The failure of multiculturalism: the British and Irish examples

For decades now the liberal democratic governments of the AABC countries (America, Australia, Britain, and Canada) as well as western Europe, notably France and (above all) Germany, have forced on their people the premise of the Great Replacement, i.e. that multiculturalism is a Good Thing.

It is not. Enter "multiculturalism" in the search window above and you will find numerous articles on the subject proving that the premise is wrong and reporting the results of the disastrous experiment in One-Worldism and the attempt to force human persons to love one another. You'll also find links to a number of videos which have been scrubbed from YouTube by the wokesters who refuse, like the Three Wise Monkeys, to see the truth which is there to be seen.

Today we present yet another article on the failure of multiculturalism, this one by London-based journalist Michael Murphy. Mr Murphy created a fine documentary entitled "Ireland is full! Anti-immigration backlash in Ireland", which we suggest you watch ASAP, before it too disappears. Mr Murphy writes:

Now we know what globalizing the intifada looks like. In Manchester last week, a rabbi addressed his congregation in a robe stained with blood. Hours earlier, on Yom Kippur, Judaism’s holiest day, a jihadi terrorist rammed a car into worshippers at the gates of a synagogue before going on a stabbing spree. By the time officers shot the attacker, two were dead and four more injured, some from accidental police fire.

To show they would not be cowed by violence, the congregation resumed their prayers as Britain’s Special Air Service (SAS) forces patrolled outside. Underneath the defiant posture, though, many of them will likely have wondered whether Britain remains a safe home for Jews. For the first time in centuries, the answer is not straightforward. Neither are the solutions to this predicament. 

Britain’s multicultural project rested on assumptions that have not survived contact with reality. We told ourselves immigrants would assimilate, or at least bring only harmless aspects of their cultures with them. Diversity was held up as our greatest strength. It has been apparent for some time that this was a monumental act of self-delusion. While many immigrants do share our values and become productive members of society, the people who don’t are more numerous than we have long cared to admit, and are wreaking havoc.

Consider the Manchester killer. Jihad al-Shamie was born in Syria and brought to the United Kindgom as a child, attaining citizenship in the mid-2000s. With that passport he was thenceforth regarded by our institutions as British. The problem is that when a bearded man in a suicide vest begins murdering Jews “in the name of the Islamic State,” as he put it, what once seemed like a harmless accommodation becomes an affront to the British people themselves. 

Al-Shamie was less an example of diversity being our strength than a life-long liability. He dropped out of university, spent his life unemployed and housed at public expense, and was earlier this year arrested for rape. His online footprint is limited to a 2012 death threat against a parliamentarian who had defended Israel.

What kind of society not only tolerates but subsidizes such a man? The same country that, when the Islamist refugee Salman Abedi murdered 22 people at a Manchester concert in 2017, consoled itself with the pop lyric “don’t look back in anger.” The same country that for decades ignored the rape of thousands of white girls by mostly Pakistani grooming gangs to avoid accusations of racism. A country that insisted Islam is simply a “religion of peace,” even as Islamism continued to inspire atrocities on its soil.

This posture is clearly self-destructive. It breeds resentment among the native population, and cynicism among immigrants, including those who have fully embraced British society, culture and norms, and who now see Britain as unwilling to defend itself. It has now also made life unsafe for other minorities. 

Britain spent centuries dissolving its own tribal rivalries to unite under the banner of one nation. But it has since managed within two generations to begin to re-tribalize. Its melting pot has proved too lukewarm. Take al-Shamie’s father, Faraj, a trauma surgeon who publicly denounced his son’s killings. He seemed at first to be the model immigrant, until his own views were unearthed: he had called on social media for Israel’s destruction, also praising Hamas and even Hitler. The rot in this case, as with many others, was inter-generational. 

The authorities may have missed a window in 2012 to flag al-Shamie. But they arguably missed a greater opportunity to prevent his family coming to the U.K. in the first place. It has long been a matter of liberal etiquette to pretend that all immigrants arrive with only superficial differences and are, in the round, a net bonus to Britain. 

This mantra has helped the establishment dismiss calls for a more selective admissions system. Yet, too many migrants arrive with the prejudices and ideological baggage one might expect. Polling by the Henry Jackson Society, for instance, found that 53% of British Muslim men believe Jews have too much power, while fewer than a quarter think enforcing Sharia law would be undesirable. 

Al-Shamie senior’s admiration for Hamas is also far from unusual. While most British Muslims would no doubt abhor the murder of Jews, there is a dissonance in the fact that many of them are supportive of Hamas, which is dedicated to killing Jews. Clearly, immigrants need to be more thoroughly screened before they are admitted. 

This reality undermines a central pillar of Britain’s immigration mythology. We convinced ourselves that the great danger was native prejudice against newcomers, despite the country’s exemplary tolerance. The far greater threat has been importing hatreds we had long tamed within our own society. 

At core, Britain’s multicultural experiment is failing because we insisted on seeing the world in our own image. Rather than admit it, our leaders have constructed an alternative reality in which failures are repackaged as opportunities for cohesion, with the leaders of otherwise siloed communities uniting briefly to denounce extremists. But the problem is far more daunting, and possibly intractable, than our politicians are willing to admit.

This post is a shortened version of "British multiculturalism has failed", which appeared in Canada's National Post, 11/10/25.

Further reading: "'Allahu akbar!' in Texas - Hostage-taker was British Muslim" WWW 16/1/22.

Worth watching: "Douglas Murray discusses 'The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam' with Mark Steyn", WWW 31/10/17.

"Islamophobia is irrational!" - Yeah... sure...

