blacks have, in large percentages, have accepted the premise that whites are their oppressors…”

          And you, presumably, believe that those who accept this premise are in error?

          “Young blacks think it’s funny to knockout, and sometimes kill, unsuspecting, defenseless white people.”

          Ah, this is a white victim narrative.

          “I suggest you take a midnight stroll in a black neighborhood, in any large American city you choose.”

          You appear to believe that choosing a black neighborhood would be a uniquely dangerous choice. In the big cities that I’m familiar with, what you propose would be pretty dangerous, whether the neighborhood were black, white, hispanic, Asian. I’ve had run ins with a white gang in Florida, a Korean gang in New York. My car broke down in Compton once. I was the only white guy on the street. I had some pretty shady characters, and a couple of women dressed very…provacatively… drift up to me. I had a crowd gathered around me pretty soon, all black. You’d guess I was a dead man, judging by your post. Know what they did? They helped me push my car into a parking lot and called a tow truck for me. Granted, it wasn’t midnight.

          I think if you look hard enough for reasons to hate a group, you’ll come up with something that satisfies you. You clearly have.

          “I apologize for mocking your belief in the fascinating theories of David Icke.”

          After reading a couple of your posts about race, Icke’s starting to look positively reasonable.

          • truebearing

            “And you conclude that this is a function of racial racism, as opposed, say to the environment in which they live?”

            The environment in which they live is self-created. Trillions have been spent on education, affirmative action, housing, food stamps, welfare, etc. ad infinitum. None of it worked because blacks didn’t make it work. The ones who did make it work left those environments, and are called “Uncle Toms” for rejecting the dysfunctional culture that resulted from the Democrat’s insidious welfare state. Of course, the environment most blacks live in is someone elses fault. Why am I not surprised you would parrot the party line? What lying goose stepper wouldn’t?

            “And you, presumably, believe that those who accept this premise are in error?”

            I don’t believe they are in error. I know they are in error. Why don’t you explain how it is that in an era where the top athletes, music stars, and the president are black, whites are oppressing blacks? I’m all ears.

            “Ah, this is a white victim narrative.”

            Ah, yet another singularly stupid attempt at denial of facts. No, it isn’t a white victim narrative. It is racist violence on the part of blacks, and it is happening all over the country.

            “You appear to believe that choosing a black neighborhood would be a uniquely dangerous choice. In the big cities that I’m familiar with, what you propose would be pretty dangerous, … Granted, it wasn’t midnight.”

            So you say. There are tens of thousands of events where the outcomes are serious and frequently deadly. Even the police are wary about going into many black neighborhoods. And yes, I did suggest you take your stroll at midnight.

            i’m not looking for any reasons to hate any group, and I never said I hate blacks. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not blinded nor controlled by the idiocy of political correctness. You obviously are. Any reasonably well informed person can see the epidemic of violence in the black community, and the growing problem of racial motives in this epidemic. Your attempt to pretend that black racism and the crime it spawns doesn’t exist is pathetic. Your attempt to label me a racist because I won’t ignore it or buy the Left’s lies, is beyond pathetic. You are so thoroughly self-deluded that you appaerntly believe your forked tongue can alter reality. You should be ashamed of such dishonest, ruthless, unethical, and intellectually corrupt tactics, but you obviously aren’t.

            I am pleased that I have succeeded in drawing you out and exposing your bankrupt beliefs, despite all of your attempts to remain too slimy to pin down.

            “After reading a couple of your posts about race, Icke’s starting to look positively reasonable.”

            That you think verifiable facts are less reasonable than the moronic and psychotic beliefs of a fool like Icke is an indictment of your mental stability and limp-fingered grasp on reality. It doesn’t exactly redound to your intellectual credit, either.

          • hiernonymous

            “The environment in which they live is self-created.”

            Well, no, it’s not, and this is the rot at the root of your attempt to mask racism with apparent objectivity.

            Despite your attempt to ascribe positions to me I haven’t adopted, there’s no question that there are problems in the black community with violence and crime. The problem arises when you try to isolate the problem in such a manner as to mask critical elements.

            Most of the problems you’re describing are those of generational poverty, not race. That said, blacks disproportionately live in poverty in America. Your narrative: a black president and black sports figures prove that we’ve achieved equality of opportunity, and if the black community is poor and violent, it’s its own damned fault.

            But generational poverty doesn’t work that way. To understand this, let’s review for a moment. In 1865, at the moment the slaves were freed, the vast majority of them were illiterate. They lacked not only the ability to read, but most other necessary social, educational, and professional skills to simply walk out and compete in a job market. There are two aspects to this that bear particular emphasis: first, illiteracy and lack of education is multi-generational. We know, from extensive studies conducted in the 20th century, that children who are raised in a house with poorly educated parents will suffer a deficit of thousands of words in their functional vocabulary in comparison to children of educated parents – and this in early elementary school. Once in school, this deficit widens, rather than narrows, the gap between the haves and the have-nots, educationally speaking. By the time these students reach high school, the gap in performance is tremendous. This is carried over from generation to generation, unless positive action is taken to break it. Which leads us to our second point of emphasis: rather than taking positive action to break this cycle, the U.S. then institutionalized discrimination for the next century, giving black Americans access to second-rate education and opportunities. You’re a fan of facts, so you know this to be true. Jim Crow was not imaginary.

            I was in school when the first black children were integrated into our schools. This didn’t break the cycle, but it was sure a necessary first step.

            The key element here is that you want to paint the current situation as if it existed in isolation: the laws today are apparently either color-blind or favor minorities, so what’s the problem? The problem, of course, is that the environment in which the black community lives is not self-made, it’s the environment that they inherited from centuries of brutality and oppression, and that didn’t magically change in 1865 or 1965.

            So your society systematically enslaved blacks because of their race for centuries; formally and systematically oppressed them for another century; and then, slowly, started to change the laws, and even more slowly the social attitudes, and you blame the black community for looking at their situation through the lens of race? What hypocrisy.

            Instead of spending your time and effort trying to figure out why none of this is your fault, consider that as a citizen of a democratic country, problems can be your responsibility without being your fault.

            “None of it worked because blacks didn’t make it work.”

            None of it worked because it didn’t address the roots of the problem. Big difference.

            “Why am I not surprised you would parrot the party line? ”

            Because you reach your conclusions and then try to cherrypick facts to support them, rather than trying to actually understand the situation. Because you’ve buried yourself into an us-versus-them mentality that has divided the country into “liberal” and “conservative” and you cheer for your own team with the same enthusiasm, and the same sense of rationality, that you cheer for the Heat or the Browns or the Red Sox. You hear some pointed questions from me and, instead of actually thinking, you fill in the blanks from your Manichaean narrative. You’re not surprised because you’ve lost the capacity for surprise; there’s your side, and the other side.

            “Why don’t you explain how it is that in an era where the top athletes,
            music stars, and the president are black, whites are oppressing blacks? I’m all ears.”

            Well, no, you’re not all ears, you’re all mouth and spleen, but I’ll take a shot anyhow. The president is black; how many Congressmen are? How much of the judiciary? How much of the bar? How many of the CEOs and CFOs and board members of our largest corporations? The president is black; and some of our top sports stars and fewer of our top musical stars and even fewer of our top actors, but they’re there; but that’s not our power structure. Our society and our norms and our laws and our jobs and our schools are not run by rappers and basketball players and the one black president (though don’t let Omar hear you assert that he’s black, because Omar finds it very important that he’s mixed race). Black Americans are still very much overrepresented among the poor and underrepresented among the influential, and that wasn’t fixed by passing the Civil Rights Act and declaring everything okay now.