On Sunday, Walt had a visitor to our cabin in the pines, one of those unthinking liberal types who calls himself a Christian but repeats the tired old mantras: "We all worship the same God." "Everyone's equal in God's sight." and "All religions are the same." As he could see the red rising up the back of my neck, he topped this off with, "Do you really believe the Muslims are trying to invade our country and kill us all?!"

"Well yeah!" says I. "Look around you!" The visitor told me I was being irrational, and the subject was changed to something anodine. 

Today, I will send him the link to a statement made this morning by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in which he said that the murder of the three little girls pictured above at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class last year must lead to "fundamental change" in how the British state protects citizens, as well as a reckoning with threats from violent individuals whose behaviour and motives "challenge the traditional definition of terrorism."

Without giving us the new definition of terrorism, or ever once using the words "Islamic" or "Muslim", Sir Keir said the authorities need to answer "tough questions" about how why the violence-obsessed killer was not stopped before he stabbed the three girls to death in Southport last July. 

Mr Stammer announced that a public inquiry would investigate failings in the case of Axel Rudakubana, who injured another eight children, their instructor and a passer-by. For those who don't (or, like our visitor, choose not to) remember, our reports of the Manchester massacre maybe found here: "'Allahu akbar!' in Southport, England" and here: "Entering Week 2 of British race riots". On Monday, the first day of his trial, the Islamic terrorist -- for such he is -- unexpectedly changed his pleas to guilty. He is due to be sentenced on Thursday.

This week, half a year since the horrific event, we finally learn the truth about Axel Rudakubana, the truth that the politically correct British government, the police, and the lickspittle media have covered up right from the getgo.

The killer was referred to the government’s "Prevent" scheme three times before his attack in Southport. He was first referred to the anti-extremism programme om 2019, when he was a 13-year-old schoolboy. He was referred by teachers concerned by his obsession with school massacres. 

He was reportedly referred to Prevent twice in 2021 following his expulsion from the Range High School after staff were worried about his interest in the 2017 terror attacks, which included incidents in central London and the Manchester Arena bombing.

The referrals were not escalated, as "someone" decided that Rudakubana "did not hold a terrorist ideology" – the same reasoning used by police to justify the failure to charge him with terrorism offences. 

The bullshit meter on social went off the peg at the peak end as tensions mounted across the Disunited Kingdom. We'll show in blue examples of the politically correct bullshit fed to us by the British government and its minions.

Merseyside Police took the unusual step of issuing a statement that stressed the teenager being questioned was born in Cardiff. But confirmation that the killer was a British national did little to ease growing belief that the massacre was an Islamic State-inspired terrorist attack. 

Because Mr Rudakubana was not heard shouting "Allahu akbar!" (or anything) at the scene, and his family were devout Christians. there was nothing obvious that pointed to him being a Muslim convert or having any other ideology. During a press conference in Southport the evening of the attack, Serena Kennedy, the chief constable of Merseyside Police, said that while it was not being treated as terror-related, colleagues from counter-terror policing had offered to assist with the investigation.

Yet in the hours after the attack, police had searched the perp's home and found an al-Qaeda training manual along with what would soon be confirmed as ricin, the deadly toxin. The information was withheld from the public.  On the evening of July 31st, Mr Rudakubana was charged with three counts of murder, 10 counts of attempted murder and possession of "a bladed article" (like a knife? a machete? what?) in a public place. 

As with all suspects under the age of 18, he was not formally identified by the Peelers, leading to further claims that the full details were being covered up. Ya think?! Crucially, the teenager was not charged with terrorism offences relating to the al-Qaeda manual and ricin at that stage, waiting for another three months. 

While this may have been an operational decision to allow detectives more time to gather evidence of a motive, it also avoided stoking the growing disorder that was sweeping Britain. While visiting the scene the morning after the attack, Sir Keir was asked whether the killer had been on a terrorism watchlist. One heckler shouted, "How many more children are going to die on our streets?"

In a statement to the House of Commons a short time later, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper warned people against exploiting the attack to peddle misinformation and stir up community tension. But she didn't rule out a terrorist motive, telling MPs, "The investigation will, of course, pursue any contact the suspect may or may not have had with different agencies before the incident took place."

A spokesthingy for the Prime Minister added, "People should listen to the police, they should not do anything that is going to make the police’s job harder to manage the situation, to conduct their investigations. It is unhelpful [sic] to speculate on things like the motive and the circumstances around this."

Why do we call these statements bullshit? Because evidence found at Mr Rudakubana’s home immediately after murderous attack suggested that terrorism was indeed behind the atrocity. 

An al-Qaeda training manual found in Rudakubana’s bedroom provided a step-by-step guide to carrying out a terrorist attack. Bearing the title Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual, the 180-page document was recovered by police hours after the teenager walked into the Taylor Swift holiday club in Southport and began stabbing children. 

The manual included a whole section on how to assassinate people with a knife and provided details of where on the body to stab someone to guarantee death. As well as providing terrorist instruction, the document -- which is available for purchase or download online -- offers religious justifications for waging jihad, complete with regular quotations from the Koran. 

It talks about the "overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime". De Jerold Post, a former CIA operative turned academic and counter-terror specialist who edited the document in 2004, wrote in the preface: "The eighteen chapters of the Manual of Terror take the reader through a tour of al-Qaeda membership criteria, basic tradecraft, means and methods of communication, member safety, security, espionage, assassination and capture."

He added: "The tradecraft instructions are interwoven with Koranic justification designed to inspire the reader. There are detailed instructions on everything from ciphers to how to resist interrogation. But it is also a manual of terror with no less than four of the seventeen lessons or chapters devoted to techniques for assassination. But it is not merely a list of instructions, for it is also written to inspire the undercover operator as he carries on his dangerous work."

Apparently the discovery of this handbook for Islamic terrorists was not enough to convince the Bobbies that simply possessing the widely-available academic pamphlet proved that this was a terrorist incident. After all, Mr Rudakubana didn't confess or offer a single word of explanation since his arrest. Until Monday, when the Islamic terrorist pled guilty... with no explanation.

Are we crazy, then, to fear that fanatical followers of the Religion of Peace [TM] have invaded our countries, intending to replace our culture, religion and system of government with theirs? QED.

About that last post...

The ink was barely dry (so to speak) on "Way too many black kids, way too many crime guns", my post about the shootings in Pinellas County, when I received a complaint from another useful idiot that I put too much emphasis on the blackitude of the perps and their victims. Why did I keep pointing that out, they cried. Why couldn't I have been like Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, and used the word "black" (or "Black", as the wokesters write it now) only once?

Let's try that. Suppose I'd deleted the mugshots of the Coley Bros, and bleeped out the "black" in Sheriff Bob's speech. No, that wouldn't be enough. I'd couldn't repost the video at all because it included images of the miscreants.

So suppose I just posted a transcript of Sheriff Bob's remarks, with the word "black" deleted. You'd still have known, wouldn't you, that the Coley Bros were black, the minute you read their names -- Darcus and Damarcus. 

Even if I had deleted their names -- called them "Defendant 1" and "Defendant 2" perhaps -- you'd still have guessed, from the mindless violence of shooting members of one's own family over a quarrel about who got dissed in the giving of Christmas gifts, that this could only have happened in the "Black community".

That's my point. The real problem which this story illustrates is not insufficient gun control, or the lack of help for those with mental "issues", or even the laxity of the liberal system of justice. It's ghetto culture. And yes, I do mean the black ghetto. You don't get stories like this out of Martha's Vineyard, or the Hamptons, or the `hoods of Crown Point and Bora Park, New York.

Not that there are no family squabbles -- even violent ones -- in those non-black ghettos. But there, the families are complete. Did you notice that in this story there's no mention of fathers being involved, or even present? Just a single mama and kids. 

The problem of the single parent (i.e. mother) family has been discussed (and swept under the politically correct carpet) for decades, at least as far back as The Negro Family: The Case For National Action, commonly known as the Moynihan Report, published during the 1965 race riots.

In this controversial work, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an American scholar serving as Assistant Secretary of Labor under President Lyndon B. Johnson -- later to become a US Senator -- argued that the rise in black single-mother families was caused not by a lack of jobs, but by a destructive vein in ghetto culture. 

The Moynihan Report was published in 1965. LBJ's "Great Society" was supposed to fix all that. How are things in the great liberal democracy (LOL) of America 58 years later? The black ghettos are bigger and meaner than ever. If you doubt me, try strolling through one of them. 

Maybe you'd better drive, like the Griswolds in National Lampoon's Vacation. That movie appeared in 1983 -- 18 years after the Moynihan Report, and 40 years before the present day. Today you don't have to go into the `hood to risk getting shot. In every big Democrat-controlled (Canadians read: Liberal-cntrolled) city, you hardly dare ride the subway or go shopping in a mall, without taking your life in your hands.

That's how it is in Biden's Woke America. Black culture and the kind of lowlife scum it produces -- Hello George Floyd, wherever you are! -- are held up by the liberals for commiseration, even adoration, while their (mostly black) victims and other innocents can only keep their heads down and hope that some (probably white) cop or well-intentioned civilian will protect them.

VIDEO: Thomas Sowell told the truth about affirmative action in college admissions... 33 years ago!

As Walt told you in "SCOTUS bans racial discrimination in college admissions", today was a great day for America! President Trump said so and Walt agrees, not just because The Donald said it, but because the decision corrects an injustice that has been perpetuated in the name of "social justice" (more recently "DEI" -- "diversity, equity and inclusion") for decades.

Thomas Sowell, an American economist, author, and social commentator, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, recognized and talked about the unintended negative consequences of affirmative action 23 years ago.

This video is clipped from a C-SPAN Booknotes interview on 10 June 1990. Dr Sowell, while discussing his book Preferential Policies: An International Perspective, explained how affirmative action and campus ideologues create a vicious cycle of black student failure and resentment by both blacks and whites. Give a listen.

 

A brief history of the affirmative action debate.

Affirmative action has its pros and cons. [Some say affirmative action is itself a "con". Ed.] The issue has been hotly debated since the 1970s, when colleges and universities on the east and west coast, in a paroxysm of white liberal guilt, started to give priority to applicants for admission whose SAT scores were lower than others because the tests were Eurocentric, racist, yada yada yada.

Thet issue had been canvassed by the Supreme Court for half a century (!), and until now SCOTUS has geneally upheld affirmative action (read: reverse discrimination), with some limits. Racial quotas that reserve a certain number of seats for minority students have been deemed unconstitutional, but the court has said colleges can consider race as long as it's one of many factors in the decision. 

Prospective students' race can be used as a "plus factor" to give them an edge, said the court, can't be the defining factor. Schools must be able to show they consider race in a "narrowly tailored" way, because there is no "race-neutral" approach that would meet the same "compelling interest" in increasing student diversity.

That language comes from Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 Supreme Court decision which upheld admissions policies at the University of Michigan's law school. SCOTUS last examined affirmative action in 2016 -- 26 years after the publication of Dr Sowell's book -- when it upheld the admissions process at the University of Texas in a suit filed by a white Texan who was denied admission to the university

The lawsuits which were decided today were brought by Students for Fair Admissions, a Virginia-based group that says race should play no part in the admission process. The group argued that Harvard and the University of North Carolina intentionally discriminate against Asian-American applicants.