            “It doesn’t exactly redound to your intellectual credit, either.”

            You don’t appear to be in much of a position to award or withhold intellectual credit, but your opinion is noted all the same. It’s your selectiveness regarding facts, not facts, that lead me to compare you unfavorably to Ickes.

          • camp7

            “The environment in which they live is self-created.”

            Well, it seems to be a product of a separate socio/political environment inherent to their race that resists conformity — truebearing is correct.

            “None of it worked because blacks didn’t make it work.”

            Again, why didn’t it ever work in Africa? Is it above their general aptitude to adopt a democratic policy transcending the basic motives of tribal differences to realize the benefits of tribal tolerance?

            What the hell (does) black have to do with it hiernonymous?? You espouse a sympathetic ideology that is contrary to relative events based on a hypothetical premise to defend the negative behavioral patterns of a tribe that has benefited from an integrated republic, including constitutional representation that has granted them reform.

            Pick another ethnic group, and see if they would measure to the same low standards as your selected argument. My observations tell me that they have exceeded your offense.

          • hiernonymous

            “Pick another ethnic group, and see if they would measure to the same low standards as your selected argument.”

            Challenge accepted.

            In re your argument concerning blacks in Africa, I think that you’ll find that the indigenous populations of every continent were colonized by Europeans experienced the same sort of dislocation, breakdown in their own societies, and struggles to rebuild something along European lines. Native Americans, both North and South, still occupy the lowest rungs of the social ladders in their countries. Australian aborigines are largely excluded from Australian economic and social life, and have life expectancies and crude birth and death rates more appropriate to the developing world than to a member of the Commonwealth. Hawaiians still occupy the lower rungs of the economic ladder in Hawaii.

            Perhaps more interesting from your race perspective, Greece, the birthplace of democracy and Western Civilization, seems to have an ongoing struggle making anything like a modern democracy work.

            If you’re actually interested in an answer to the question “why,” concerning Africa and its state of development, there are a couple of worthwhile places to start. I highly recommend reading Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel as a thoughtful examination of the question: “why did Europe colonize the world, instead of the other way around?” The nutshell answer has a great deal to do with the fact that Africa and the Americas are oriented North-South, while Eurasia is oriented East-West. As a result, crop discoveries in Eurasia could be shared by neighboring civilizations, leading to more reliable food supplies that supported urbanization, whereas in the other hearths of civilizations, those societies were pretty much stuck with what was locally available. There’s more to it than that – he also notes the lack of an animal in Africa or the Americas that both can be domesticated and is large enough to be useful for transportation and agriculture. but that gives you the basic sense of why Europeans conquered the Aztecs and Zulus, not the other way around. He does a pretty good job of examining, and rejecting, race-oriented theories.

            In my own experience, race-based theories rarely hold up. I think I’ve mentioned before the studies of Trevor Dupuy, who, in the course of doing some research for a military computer simulation for the Army, ran across a statistical anomoly: in both World Wars, an examinatio of the results of all available accounts of battalion-level combat indicatged that the Germans had inflicted about 1.5 casualties on their enemies for every casualty. That’s statistically enormous. He then proceeded to abandon the original research to pursue this: WHY did the Germans so consistently outperform their enemies? In the context of this conversation, one of the theories that had to be considered was racial: “Teutons are superior soldiers,” or something along those lines. One way he was able to examine that was to look at the U.S. Civil War, since there were several all-German divisions fighting for the Union Army. This allowed him to control for other factors (training, upbringing, equipment, etc), and he found that Germans performed no better than any other soldiers (and, in two divisions, considerably worse).
            (In case you’re interested, though it’s not relevant to this post, he concluded that it was the German general staff training system that gave them the edge; their officers were consistently better-trained than their counterparts in other armies.)

            In the case of blacks in America, Occam’s Razor suggests that if you’ve isolated a group on the basis of race and consistently abused them over many generations, that they then underperform members of the dominant culture cannot be taken as evidence of racial inferiority, when a much more obvious and simple explanation is so plain.

            To claim that blacks occupy a social and economic space that is wholly of their own making is to wish away slavery and Jim Crow, and you don’t get to do that. Not while claiming respect for ‘facts.’

            I’d guess – and this is not critical to any of the foregoing reasoning, but for what it’s worth – that you resist the obvious for two reasons. One, it implies that your own forebears weren’t quite the upstanding folks we were taught they were, and you probably feel that accepting this explanation implies that the plight of blacks in America is somehow your fault, and you know darn well you haven’t done anything wrong. Two, it implies that there’s still an obligation to help set things right, and that involves a threat to what you have and what you’ve worked for in order to help people that, frankly, you don’t really like to being with. Those are powerful motives, and rather than deal with them, I think a lot of people would prefer to take truebearing’s approach. That’s why I distinguish between fault, which I don’t think any living American bears, and responsibility, wjhich I think we all bear.

          • Alisia S

            Colonization was the best thing to have happened to many of these primitive places. A book selection that you should familiarize yourself with would be, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by American psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and political scientist Charles Murray.

          • hiernonymous

            I’m familiar with The Bell Curve. Thomas Sowell seems to be held in high regard on this board; his comment on the conclusions reached on race and intelligence included:

            When European immigrant groups in the United States scored below the national average on mental tests, they scored lowest on the abstract parts of those tests. So did white mountaineer children in the United States tested back in the early 1930s… Strangely, Herrnstein and Murray refer to “folklore” that “Jews and other immigrant groups were thought to be below average in intelligence.” It was neither folklore nor anything as subjective as thoughts. It was based on hard data, as hard as any data in The Bell Curve. These groups repeatedly tested below average on the mental tests of the World War I era, both in the army and in civilian life. For Jews, it is clear that later tests showed radically different results—during an era when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of American Jews.

            At any rate, what argument are you suggesting that The Bell Curve supports? You’re suggesting that its conclusions on race and intelligence demonstrate that colonization was a good policy, along the lines of Kipling’s White Man’s Burden?

          • Drakken

            When the Europeans had colonialism, countries ran extremely well, commerce and trade thrived, when they left, they went to the absolute lowest common denominator. Rhodesia is a great example and South Africa is turning into the same.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Practical real life outcomes matter far more than intelligence tests.

          • hiernonymous

            Should I take your comment as an answer to the question I posed Alisia, or was it offered more in the spirit of a side observation?

            If the former, practical real life outcomes of colonization suggest that it was pretty disastrous for most of the people involved.

            If the latter – well, okay, I suppose so. Tests are tools to try to help us understand the world, not a substitute for living in it. I have my doubts about the validity of IQ testing. The Bell Curve wouldn’t have been my first choice of books that might be useful in framing the topic, but there you are.

          • truebearing

            What a load of over-intellectualized crap.

            Greece is breaking down because the population fell for the lies of the Left. The parasitic ideology has eaten the host. Now both are dying. It is the same dynamic in every country on earth that has ever been suckered into being ruled by any derivation of Marxism. And the problems blacks are having in America has everything to do with the envy and hate of whites that the Left encouraged, combined with the welfare state which destroyed black family structure. With one hand the Left inculcated hate and envy of whites, with the other they rewarded those who responded to their sick, evil scheme to create racial division.