Examining six years of data at Harvard, the group found that-Asian American applicants had the strongest academics but were admitted at the lowest rates compared to students of other races. It also found that Harvard's admissions officers gave Asian Americans lower scores on a subjective "personal" rating designed to measure attributes such as likeability and kindness... as if these things were indicators of intelligence or the likelihood of academic success!

In 2019, a federal judge upheld Harvard's admissions practices, saying they were "not perfect" but not unconstituional. The judge said race-conscious practices always penalize groups that don’t get an advantage, but are justified "by the compelling interest in diversity" on college campuses. An appeals court upheld the ruling in 2020. 

Students for Fair Admission brought similar claims against UNC, saying its process disadvantages white and Asian-American students. A federal judge sided with the university last year. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the group asked the Supreme Court to review both cases, and also to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger, saying it was impossible to construct a "narrowly tailored" approach which would not offend the equal rights provisions of the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court of the United States agreed at last! It's a great day for America!

Walt congratulates the Houston Astros

on a well-deserved 4-1 win over the Philadelphia Phillies, to clinch the 2022 World Series. Good for them!

I am only a casual fan of baseball. One thing that I really like about MLB is that, compared with the elite leagues of other sports popular in North America, baseball is the least woke!

Ever since Jackie Robinson broke the colour bar on 15 April 1957, race has been pretty much a non-issue in the big leagues. Both teams on the field last night included players of every shade, from pale white through deep brown (notice I didn't say "Black") -- Asians too -- and there was no fuss about it.

No fuss. No calls for "affirmative action" to promote more "diversity", "inclusion", "equity", yada yada yada. Merit alone has been enough to get these guys places on the championship teams.

Places including that of "the boss" -- manager. Dusty Baker Jr, pictured, manager of the Astros, receives plaudits not for being the colour that he is, but for being the oldest manager ever to win a Series. Good for him.

It was good to be able to watch a game without seeing anyone "take a knee" or fire a Black Power salute. There was no talk of being more accepting of queers, or whether trans men [are there such things, or only trans women? Ed.] should be allowed to use the same toilets. 

Nor was there any talk of the "toxic masculinity" of the sport, such as was heard (Poor Len tells me) on the CBC, where Wussy Ron Maclean was prattling about how the Boston Bruins had signed a player who years ago had mocked someone who was "differently abled".  

Arentcha sick, sore and tired of wokeism? I know I am. "Just play the game!" That's what I say.

Further viewing: I confess to not liking Philthydelphia, not least because that's where elections get stolen. (Hello, John Fetterman!). Bill Burr, a hyuge sports fan, also doesn't like that city, or its sports teams. He has some choice comments about the Phillies in a rant recorded a few years ago. Warning for "language" (every word in the book).

    

VIDEO QUIZ: What does the news story not reveal?

Here's a little below-the-fold news item from Fox 5 Atlanta. A lawsuit was filed, a few days ago, for an unpleasant incident that occurred at a Dallas TX Taco Bell on June 17th. It is alleged that Brittany Davis and a 16-year-old minor, identified only as C.T., both suffered severe burns and psychological trauma after the Taco Bell manager threw a pitcher of scalding water at them while they were "trying to resolve a complaint about their food."

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to guess the race of the plaintiffs and defendant without looking at the video.

 

Agent 17 probably got it without looking. Did you? How about if Walt gives you a clue. The lawsuit was filed by personal injury lawyer Paul Grinke and... wait for it... Ben Crump, an American attorney who specializes in civil rights and catastrophic personal injury cases such as wrongful death lawsuits. In the recent past Mr Crump has represented the families of Trayvon Martin and George Floyd. Got it now?

The claim alleges that a $30 drive-throough order was filled incorrectly, and despite two additional passes past the window to get the correct items, the matter was still not settled to the plaintiffs' satisfaction. So the two women went to the door of the store, which was locked. An employee quickly let them in, but locked the door behind them. 

The video released as part of the lawsuit shows the exterior and interior of the Taco Bell store, from a variety of angles. The store manager can be seen filling up a water pitcher with what appears to be steaming water while talking on the phone. 

Another camera angle shows the manager throwing the liquid from the pitcher at the two women, who are standing on the other side of the counter. As soon as the water makes contact, both woman can be seen running away. The lawsuit claims that the employee also tried to throw a second pitcher of hot water on the victims as they tried to escape the locked store.

They plaintiffs are seeking more than $1,000,000 in damages from Taco Bell's parent company Yum! Brands, the local franchisee, and two store workers.

Journalist quits Canadian state broadcaster because it's too woke

"To work at the CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation] in the current climate is to embrace cognitive dissonance and to abandon journalistic integrity. It is to sign on, enthusiastically, to a radical political agenda that originated on Ivy League campuses in the United States and spread through American social media platforms that monetize outrage and stoke societal divisions. 

"It is to pretend that the 'woke' worldview is near universal -- even if it is far from popular with those you know, and speak to, and interview, and read."

So says Tara Henley, a Toronto journalist who resigned today after over eight years with Canada's state-owned broadcaster.

Writing on the Substack platform, Ms Henley opened her piece on the Substack platform by revealing that she's been hearing more and more complaints about the house organ of Canada's governing Liberal Party. 

"People want to know why, for example, non-binary Filipinos concerned about a lack of LGBT terms in Tagalog is an editorial priority for the CBC, when local issues of broad concern go unreported. Or why our pop culture radio show’s coverage of the Dave Chappelle Netflix special failed to include any of the legions of fans, or comics, that did not find it offensive. Or why, exactly, taxpayers should be funding articles that scold Canadians for using words such as 'brainstorm' and 'lame'.

"Everyone asks the same thing: What is going on at the CBC?"

Ms Henley goes on to answer her own question. 

"To work at the CBC now is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others. It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others. [Ahem. Less sugar, fewer people. Back to English class for you, young lady! Ed.] 

Ms Henley suggests that the focus on racial issues is resulting in less scrutiny of other issues that affect large numbers of people, such as the housing crisis, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, accumulation of wealth by billionaires and power by bureaucrats, and the rising total of overdose deaths. 

"It used to be that I was the one furthest to the left in any newsroom, occasionally causing strain in story meetings with my views on issues like the housing crisis. I am now easily the most conservative, frequently sparking tension by questioning identity politics. This happened in the span of about 18 months. My own politics did not change."

If working for a propaganda machine where newsreaders now must include not only vizmins but some who display their religious identity through their choice of headgear is too much for the not-quite-that-woke Tara Henley, Walt suggests she apply to CTV or Global, where things haven't gone quite that far... yet.

Further reading (added 4/1/22): Turns out Ms Henley landed softly at the new woke Globe & Mail, the Toronto elite paper that pretends to be Canada's national newspaper. Click here to read her reviews of six new books, including Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy, by Batya Ungar-Sargon (Encounter Books, 2021), which Ms Henley calls a must-read. I'll add that to my shopping list, but not from Amazon!

Biracial families (?)

 A reader who believes strongly in racial equity/equality -- "We're all the same under the skin" -- takes me to task for daring to suggest that many white women are desperate (for whatever reason) to hook up with black men, and for suggesting that biracial relationships are less to likely to succeed than those in which both parties share race and culture.

Those who know me will know that I am not prejudiced against people of other races, or against biracial/bicultural relationships. Everything depends on the people, and their motivation for being together.

On the first point, I will say that not all white women who get involved with black men are plain-looking and fat, desperate for a little (or a lot) of love. Ed. has found pictures of two white girls who could have gotten guys of any race, had they so wished. Which begs the question of why they chose these celebrity partners.

In the photo above you see the very white and very blonde Lindsey Vonn, who married hockey hot dog P.K. Subban, about whom Poor Len Canayen had many kind things to say in the daze when he (P.K.) played for the Montréal Canadiens. P.K. is no longer with les Glorieux, and Lindsey is no longer with him. They had no children.

This very white, very blonde lady is Sara Jeihooni, who (according to Ed.) was for three years the main squeeze of the famous rap artiste R. Kelly (no relation to Walt Kelly, creator of Pogo and inspiration to YVT). Turns out Mr Kelly had a number of other squeezes, some of whom were well under age, so he and Ms Jeihooni parted ways, again without bringing any mulatto children into the world.

"So what?", I hear you ask. So nothing. Lots of white-white and black-black couplese break up too. Make of it what you will. 

FOOTNOTE: To the reader who took me to task for what he called the "racist" [of course. Ed.] implications of my previous post about black and biracial families headed by single mothers, I reply with a quote from The Age of American Reason (Vintage Books, 2018) by Susan Jacoby, a very progressive American atheist and secularist. In the Chapter headed "Junk Thought", she writes:

Nationwide, more than half of African-American boys drop out of high school -- a statistic with deeply rooted social causes.... [N]one of the commentators focuses on genetics or the supposedly different learning styles of girls and boys. Instead, they examine a street culture that glorifies violence as proof of manhood and denigrates learning, as well as the absence of a father in so many poor African-American homes.

Who's to blame for "mostly peaceful protests"?

You could see it coming. Here's what happens after years of crime and corruption, economic stagnation and rising unemployment, the crumbling of the state in key sectors such as electricity and transport, a growing lawlessness in many regions, and an unofficial policy of impunity for violent street mobs. 

What you see in the pix is not "reparations shopping" in Chicago, St Louis, San Francisco or Portland -- all those fine Democratic cities -- but black people rioting and looting in Johannesburg and other cities of South Africa. Happening right now, it's what the gliberals call "mostly peaceful protests" against the imprisonment of former president Jacob Zuma after convictions on charges of corruption and malfeasance. 

As in the Excited States of America, folks of the coloured persuasion seize on any excuse for rioting and looting. So bad is the situation that the SA government has called up 25,000 army reservists in an attempt to restore order. They will likely find themselves outnumbered, as tens of thousands continue to attack shopping malls and set factories ablaze. ("No more work! Let's go shoppin'!") 

In Durban (the largest city in Mr Zuma's KwaZulu-Natal province), some 45,000 businesses have been affected by the "unrest" (the PC term). Across the country, food and fuel shortages are worsening. At least 200 shopping centres have been ransacked by looters, and national highways have been shut down, endangering alrelady tenuous supply chains.The official death toll, as of this morning, stands at 72, but unofficial reports put the number of deaths in stampedes and shootings in the 1000s.

Who is to blame for all this? Must be whitey, right? Isn't South Africa the country where they have that apartheid system to keep the fuzzy-wuzzies down and the white on top? Errr, no. "Settler rule", as the United Nations called it, ended in 1994, when Nelson Mandela became president. 

That was 27 years ago. And -- trust me on this, I was there -- that's when the decline of what was theretofore the most developed, most prospereous country in Africa began. That's when smart Afrikaaners started leaving for places where white folks still run things, like Australia and Canada. [Those who went to Canada must be really disappointed! Ed.] 

South Africa was given back to its aboriginal peoples, and has now become just like all the other shitholes of darkest Africa. There's a lesson there somewhere, for those who are not blinded by ant-white racism and political correctness. 

Who's running the municipal governments of Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit and Baltimore? Not white Republicans! And what is happening in those and similar failing American cities? Persistent crime and corruption, years of economic stagnation and rising unemployment, etc etc. 