            When black families were intact, in the 50′s for instance, they performed far better academically and were far less prone to violence. The Left’s evil scheme to turn blacks into a hate motivated, monolithic voting block worked, unfortunately, and many blacks have since suffered at least as much as they did as slaves. look at the destitution of Detroit, where between unions and Democratic leadership, the city has been gutted…despite the hundreds of millions squandered on your idiotic solutions.

            The hidden premise of your argument is that blacks and Native Americans can’t be responsible for themselves, that they are in fact inferior, and that society, ie. elite white leftists, have to do their thinking for them and make sure they get a “fair share.” Typical “social justice” racist hypocrisy.

            You consistently try to ignore the fact that both blacks and Native Americans were primitive, tribal societies before their clash with Europeans. Certainly they weren’t adapted to the alien culture they found themselves in, and understandably rejected the new, more complex culture. Teaching them to hate those who descended from those who imposed this alien, dominant culture certainly wasn’t a way to help them assimilate, was it? But it was a great way for the Left to begin its divisive destruction of our representative government. In other words, the Left didn’t give a damn about Native Americans or Blacks, nor did they cease in their divisive efforts once they could see it was severely hurting both populations. No, their power was the only consideration. I don’t see you decrying that heinous behavior. Why not?

          • hiernonymous

            “I don’t see you decrying that heinous behavior. Why not?”

            Because to this point it’s not been brought up in any relevant fashion.

            Let’s deal with a couple of your contentions. You argue that blacks were doing better in the ’50s, and that the welfare prescriptions of the ’60s actually hurt them.

            I don’t think that’s entirely wrong. One of the problems with your oversimplified us-vs-them approach is that, instead of actually reading, understanding, and responding to what’s actually written, you use party-driven shorthand and make assumptions.

            My argument is that blacks exist in a context in which they are too seriously disadvantaged to simply say “hey, everyone’s equal now, no problem.” I think it’s clear that there is a problem, and that we’re responsible for fixing it.

            That said, nothing about that suggests that I believe that a welfare regime is necessarily the appropriate direction. I think that welfare regimes do tend to breed dependence, rather than self-reliance, and tend to be counterproductive. Attributing any such belief to me is a sign of intellectual laziness on your part.

            And while blacks in the ’50s may have had some social attributes that were preferable to what emerged in the ’70s, they were still in an unacceptable position vis-a-vis the dominant culture.

            I don’t doubt that there are cynical politicians in every party who will manipulate people for votes. There’s a shortage of saints in the ranks of all parties, but I suspect that the programs of the ’60s represented more a good-faith effort to address injustice than some sort of cynical attempt to create a permanently beholden reliable voting underclass. But intentions don’t really matter if the results are unacceptable, and while you and I don’t agree on why, we do agree on the fact that the results have not been acceptable.

            “The hidden premise of your argument is that blacks and Native Americans can’t be responsible for themselves, that they are in fact inferior, and that society, ie. elite white leftists, have to do their thinking for them and make sure they get a “fair share.” Typical “social justice”
            racist hypocrisy.”

            But hardly an honest, intellectually or otherwise, summary of my position or its implications.

            Again, I don’t have a prescription in hand. I’m inclined to believe that a good one would be rooted in a massive re-orientation of our educational system. Whatever effort we make must be focused on the children; possibly a 3-generation effort at breaking the impact of generational poverty and educational exlusion on the very young.

            But the whole “blacks choose to be poor, etc” is a bogus position, and the fact that some attempts to address the problem were ineffective or even counterproductive does not make the problem evaporate, or shift responsibility for it.

          • camp7

            I expected you would.

            “I think that you’ll find that the indigenous populations of every continent were colonized by Europeans experienced the same sort of dislocation, breakdown in their own societies, and struggles to rebuild something along European lines.”

            We’re all indigenous to planet earth. We all came from tribes that, I suppose, were dislocated many times.

            Not having read Diamond’s work I can only comment on your summary. While Diamond may have taken a geographical or regional approach I think his supposition is rather limited, unless one considers a northern climate being more stimulative towards industrial development.

            “crop discoveries in Eurasia could be shared by neighboring civilizations, leading to more reliable food supplies that supported urbanization, whereas in the other hearths of civilizations, those societies were pretty much stuck with what was locally available.”

            Agriculture developed in the Levant and Aegean areas as early as 6000 BCE, later along the Nile, and transported by navigable waters. In Southwest and Central America it was produced by Mesoamericans about the same period give or take a thousand years. More recently in Zimbabwe and South Africa before the current regression to primitive mannerisms, again.

            Large transport animals did play an important role moving commodities, I would add that their domestication was in part due to specie attributes and also the result of learned animal husbandry skills for multiple applications.

            Was it not the development of individual family units over tribal constructs that started civilizations, promoting sustainable societies and forms of government reflecting group intellectual status? You know, the old ‘nuclear family’ concept that is the template (or use to be) for community forward.

            Statistics, well yeah, still need to be astute with the input metrics.

            “that you resist the obvious”

            I don’t resist the obvious and I don’t except the fault. The fact that there is antisocial behavioral patterns and intellectual inequities exhibited by groups or subgroups sometimes distinguished by race is really quite obvious.

            I’m nobody’s judge, and I will agree that we as a society should take responsibility, but not as apologists for certain traits and choices that are detrimental to our welfare.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Other groups have escaped generational poverty, climbed the ladder no matter how unrepresented they were and reached the middle and the top.

            It’s all a matter of attitude.

          • hiernonymous

            Really? The only other group in the U.S. I can think of whose collective treatment even remotely approached that of the chattel slaves would be the Native Americans, and I don’t see any sign that the whole Little Engine That Could prescription worked real well for them.

          • Alisia S

            Aside from IQ being a predictor of financial achievement, how much crime was committed by non-blacks during the Great Depression? A cursory examination of some of this nation’s poorest of the poor in the Appalachian region of West Virginia doesn’t seem to agree with your poverty-causes-crime thesis. In fact, some would argue the reverse is true.

            If black crime was geographically isolated then your argument would at least hold some water but that isn’t the case. Not only is every large, predominantly black, city a no-go zone after dark here in the US, but we also find the SAME pattern for blacks in the UK and other parts of Europe who were never subjected to slavery. Gee, what’s up with that?

            American whites, like no other people in history, have bent over backwards to help people outside of their own racial group. It is unprecedented on this planet yet it is NEVER enough.

            That old crutch of raaaacism is wearing thin.

          • truebearing

            Ah, now you vex him with facts. Not his forte. He likes to stay well ensconced in the realm of theory, where he can be right even when empirical evidence says he isn’t. It’s kind of a relativistic solipsism thing he uses to maintain self-righteousness.

          • Alisia S

            LOL! I know. He is such a predictable leftist.

          • Drakken

            Well he certain proves that those who can’t, teach.

          • hiernonymous

            She’s alluded to facts, but hasn’t presented them yet. Don’t let your spleen erode your standards, or lead you to fail to understand what you’re reading.

          • hiernonymous

            “…but we also find the SAME pattern for blacks in the UK and other parts
            of Europe who were never subjected to slavery. Gee, what’s up with that?”

            Well, first, when you say “never subjected to slavery,” that simply not true, but Britain certainly dealt with its slavery issue more promptly and effectively than did we, so let’s not belabor that point.
            What stats are you referring to? I can’t tell you ‘what’s up with that’ until you get a bit more specific. My impression of crime in the UK was that it was associated with poor immigrant populations, not simply race. Most of my friends tell me that there are some truly scary white populations in the Scottish cities and in the big industrial towns of the Midlands. In Germany, it was popularly attributed to Turkish, not black, parts of town. My impression of France was that the North African, not the sub-Saharan African, parts of town were the roughest. But you might have some better information; I’m happy to read it.

            “American whites, like no other people in history, have bent over
            backwards to help people outside of their own racial group. It is
            unprecedented on this planet yet it is NEVER enough.”

            Seriously? A couple of centuries of slavery, another century of Jim Crow, then we finally pass some civil rights legislation and we are the world’s example of racial benevolence?

            “That old crutch of raaaacism is wearing thin.”

            Wow – if it’s wearing on you to hear about it, imagine how thin it must wear to be on the receiving end of it.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3639212/Failure-has-no-father.html

            The horrible spate of killings prompted the Prime Minister to state a truth that is certainly obvious, but too often left unsaid: the violence is not going to be stopped by “pretending it is not young black kids doing it”.

            “I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them,” Blair said.

            “We need to stop thinking of this as a society that has gone wrong – it has not – but of specific groups that for specific reasons have gone outside of the proper lines of respect and good conduct towards others and need specific measures to be brought back into the fold.”

          • hiernonymous

            Interesting article. You’ll note that it actually reinforces the link with poverty (albeit couching it in the “while most poor people aren’t criminals, most criminals are poor” type of presentation). You’ll also note that it’s an op-ed piece, not a news report.

            Let’s start by observing that the “young black kids” comment applies to London, not Britain as a whole; as the same paper’s 2010 look at the issue noted. Britain’s black population is concentrated very largely in London, and is generally young and poor. If you look at crime statistics for Britain as a whole, blacks are over-represented in comparison to their percentage of the population – but are actually a small percentage overall. (Blacks are about 2.7% of the population of the UK; 8% of the arrests. You might find this a more rigorous look at race and crime statistics than the Telegraph piece.)

            Note also that the much more rigorous 2003 longitudinal analysis in the UK places primacy on socioeconomic and social factors. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110314171826/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/horr19c.pdf

            Note also your own article’s conclusion:

            As last week’s survey on social trends demonstrates, single-parent families in Britain are increasing fast. There are now three times the
            number of children being brought up just by their mothers than there
            were 30 years ago. One in every four children is raised without a father. The proportion has reached one in every two in black families, who furnish a predictably greater number of child criminals. This is not an issue about race or marriage: it is about the presence of fathers.”

            Although this is a pretty standard conservative take on crime and its causes, in the context of Britain, your article suggests that the primary culprit may be government programs that give single mothers an incentive to have children, leading to the fatherless households that your article blames for the crime spree, not race. While that’s editorializing rather than rigorous study, let’s take it at face value for a moment and think about what’s implied for our conversation.

            Your piece explicitly discounts race as a causal factor. It looks to governmental structural programs with unintended social consequences as the root of the black crime being addressed. That rather reinforces, rather than undermines, the idea that systematic government policy has lasting effects on social dynamics. Odd that the structure of welfare payments could have such devastating effect, yet we don’t think that slavery and Jim Crow could do any lasting damage.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Welfare exists in the present day. Slavery doesn’t. Not counting places like Mauritania or Saudi Arabia.

          • hiernonymous

            Slavery might not, but the lingering effects of slavery do. “Slavery” sounds like ancient history, doesn’t it? But Jim Crow was in effect into the 1960s – and, as we’ve noted, eliminating the most overt manifestations of Jim Crow didn’t magically erase its effects, or even establish a fair and just system in its wake.

            I have students in my classrooms whose parents or grandparents were not allowed to attend the white public schools. You don’t think things like that still have a material impact today? Have you wished away the generational effects of educational deprivation?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Jim Crow was in effect in some places in the 60s. The places where Jim Crow wasn’t in effect aren’t all that much better.

          • hiernonymous

            They weren’t all that much better in those days, either.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Or any days and that’s the problem. Not Jim Crow or any other excuse.

          • hiernonymous

            You seem rather fixated on the idea that framing the problem in a way that take into account slavery, Jim Crow, etc, involves an excuse. It seems to be a blame-centered approach in which you are more interested in whose fault the problem is than in actually addressing the issue.

            I find the research into the generational effects of illiteracy and exclusion from education alone to be compelling reason to not dismiss the lingering effects of the whole formal separate-but-”equal” structure, to say nothing of the informal social issues.

            Just out of curiosity, what approach is suggested by your outlook? Tougher laws and bigger prisons? Kvetch about how it’s all their own fault and avoid the bad parts of town? It’s interesting that one of the critiques I ran across tonight suggested that the U.S. was in danger of becoming more like Lain America, where conservatives stop trying to address social problems and retreat into fortified enclaves, to leave the poor to degenerate into greater violence and poverty. Is that what “it’s their own fault” implies? If not, how do we avoid traveling down that path if we’re not willing to puzzle out and fix the structural problems?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You can thank the reservations for that.

            Every generation of immigrants started on the bottom and then began moving up.

            It’s a choice that people make.

          • hiernonymous

            “It’s a choice that people make.”

            If you’re invoking ‘choice,’ you’ve missed a key element of slavery – and, for that matter, of Plessy v Ferguson and Jim Crow.

            “Every generation of immigrants started on the bottom…”

            Well, no, there haven’t been many immigrants who started on any ‘bottom’ remotely comparable to what African Americans suffered.

            The argument, of course, is not that anyone – including African Americans – does not have to make an effort; the problem is that you’re trying to wish away the impact of institutionalized abuse. and it’s not that simple.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            There are plenty of modern African immigrants in this country. You might want to update your worldview.

            As for starting at the bottom, indentured Irish servants started fairly low.

          • hiernonymous

            “As for starting at the bottom, indentured Irish servants started fairly low.”

            Yep, they did. Where were the servants’ children educated? How much were they sold for? Not quite bottom, was it?

            “There are plenty of modern African immigrants in this country.”

            Was there a substantive point this was supporting? Are you suggesting that modern African immigration erases the irony of invoking ‘choice’ in this context?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s been quite a while since anyone has been selling anyone’s children. Go back far enough and any of us could have been the children of slaves.

            Certainly my people were.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s been even longer since we had indentured servants.

            It hasn’t been long at all since Jim Crow. Integration of schools happened in my lifetime. And yours, presumably, based on previous comments you’ve made.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The median age for African-Americans is 31. Jim Crow isn’t the issue either. It certainly isn’t the issue in New York.

          • hiernonymous

            Really? Who do you think raised those 31-year-olds?

          • CaoMoo

            Italians were not well liked, were treated poorly, and they for the most part have made it through that. The Irish as well as the Chinese etc.

          • hiernonymous

            How many laws were passed making it a crime to educate Italians? I’ve heard of NINA, but I missed “O’Shaughnessy v Ferguson.” As I said, the only group that was so systematically debased and oppressed in this country was arguably the Native Americans, and their outcomes have been roughly comparable.

          • Lightbringer

            Sorry, my husband is a Native American and he has a PhD in computer science from one of the world’s most prestigious technical universities. Nobody ever gave him a leg up because of his ancestry, and nobody ever held him back either. This is, after all, America. Or at least it was.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes. Nothing about anything I’ve said suggests that there aren’t individuals in both groups enjoying stunning success. That said, the reservations and widespread problems in the Native American communities aren’t imaginary, either.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            There were plenty of groups that suffered just as badly in their home countries.

            But we can play the “Who’s the bigger victim” game forever.

            There are always excuses for failure.