The difference between those cities and, say, Johannesburg, is that in the USA, it's all because of things that some white people did to some black people nearly two centuries ago. Maybe if we tear down some more statues, rename some more streets, and start teaching white kids about how rotten they are, the rioting and looting will stop. Right? LMAO!

"Negro" or "black" or "Afro-American"? American historian weighs in

Joseph Chamberlain Furnas (24/11/1905 – 3/6/2001) was an American freelance writer, whose works include a trilogy of social histories of the United States: The Americans (covering the period 1570-1914), Great Times (covering the period 1914-1929) and Stormy Weather: Crosslights on the 1930s (which covers the time between the stock market crash and the attack on Pearl Harbor.) 

Mr Furnas was a Quaker, and a believer in the equality and brotherhood of man. Two of his books, The Road to Harper's Ferry and Goodbye to Uncle Tom, deal with "black" issues, notably slavery, which he viewed as an evil institution which degraded (black) slaves and (white) masters alike.

The Road to Harper's Ferry is an account of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, which delves into the lives and motivations of the "Secret Six" who gave him a great deal of his support. Goodbye to Uncle Tom examines how Uncle Tom's Cabin, both as a novel and in its many stage adaptations, has shaped American attitudes towards "Afro-Americans" and slavery.

I've put quotation marks around "black" and "Afro-Americans" for a reason. Mr Furnas wrestled throughout his writing with what to call people of the coloured persuasion. In a footnote at pp 405-6 of The Americans (G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1969), he explains his preference for the word "Negro" to those terms which came before ("coloured") or later ("black"). 

Most of this book had been drafted before the recent shift frm "Negro" to "black" to designate Americans with discernibly West African genetic traits. Many Northern politicians and most of the communications industry [today we'd say "media". Walt] have adoped the term. I have...considered making the change throughout this book. Several rasons have deterred me.

For instance, there is no reliable way to learn how acceptable the term "black" may be to the many million Americans most directly affected. It has been used contemptuously for centuries, particularly by the British. 

Then the change seems pointless as a matter of logic. "Negro" is simply Spanish-Portuguese for "black". Neither term accurately describes either the skin pigmentation or (if "Negro" is used as anthropologists sometimes use it) the genetic makeup of most of the Americans to whom it is applied.

Either word could apply to the many Melanesians who are very disttantly if at all related to the West Africans from whom American Negroes descend. So "black" is no improvement if intelligibility is the test.

There is good reason to believe that the actual motivation, maybe often unconscious, of the current sponsors of "black", of the militant separatist-minded leaders a mong them, is to express alienation from all whites, even their most earnest well-wishers, instead of an effort toward higher accuracy of group-definition. 

Were I to make the shift in this book, I might well find within a year or two that a new token of alienation, maybe "Afro-American", had succeeded "black". 

And that's exactly what happened, except that "African-American" was more widely used than "Afro-American". Then, as "African-Americans" began to visit their ancestral homelands, as members of the Peace Corps or just as tourists, they discovered that they were strangers there, just as much as the evil whites. 

So we don't hear/read "African-American" any more. The current politically correct term is "Black", with a capital "B", as in "Black lives matter." I guess that's better than "black" because the capital shows that progressive people are giving "Black" folks mo' respeck... or something like that. [Should we call ourselves "White"? Ed.] Too bad Mr Furnas didn't live to comment on the current wokeness.

"One nation, under God, indivisible..." HAH!

On the Glorious Fourth of July, it's our custom to post something patriotic - three cheers for the red, white and blue! - along with salutations and best wishes to all our American friends and readers. One of the best things we ever posted was this fine video of God Bless America, as sung by the inimitable Kate Smith. Let's hear it again!

   

I always thought that should be the American national anthem. Much easier to sing than The Star-spangled Banner. Makes one want to go out vanquish the foes of freedom, democracy and the American Way of Life! 

But since God Bless America invokes the Deity, it is no longer politically correct. The secular humanists, atheists and radicals have banished God from America's schools, courthouses, and even hospoitals. I expect an amendment to the Constitution to to delete all references to the Almighty, any time now.

And what, pray [Watch it! Ed.] tell, is the American Way of Life nowadays? Do we really believe that life in places like Chicago, San Francisco and Portland is "as good as it gets"? 

From where I sit, the Excited States of America looks to be tearing itself apart. Americans are at each other's throats, figuratively and literally. In spite of Sleepy Joe's promise to reunite America, the country is more  divided now than at any time since 1865.

Americans are separated by race, place and politics. Lines are drawn between them by the politicians and other "elites", with partisans convinced that the other side is the enemy. More than a century ago, Henry Adams defined politics as "the systematic organization of hatreds." That's no less true today.

In The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008, Bill Bishop writes: "There are no cross-cutting issues, places or policies. So there is always conflict. And the ‘other’ is always clearly identifiable."

Note that The Big Sort was published in 2008. You remember 2008, dontcha? That was the year the Prez was elected on a promise to bring all Americans together. That America could elect a black (oops, "Black") man, whose accomplishments amounted to little more than being able to count up to 3 and recite from memory nearly all 26 letters of the alphabet, proved once and for all that the US of A had become "post-racial". Right? LMWAO.

Also worth reading: "It Took Decades for America to Become This Divided", on the Governing website, 23/12/20. Subhead: "Political polarization has become so familiar and entrenched that we barely think how it came about. The backstory is more than a half-century long [more like a century-and-a-half. Walt], involving race, media and a diverging economy." 

What is to be done? I regret to say that my view of the future of the US of A is not a rosy one. The victory of North over South in the Civil War really settled nothing. The same war, over race and the clash between liberal and conservative lifestyles broke out again a century later, and is being fought today, in various ways and various venues, across the length and breadth of the country. 