          • hiernonymous

            The issue, of course, is not making “excuses for failure,” but accurately diagnosing and solving a problem.

          • Lightbringer

            The Irish were treated worse than any black slaves, because they were totally expendable. Black slaves were expensive, so Irishmen were used in the extremely dangerous jobs running steamboats. Many were killed, and nobody cared. And the Chinese were actually slaves, also expendable; they were the ones who used explosives — and this was before Nobel’s invention of the relatively stable and safe dynamite — to create tunnels for the transcontinental railroads. Both groups were despised. Many laws were passed to exclude them from any meaningful progress, but both groups pulled themselves up in spite of it.

          • Alisia S

            I see. According to you, blacks are in perpetual need of white assistance. Nearly helpless without heroic efforts and money from whites. The vestiges of raaacism will require another 500 years (and many more millions of white tax-slaves) to recede.

          • truebearing

            His hidden premise is that blacks and Native Americans are inferior, or why would they need so much help? Even if he manages to weasel out of the charge that he considers them intellectual inferior, he still has to explain why it is that they can’t recover from their admittedly heinous treatment. Are they unable to recover from a relatively short period of injustice? Jews have been enslaved and persecuted for hundreds and hundreds of years more than blacks in America, yet are the single most successful people on earth. How does he explain the immense disparity in reaction to adversity? More nuanced charges of racism, most likely.

            I would suggest hieronymous read “Cradles of Eminence.” It chronicles the lives of tremendously successful people who had horrible childhoods. If his idiotic theory was true, there is no way those children could have achieved what they did.

          • hiernonymous

            “His hidden premise is that blacks and Native Americans are inferior, or why would they need so much help?”

            They need so much help, not because they are inferior, but because they exist in a structure that was designed to ensure that they could not achieve parity with whites.

            You complain that I am condescending to you, but when you mischaracterize my argument on a matter this basic, then I can only conclude that you either do not understand a pretty straightforward position, or that being intellectually honest takes a back seat to trying to take a rhetorical jab.

            “…he still has to explain why it is that they can’t recover from their admittedly heinous treatment…”

            You apparently can’t read, much less draw an inference. When I discuss the generational impact of educational exclusion and of generational poverty, did you not understand that I was addressing precisely this point? Again, it would be one thing if you understood my argument and disputed it with reason and facts of your own, but this comment suggests that you read my comment with absolutely no understanding of its implications.

            “How does he explain the immense disparity in reaction to adversity?”

            Because the nature of said adversity is not comparable. Jews have suffered greatly at the hands of many people, but the nature of that suffering is generally a characteristic of their lives as a distinctive cultural minority within other dominant cultures. At various times and places, they have had their career options limited, they have been subjected to selective taxes, they have been required to live in ghettos, etc, but they’ve generally not been denied the ability to raise and educate their children to the same or better standard of their host states. There’s no real comparison with the sorts of mistreatment the Jews suffered, and the systematic chattel slavery practiced in the United States, in which education was not simply neglected, but actively prohibited; in which men had no right to marry women, and in which the children could be and were sold off. Whereas the Jews, even in adversity, had their social structures and their ability to educate their children intact, that was utterly denied African Americans.

            To put it another way, when the Jews suffered a pogrom or a forced migration, those who were left to pick up the pieces were at least individuals of sound education and strong social traditions who had the tools to do so. Black Americans, on the other hand, found themselves freed in the millions, but the overwhelming majority did not have the tools to compete, nor the tools to teach their children to compete.

            “More nuanced charges of racism, most likely.”

            Again, this suggests that you either do not understand my argument, or that your desire to undermine it exceeds your integrity. The Jews were in different circumstances; there’s no racial component to that.

            “If his idiotic theory was true, there is no way those children could have achieved what they did.”

            This suggests that you don’t fully understand your own argument. It’s one thing for the occasional exceptional individual to rise above his circumstances; it’s another entirely to suggest that the existence of such exceptional individuals implies that adverse circumstances are inconsequential and acceptable.

            I recently mentioned Dupuy’s study of German combat performance in the World Wars. Interestingly, he was compelled to write his book (A Genius for War, if you’re interested) because he was trying to figure out why the Germans inflicted more casualties on their enemies so consistently. I mentioned that he concluded that the answer was the General Staff training system. Oddly enough, there’s a congruence between his study and the lesson you’re mistakenly drawing here. In a nutshell, he notes that most armies rely on circumstance and luck to identify its genius commanders. There are great military leaders in every country, and most countries identify them by observing performance in combat and promoting those who show talent. No country is without its Pattons, Davouts, Kutuzovs. But Dupuy argued that German went one better: rather than relying on luck and time to identify the few that could rise above their circumstances, the Germans decided to identify the skills the great leaders possessed and systematically train their officers in those skills. Dupuy argued that Germany, in effect, created its geniuses instead of waiting for them to emerge naturally. The lesson here is that your assumption that the intermittent emergence of exceptional individuals who rise above adversity implies that everyone could do so with just an act of will is flawed, but contains this truth: if we were to create the equivalent of the General Staff – that is, if we made the conscious effort to help the greater number achieve what the exceptional can – then adversity can be overcome. But not by sitting around and saying “you just didn’t want it enough.”

            Perhaps you should hold off on describing things as “idiotic” for a bit.

          • Drakken

            I will give you credit where credit is due, you called the German Generals and their abilities extremely well. Except one thing, on the eastern front, the Germans to Russians was 20 or more to one. The average according to the German review was 12-14 depending on the battlefield situation. My grandfather used to say the Russians were extremely predicable and lacked imagination, first arty barrages then armor and then infantry with very little air coordination. The Russian tactic basically was throw more Russians at the problem.

          • hiernonymous

            Sorry, didn’t see this earlier. Thanks.

            On the matter of the casualty ratio, Dupuy was just looking at records of battalion-on-battalion battles. He didn’t try to account for all casulaties, or, for example, the huge numbers of troops rolled up in the early kesselschlachts or, later, in the collapse of German pockets.

          • truebearing

            Explain, in detail, how that structure was designed to prevent parity.

            You’re condescending to everyone.

            I haven’t mischaracterized anything, and you didn’t address anything in my previous comment with anything but boilerplate Marxist hogwash. You are making an argument that inescapably requires blacks and native Americans to be inferior, makes white people to blame, and establishes leftists as the ones with the answer. If even one of those elements is missing, your entire argument falls apart. Well it has fallen apart but you apparently can’t figure that out.

            You minimize the suffering and persecution of the Jews because it destroys your brittle argument. I am not arguing that the enslaving of blacks wasn’t a devastating and evil thing, but I’m not conceding that it is so much worse than anything any other ethnic or racial group ever endured that it requires a perpetual nanny state for the descendants — not the victims — of slavery. Another hidden premise of your theory is that damage was done on a mitochondrial level and it can’t be exorcised by any other method than endless reparations and wearing of hair shirts. Nonsense.

            Plenty of blacks have long since exorcised the demons of slavery by standing on their own two feet, thinking for themselves, dedicating themselves to an education, and taking responsibility for their own lives. Your foolish prescription only weakens the patient and convinces him he is too weak to function without your help. That, my friend, is a peculiarly pernicious form of compassion.