The physical division of the United States into two groupings -- let's say red states vs blue states -- is now expressly forbidden by the Constitution, and looks to be impractical to the point of impossibility. But when push comes to shove -- as it already has in places like Portland -- I know where I stand. How about you?!

Further reading: Walt's not the only one feeling pessimistic about the future of the US of A. Check out "Enjoy July 4 this Sunday. It might be the last one" by Paul Craig Roberts, 1/7/21.

VIDEO: The life and thought of Thomas Sowell

Things are quier... too quiet! Well, maybe not. After all the brouhaha and foofaraw of the last year -- the "anus horibilis" --, it's nice to have a few days or weeks with nothing to do (thanks to the Nanny State) to reflect on where we've been and where we're going. The "we" in this case refers to those of us with a conservative turn of mind. 

The other day we reposted a video in which Dr Thomas Sowell -- American economist, social theorist, and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution -- talked about black culture, a subject about which he is qualified to speak since he is black. (No, he doesn't insist on "black" being capitalized.) 

Just by coincidence, the Free to Choose Network yesterday posted a biography on Dr Sowell which we think is well worth watching. Here it is.

If only America had more Thomas Sowells and fewer professional Blacks like "Rev." Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters. Keep talking, Prof. Maybe as we "progress" into the era of "Black entitlement", more people will listen.

Footnotes: 

- Did you notice that Prof. Sowell's name is pronounced as one syllable, "Soul"?

- Key thought: It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.

VIDEO: Professor Thomas Sowell talks about black culture

"Lemme ax yo somethin'... Who said that? Answer: Thomas Sowell - American economist, social theorist, and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Of course Dr Sowell doesn't talk like that. He's giving an example of "Black English" (sometimes known as "ebonics"), which he says is one of the facets of current black culture (or "subculture") which is keeping African-Americans from achieving economic and social parity with "other-cultured" Americans. 

Here's a short interview with Dr Sowell, posted on his YouTube channel, just ahead of Martin Luther King Day. 

   

What's the good doctor's solution to the problems black people bring on themselves by adapting to the subculture? Rap "music" is the ultimate expression of current black American subculture. But America needs fewer rappers and politicians, and more engineers, doctors and scientists. So? "Equip yourself with skills that people are willing to pay for." 

If you want to learn more about this topic, Dr Sowell suggests you read his books: Black Rednecks and White Liberals (Encounter Books, 2005) and Intellectuals and Race (Basic Books, 2013). For more thoughts from Dr Sowell, see "Thomas Sowell destroys the arguments for multiculturalism", WWW 4/7/20.

In other news: Far right extremist calls for equal treatment of people of all races!

Parsing the blackness of Kamala Harris

Make no mistake. The 2020 election, more than any election since the Glorious War of the Secession, is going to be about race. Nothing else. The notion that the US of A somehow became "postracial" with the election of Barack Hussein Obama is an illusion, or should I say delusion of the guilt-ridden liberals who are wilfully oblivious to the onset of a racialized civil war.

I have been thinking about the imminence of an us-vs-them war while reading Dr Randall Kennedy's The Persistence of the Color Line (Vintage Books 2011), a critical examination of racial politics and the Obama presidency. Dr Kennedy was Michael R. Klein Professor at Harvard Law School, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a member of the American Philosophical Association. He is no "Uncle Tom", nor is he an African-American incapable of seeing any fault in any Black politician. His book, which I recommend, "offers an incisive view of Obama's triumphs and travails, his strengths and weaknesses, as they pertain to the troubled historyof race in America."

Dr Kennedy begins with an examination of Mr Obama's self-identification as "black" and "African-American" -- a claim from which (the author says) he rarely wavered in spite of the "birther" controversy and a life story far removed from the typical black "lived experience" (to use the current buzzphrase). The more I read about the ex-President's life history, the more parallels I saw with the back story of Kamala Harris, who is now being touted as the first "woman of colour" to run for the nomination of a major American party.*

Two weeks ago, in "What kind of 'American' is Kamala Harris", I questioned the Dem nominee's self-identification as "African-American". Even then, the (((controlled media))) and others fearful of Ms Harris being thought too black were pointing out that she could also be called an "Asian American", or, better, just a "woman of colour". Not really black, y'understand, just, errr, non-white. So let's do a comparison between the Veep wannabe and the Prez.

Like Kamala Harris, Barack Hussein Obama had a black father. Neither father was American. Obama père was African, from Kenya. Ms Harris's father was Jamaican. Both black fathers bailed out on their non-black partners when their progeny were just kids, leaving the baby mamas to raise the kids alone.

Thanks to the efforts of their mothers, both Mr Obama and Ms Harris spent some of their formative years outside of the USA, going to elite private schools where the majority of their classmates and friends were non-black. Unlike the majority of African-Americans, both went on to university and earned degrees in law. Arguably, neither of them had what talk-show host Tavis Smiley, quoted by Dr Kennedy, called "the quintessential black experience in America." Their "lived experiences" were unlike those of the majority of minorities who voted for them.

And yet, both Mr Obama and Ms Harris claim, with pride, to be "African-American". But here, according to Dr Kennedy, is the acid test, or rather the litmus test, which the Prez passes and Ms Harris... does not. Barack Hussein Obama married Michelle Robinson, a black woman. Ms Harris married Douglas Emhoff, an attorney who happens to be, errr, white.

Why is this important? The author of The Persistence of the Color Line (who, let us remember, is black) writes:
Given the dismal state of the marriage market for black women, the shrinking number of black married couples, and the perception that successful black men often marry outside their race, Barack Obama's marriage has won for him large amounts of goodwill among blacks. 