          • hiernonymous

            “Explain, in detail, how that structure was designed to prevent parity. ”

            Well, let’s see. There’s denial of access to the white public schools. Plessy v Ferguson formalized denial of black access to the same government services as whites, such as education and transportation. In many Northern states, education was segregated de facto where it wasn’t segregated de jure. Indiana had segregated schools; several others (e.g. New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) had state laws against segregation, but schools were formally segregated at the town level. These schools received far less funding than did white schools; they were generally staffed by black faculty, who themselves had been denied access to the first rate colleges and universities, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of exclusion and inadequacy.

            By the turn of the century, many states had implemented literacy tests and poll taxes designed to keep black voters away from the polls, which in turn had a cascading effect on their ability to influence law and policy. (Many of those states had ‘grandfather’ clauses in these laws that exempted one from the tests if they or a relative had voted “before 1866,” thus preventing the laws from disenfranchising poor or illiterate whites). The Federal Civil Service was formally segregated in 1913.

            The military was segregated. Blacks were put in separate units that generally received inferior equipment, inferior training, and in which most of the senior officers were white. (Interestingly, although Truman was prejudiced himself, he also recognized that the treatment black soldiers were getting on their return from WWII was an injustice, and eventually led him to pressure the military into formal desegregation.)

            Apart from the obvious effects, there are pernicious side effects of
            segregation regimes. Being denied access to the same clubs, parks,
            transportation, restaurants, and toilets ensured that blacks could not
            socialize with the influential elements of their communities. There was
            no ‘networking,’ no access to business opportunities, no access to
            informal networks of information.

            “You are making an argument that inescapably requires blacks and native
            Americans to be inferior, makes white people to blame, and establishes
            leftists as the ones with the answer. If even one of those elements is
            missing, your entire argument falls apart. Well it has fallen apart but
            you apparently can’t figure that out.”

            TB, what in the world are you ranting about now? What do you imagine my “argument” to be, such that it falls apart when any of these elements is missing?

            To argue that a social structure puts a particular group at a disadvantage in no way implies that the members of that group are “inferior.” Your logic appears to be based on the idea that such a position implies that blacks, for example, are less capable than whites of taking care of themselves. But that’s not remotely implied. First, implicit in the construction is that blacks, having been denied access to tools routinely available to whites, and having to overcome obstacles not faced by whites, are not faced with the same problem set. Put another way, if I toss X into a four foot deep hole, and I toss Y into a fifteen foot deep hole, there’s no implicit assumption that Y is “inferior” if one suggests that Y is going to need some help getting out of his hole.

            “Makes white people to blame.” I’m not sure what you even mean by this. I suppose it’s correct, to the extent that the chattel slavery system in the United States was a system designed and operated by and for the benefit of white men, and enslaved black men, notwithstanding the exceptional participation of a few black men as slaveowners. That said, your statement appears to imply that I’m blaming today’s white people for slavery. That’s not the case, nor is it clear how whatever you appear to believe my ‘argument’ to be would collapse if that element were removed. I argue that all citizens of the U.S. are responsible for correcting the problem, and that includes white people, but nothing I’ve said suggests that blaming white people is necessary or relevant.

            “And establishes leftists as the ones with the answers.”

            That would be some trick, since I haven’t yet proposed an answer. I suppose that if you are such an extremist that you see any action that has governmental involvement to be “leftist,” then I suppose that there’s no escaping that label, but it becomes pretty meaningless.

            When you talked about “reparations” and “atonement,” you clearly were mischaracterizing my comments. Nothing I’ve said suggests that we should be paying anybody anything as reparations. Heck, I haven’t even suggested that the appropriate path forward involves welfare or any of the other ongoing dependency-breeding solutions that you’re already so vigorously attacking.

            As I’ve mentioned before, I haven’t offered a solution – and don’t think I owe you a proposal, just yet – but I suspect that a massive overhaul of the education system would be a key element. A proposal would be premature because it has to address the problem, and we haven’t reached consensus on the problem just yet.

            “Your foolish prescription…”

            Again, you seem to be well ahead of me. What is my prescription?

            “You minimize the suffering and persecution of the Jews because it destroys your brittle argument.”

            Really? I don’t recall minimizing anyone’s suffering. What I did argue is that we’re not playing a game of comparative suffering – who is the biggest victim – but we’re trying to address a problem. The sorts of persecutions that the Jews have suffered have been of a different nature, and lead to different problems. If this were a thread about, say, the relative rights of Palestinians and Jews to Israel, I would not raise the experience of black Americans in chattel slavery – it simply wouldn’t be relevant or appropriate.

            “Another hidden premise of your theory is that damage was done on a
            mitochondrial level and it can’t be exorcised by any other method than
            endless reparations and wearing of hair shirts. Nonsense.”

            Well, yes, a point of agreement – nonsense! Of course, it’s even greater nonsense that you think I’ve advanced any such argument.

            “You’re condescending to everyone.”

            Perhaps. But you’ve let it derange you, and you’ve long since stopped responding to arguments I’ve actually made.

            I’ve extended you the great courtesy of responding to your rant anyway. Please avail yourself of the opportunity to read what I’ve written and take a moment or two to digest it before you start composing your next diatribe on the nanny state, dependency, and implied racism.

            Best wishes on a speedy recovery.

          • truebearing

            Utter nonsense. You describe structural problems that no longer exist and haven’t for decades. Black students today are performing worse than ever, despite immense amounts of money being spent per student. The only way your deluded argument makes any sense is if you can prove that blacks are singularly incapable of adapting, or have some kind of DNA damage from the past that is inherited. Of course, you can’t argue that or you’d be arguing that blacks are inferior. Myself and others have pointed out that many ethnic groups have overcome serious adversity in as little as a generation.

            The truth remains that your argument proceeds from a hidden premise that blacks are inferior and therefore need white liberals to “help” them. Looking at the record of the liberal educational agenda and then at black academic performance, I’d say you people are the worst enemies of blacks who want an education.

          • hiernonymous

            You describe structural problems that no longer exist and haven’t for decades.

            Really? It’s true that the overt legal aspect of the problem has been overturned. On the other hand, de facto segregation still prevails in much of our country. There may not actually be “black” and “white” schools, in the formal sense, but most big cities I’m familiar with are effectively segregated. That’s an observation, not an indictment. I don’t suggest that they are de facto segregated as the result of some sort of clandestine effort by whites to keep minorities down, or any such. It happens largely as the result of socioeconomic status, and while many black Americans have been quite successful, there has never yet been a time when blacks are not disproportionately poor.

            “Black students today are performing worse than ever, despite immense amounts of money being spent per student. ”

            I’m not sure what you consider “immense” to be – I’ve never thought that educational spending in the U.S. has ever been “immense.” But your underlying point is perfectly sound: increased spending has been associated with decreased performance. I don’t think we should conclude that higher spending causes lower performance; it just shows that spending on the wrong things doesn’t help.

            “The only way your deluded argument makes any sense is if you can prove
            that blacks are singularly incapable of adapting, or have some kind of
            DNA damage from the past that is inherited.”

            There’s a third possibility: that the effects of the institutional and structural oppression blacks suffered are generational; that it takes more than a generation or three to overcome them, and that overcoming them requires more than simply ending the active oppression, but in figuring out how to reverse course, as it were. Oddly enough, I’ve actually made this argument to you, which makes me wonder why it didn’t occur to you to include it as a possibility.

            “Myself and others have pointed out that many ethnic groups have overcome serious adversity in as little as a generation.”

            And you haven’t yet cited a group that overcame a comparable adversity in a generation. I believe, for example, that I specifically noted the ongoing impact of exclusion from education; while the groups you cited suffered greatly, none that you brought up included, for example, generations of outright denial of education to effectively all members of the group, followed by generations of relegation to third-rate, under-resourced primary and secondary education. You’re trying to use generalities in an unsupportable way.

            The truth remains that your argument proceeds from a hidden premise that
            blacks are inferior and therefore need white liberals to “help” them.

            And that “truth” stems from your continues willful misinterpretation of my position. I will repeat the analogy I offered you earlier, which you apparently missed in your rush to prepare your response: if you throw one man into a four foot deep hole, and another into a fifteen foot deep hole, there’s no “hidden premise of inferiority” in suggesting that the fellow in the deeper hole is going to need some help getting out of it.

            “I’d say you people…”

            You people? Seriously?

            Save yourself some embarrassment. As long as you’re talking to me, stick with points I’ve made, and don’t try to associate me or my arguments with others you have disagreements with.

            I’d fully agree that much of what you’re thinking of as the ‘liberal agenda’ hasn’t been effective. Some of it has been outright counterproductive. Much as you’ve had difficulty understanding that I don’t support reparations and atonement, I also am not a fan of welfare, in the sense of simply paying people to be alive. I’ve never seen it lead to anything good, however well-intentioned. Some argue that it breeds dependency, and I agree with that. I’ve seen similar phenomena in some of the Persian Gulf rentier states that share their oil revenues with the citizenry. Originally intended as a way of forestalling unrest, it actually breeds resentment and discontent among the large un- or under-employed youth. People need shelter and food, but they also need a purpose, and no solution that doesn’t address that will help us.

          • hiernonymous

            “According to you, blacks are in perpetual need of white assistance.”

            Why, no. First, let me say that I don’t know that I have The Answer to what needs to be done. I think that “perpetual” assistance would be a disaster – but that both serious structural changes, and some form of intense shorter-term effort are needed to break out of the mold we created in our society.

            Perhaps what’s in order is a metaphorical Marshall Plan.

            “white tax-slaves”

            What a curious metaphor that was.

          • truebearing

            “Well, no, it’s not, and this is the rot at the root of your attempt to mask racism with apparent objectivity”

            Well, yes it is, and this is your attempt to hide your paternalistic racism by accusing me of the same. The hidden premise underlying all of your self-righteous blather is that blacks and Native Americans can’t compete without the help of white leftist elitists. You have consistently been an intellectual snob to the intelligent people on this site, so why should anyone believe you aren’t secretly even more contemptuous of blacks with no education? Many can’t read or write, yet just the other day you berated Drakken for his unacceptably low-brow, in your hubris soaked mind, way of communicating. I can only imagine what you would like to say to someone speaking in ebonics, if you had the courage.

            “Despite your attempt to ascribe positions to me I haven’t adopted,”

            I believe the record will show that you are the one who started ascribing things that I haven’t adopted. You accused me of being a racist, repeatedly, because I spoke the truth. You have no grounds for your sniveling about my return fire.

            “Most of the problems you’re describing are those of generational poverty, not race.”

            I didn’t say all of the problems blacks have are because of race. That is your contention. I placed the blame on the Left encouraging a culture of hate, envy, and dependency.

            “I was in school when the first black children were integrated into our schools.”

            Yeah, and my stepson was in school when hordes of Chicago blacks moved into Madison for the bigger welfare checks. The new black students mocked, intimidated, even beat up the black kids from Madison who were trying to get an education. They called them various names, accused them of being “white” and in a few short years, destroyed Madison’s once excellent schools. There was no “hood” in Madison, the city was bending over backwards to help them, but the violence, drug use, and gang activity has only increased. The bottom line is that those black kids rejected education as something the “whitey” does, but not black people. That attitude is directly traceable back to leftist agitators who encouraged blacks to hate whites.

            “Because you reach your conclusions and then try to cherrypick facts to support them”

            At least I respect facts. You are lost in a self-righteous delusion of infinite superiority, where your theories are the ultimate truth. Your problem, or should I say one of your problems, is that once your theories meet facts, they evaporate.

            I don’t cheer for the Red Sox or the Browns. I guess not cheering for the Browns makes me a racist, in your befuddled mind.

            You keep trying to reject duality, which I find amusing, since all of your arguments essentially come down to your duality: your theories, ie. the “truth” vs anyone who challenges your annointed orthodoxy.

            “The president is black; how many Congressmen are? How much of the judiciary? How much of the bar? How many of the CEOs and CFOs and board members of our largest corporations? The president is black; and some of our top sports stars and fewer of our top musical stars and even fewer of our top actors, but they’re there; but that’s not our power structure. Our society and our norms and our laws and our jobs and our schools are not run by rappers and basketball players and the one black president (though don’t let Omar hear you assert that he’s black, because Omar finds it very important that he’s mixed race). Black Americans are still very much overrepresented among the poor and underrepresented among the influential, and that wasn’t fixed by passing the Civil Rights Act and declaring everything okay now.”

            What a singularly idiotic screed.

            Plenty of Congressman are black…the ones who get elected from black districts. i don’t see black districts electing whites, so why should whites automatically elect blacks? What kind of moronic point are you trying to make?

            To be on the judiciary you have to become a lawyer, but first you have to value education. Do the math, and try not to confuse yourself with one of your theories that all amount to malignant confirmation bias.

            Some of our top athletes and some of our top musicians? What is this? Now you’re doing stand-up? That was so pathetic, not to mention disconnected from reality, that you have me laughing. Thanks!

            You’re telling me that there is no power in cultural things like sports or popular music? That’s funny. I could have sworn that the Democrats have expended an immense amount of time cultivating control of our film, music, and television industry. All are quite effective at indoctrination. You need to get out more and stop obsessively working on your Phenomenology of Racial Excuses.

            Did you think the Civil Rights Act meant that blacks would immediately achieve parrity? I’m beginning to see just how delusional you really are.

            “You don’t appear to be in much of a position to award or withhold intellectual credit, but your opinion is noted all the same. It’s your selectiveness regarding facts, not facts, that lead me to compare you unfavorably to Ickes.”

            Another gem. Because I didn’t provide exhaustive amounts of facts, on a website comment section, you compared me to someone who believes Jews are space lizards and the moon is their spacecraft. Okay. That speaks for itself. Whoa.

          • hiernonymous

            “The hidden premise underlying all of your self-righteous blather is that
            blacks and Native Americans can’t compete without the help of white
            leftist elitists.”

            No – at least, not in the race-based sense that would justify this approach as a form of racism. Noting that blacks in America have been systematically oppressed, and that this puts them at a collective disadvantage, is in no wise the same as saying that “all things being equal, blacks cannot compete with whites.” On the contrary, it’s simply pointing out that all things aren’t equal, and simply declaring that “oh, all that oppression stuff is over” doesn’t make it so.

            “You have consistently been an intellectual snob to the intelligent people on this site…”

            Well, first, what does that have to do with you? And, low-hanging fruit aside, you’re letting your personal resentments encroach on your thinking. You don’t like how I talk to others, so you’ll infer that I secretly hold unrelated persons in contempt? That’s simply a convoluted ad hominem. Try to master your personal dislikes, at least enough that they don’t muddle your reasoning.

            “Plenty of Congressman are black…the ones who get elected from black
            districts. i don’t see black districts electing whites, so why should
            whites automatically elect blacks?”

            You were trying to make the argument that blacks have power in our society; I’m pointing out that the people who actually make the rules are overwhelmingly white. You’re stuck on “black districts” and “white districts?” Okay, let’s look at the Senate, which doesn’t have districts. African-Americans make up just under 13% of the U.S. population; if your understanding of our power relations is correct, we’d expect to see about 12 or 13 black senators.

            What’s the actual case? There have been 9 black senators. Total. Ever. We’re in something of a surge right now, with 2 – count ‘em, 2! – in the Senate at the moment.

            And blacks are not in the judiciary because they don’t value education? This would be the same blacks that fought tooth and nail for admission to the same public schools the white children went to?

            So on planet truebearing, blacks were systematically excluded from equal education and opportunity until 1965; and they haven’t assumed their subsequent place in the power structure, not because the deck was stacked against them, but because they don’t value education.

            “Some of our top athletes and some of our top musicians? What is this?
            Now you’re doing stand-up? That was so pathetic, not to mention
            disconnected from reality, that you have me laughing. Thanks!”

            You got so caught up in your affected indignation that you forgot to mention what is actually so risible in that comment. Unless you intend to continue to substitute posturing for reason, you need to actually make an argument here.

            “You’re telling me that there is no power in cultural things like sports or popular music?”

            Oh, there’s some power and influence in those things – but it’s hardly comparable to, or a substitute for, the direct power of making and enforcing the rules of society. The folks who control our legislatures and our corporations do far more to establish the rules of competition than our entertainment figures.

            “Did you think the Civil Rights Act meant that blacks would immediately achieve parrity.”

            Why, no; I didn’t even think it would mean they’d immediately achieve parity. You’re the one who seems to be operating on the assumption that, having passed the Civil Rights Act, we’ve done all we need to do.

            “Another gem. Because I didn’t provide exhaustive amounts of facts, on a
            website comment section, you compared me to someone who believes Jews
            are space lizards and the moon is their spacecraft. Okay. That speaks
            for itself. Whoa.”

            Oh, believe me, it’s not simply the paucity of documentation that leads me to think your reasoning doesn’t compare terribly favorably with Ickes. “Jews are space lizards” and “blacks are underrepresented in the judiciary because they don’t value education” both represent statements by individuals who have let their biases get the better of their reason.

            Observing your paroxysm of outrage, it is almost possible to forget that you introduced Ickes into the conversation to begin with. If you don’t like having your rhetorical assays turned back against you, choose them with more care.

            “Your problem, or should I say one of your problems, is that once your theories meet facts, they evaporate.”

            Really? Let’s see, one of my ‘theories’ is that the effects of exclusion from the educational system are generational. That survived contact with fact; it’s borne out by studies of student vocabularies and performance at the early and late primary as well as secondary levels.

            Are you disputing chattel slavery? Jim Crow? The decade of stonewalling following Brown v Board? Did I get the numbers wrong on blacks in the Senate? You expressed outrage over my comment that some of our entertainment and sports leaders are black, but you didn’t mention what you thought was wrong with that. In fact, so far, I haven’t seen you dispute my facts, and while your sputtering about my many personality defects is entertaining, it’s not germane – at least, not in the way you seem to think it is.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Slavery ended in the US 150 year ago.

            Slavery continues in Sudan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia.

            Regressive progressives who treat black people as permanently damaged, lesser humans, don’t help black people succeed.

            Gangsta culture, hip hop, rap “culture” destroys black people.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            truebearing AKBAR!

          • camp7

            Well said!

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    Alice Walker is a cultural nationalist, so naturally she would resent the religion/race that attacks Pan-Africanism and holds individuals, not collectivities, to account for their actions. We don’t study the many types of anti-Semitism in America, but we do instill guilt over slavery and Jim Crow, starting with kindergarten and perhaps before that, through the media. See http://clarespark.com/2012/09/29/index-to-blogs-on-antisemitism/. “Index to blogs on anti-Semitism.” This is the most complete compilation that I know of. I have been studying the variants of A-S since 1986 non-stop.

    • Albert8184

      Love your blog Clare. Stellar stuff. I always have to read everything twice.

      Everyone else: Immediately rush to Clare Spark’s blog and subscribe to it. ClareSpark dot com

    • Smoking Hamster

      Clare, I was wondering about why the libertarian movement has so many conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites. To refute a holocaust denier who thought Hitler wasn’t so bad, I read the chapter in “Mein Kampf” about the Jews and the one statement stuck out was the smear that Jews influence government to give their businesses special favors.

      This form of anti-Semitism seems to be present in many blacks. Blaming corruption of government by Jewish businesses for black failings.

      I hear the phrase “getting in bed with government” among libertarians so often and wonder if the anti-Semite’s angle is a perversion of the classical liberal desire for fairness in government/business dealings.

      What do you think?

  • Raymond_in_DC

    Is it my imagination, or do I detect a lizard image behind Walker’s face in the photo above?

    • Lightbringer

      It’s not your imagination, unless we share imaginations. She does look somewhat reptilian.

  • RAM500

    So who’s the dumbest of all, Walker, PBS, or people who fund PBS?

  • Horace Yo

    Black children in the US are taught from birth that the white man is holding them down and they can’t acheive anything because of that. They are brianwashed by the leftist hatemongers into thinking all whites are racists. Black students “acting white” (getting an actual education) is vigorously punished by their peers. They are kept roiled up by the Democrats to maintain them as a reliable Democrat voting block.
    Too bad Hieronymous couldn’t use his eloquence skills to educate young blacks to love their country and take a positive attitude for their own and their home country’s benefit.

  • Horace Yo

    Black children are also taught to hold tight to grudges about the treatment their great great grandparents got as slaves. Said grandparents were sold into slavery by their neighbors in Africa, instead of being killed on the spot. Many white Europeans were kidnapped into slavery by Muslim slavers from North Africa. Should we hold grudges about that and forego an education so we could fight about it? All the leftist Democrat party offers young blacks is a long bus ride for racial balance, and hate whitey indoctrination, not an education.

  • watsa46

    Fame has nothing to do with being right. Lots of people poorly educated or even “educated” believe that the former imply the latter.

  • Ingrid Bock

    I wish I could understand this better. It might be a good idea to give more background, for those of us who are hearing for the first time that Alice Walker is a kook.

  • Lanna

    The plotting, anti-semetism and hatred of Israel has been fortold…The Bible is 100% true!
    Psalm 83 O God, do not keep silent, be not quiet, O God, be not still. See how your enemies are astir, how your foes rear their heads. With cunning they conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish. “Come they say, “Let us destroy them as a nation, that the name of Israel be remembered no more.” With one mind they plot together; they form an alliance against you…the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, of Moab and the Hagrites, Gebel, Ammon and Amalek, Philistia, with the people of Tyre. Even Assyria has joined them to lend strength to the descendants of Lot. Do to them as you did to Midian, as you did to Siser and Jabin at the River Kishon, who perished at Endor and became like refuse on the ground.. Make their nobles like Oreb an Zeeb, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna, who said, “Let us take possession of the pasturelands of God.” These names are translated into modern day enemies!
    ~Zechariah 12: 2-9~ “Behold I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.
    Get ready enemies of Israel…there will be wars and rumors of wars, but you are going to end up in the pit of fire and brimstone!!!!!!!

  • jzsnake

    The sad truth is that both Palestinians and Blacks have never taken any responsibility for the current situation they are in. So they can relate to each other.

  • Aaron Agassi

    You don’t need to be a kook to criticize Israeli policy.

  • Dean Scarpinato

    The Title of this article is RESPONSE TO MORONIC ISRAELI HIT PIECE