Lawrence Otis Graham, another African-American Harvard Law School alumnus, memorably highlights the importance he attaches to the marital choices of fellow blacks. Nothing that he and his friends regularly engage in "race checking", Graham confides:
We flip through glowing profiles in People, Ebony, or Business Week quietly praising the latest black trailblazer or role model. Then we look for what we consider the final determinant of this person's black identity -- that thing that will allow us to bestow our unqualified appreciation. We look for the litmus test of lyalty to the race: the photo of the person's spouse or significant other"

For some blacks, nothing was more important as a clue to Obamas's racial loyalty than his demonstrated commitment to "a sister". For them, few political images packed more of an emotional wallop than seeingr Obama onstage in the affectionate emgrace of his beautiful black wife and their two adorable children.

In a footnote (p. 81), Dr Kennedy asks us to "Consider the following observation: 'Why do black people love Obama? In large part it's because of the dark-skinned woman on his arm.... Had Barack married a white woman, hiw candidacy would've never gotten off the ground with black people." ... "He may only be half black but he is married to a black woman and his children are black. That says a lot to me because he could have married a white woman...."

Ed. had to search a bit to get information about Ms Harris's spouse. The Dumbocrats aren't exactly putting him out front and centre. It will be interesting to see how often he appears with their V-P nominee, and how his non-blackness... and her black(ish)ness... play out on the campaign trail.

* This is not true. Dr Kennedy points out (pp. 57-58) that Shirley Anita Chisholm, the first really black woman elected to Congress, presented herself as a presidential candidate in 1972. She never posed a real threat to the Democratic Party front-runners and figured only marginally at the convention that nominated George McGovern, who went on to lose to Richard Nixon.

UPDATED: Was Lincoln a white supremacist?

An assiduous reader has challenged my assertion this morning that the views of Abraham Lincoln on the question of race and the position of African-Americans in society were not that much different from those of Robert E. Lee. "Are you saying," our reader asks, "that Lincoln was a racist?" No, that wasn't what I said. I was just alluding to a half-remembered quote, which Ed. checked with Snopes. Here's what he found.

During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.... I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Snopes concludes that "Lincoln was no different than most white males, North and South, at the time. He was a white supremacist."

Now here's the quote from General Lee: "The negroes have neither the intelligence nor the other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power. They would inevitably become the victims of demagogues who...would mislead them to the serious injury of the public."

If anything, I would call General Lee's statement mild by comparison with that of President Lincoln. Snopes, being the arbiter of liberal truth, makes a half-hearted apology for Mr Lincoln. "Of course," they say, "this excerpt from one speech does not represent the totality of Lincoln's views on race and racial equality, but the remarks were far from a complete outlier, and Lincoln's views were more complex and uncomfortable than the prevalent modern impression of him as the racially-enlightened Great Emancipator." (My emphasis. Walt)

So there you have it, folks. Both Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee are guilty, guilty, guilty, and every white male in America must apologize profusely (and continually), and make amends (preferably in cash) to all persons of colour for those vile racist comments.

Footnote added 13/2/20: It's not just in the Paranoid States of America that such fulsome apologies are required. The Daily Caller reports that the heretical Church of England has decided to commission an expert to prepare a report on the church's "deeply, institutionally racist" history following an official apology for its past.

The General Synod, the church's legislative body, voted on February 11th to issue an official apology for the racism that "countless black, Asian and minority ethnic people" have experienced in the past 70 years. The church is also commissioning an expert to prepare a report on the racism of the church. Walt expects the Episopalian Church -- the American version of the C of E -- to follow suit any day now. [Hasn't it done that already? Washington and Lee were both Episcopalians and slave-owners. Ed.]

Quiz: Which American city has been occupied 3 times by the US Army?

Got nothing? OK, I'll give you a hint. It's not Atlanta or New York or even Washington DC.
Nope, not Honolulu either.
The answer is... drum roll please... DETROIT!

In 1863, in the middle of the Glorious War of the Secession, a 10-year-old Detroit girl accused a swarthy-skinned tavern owner of rape. The barkeep claimed to be of Spanish and Indian descent, but that was close enough for a white mob who went berserk after his conviction, putting an axe in one black man's skull and burning down 35 buildings. Union troops were called in.

Detroit burned again in the race riots of 1943, in the middle of WWII, after a group of white teenagers got into a brawl with a group of black yoofs. Rumours of a white girl being raped by a gang of blacks fuelled the mobs. The black quarter of town (Detroit was 83% white at the time) was set on fire. After three days of rioting and 34 casualties, federal troops quelled the violence.

And then there were the race riots of 1967. After five days of violence, with 43 dead, more than 7000 arrested and 2000 buildings burned, the National Guard and the US Army's 82nd Airborne were brought in to restore some semblance of order. That's three -- count `em -- 3 times in just over a century that the Army has occupied an American city in the wake of racial conflict. It's always about race, isn't it.

This little bit of American trivia -- not so trivial, when you think about it -- is adapted from Detroit: An American Autopsy, by Charlie LeDuff, Penguin Press, 2013. I hadn't heard of Mr LeDuff when I picked this book up at a sale, but was intrigued by the title. Is Detroit really dead, I wondered. What killed it? Anything to do with race or the Democratic Party?

I was expecting a scholarly dissertation on such things as sociology, politics, city planning, and public administration, complete with charts, tables. I am very pleased to report that I got none of that! What I got was an intensely personal account of a reporter's journey through the wasteland that is today's Detroit, written by a native son.

To quote the dust jacket: Charlie LeDuff searches through the ruins for clues to its fate, his family's and his own.... With the steel-eyed reportage that has become his trademark and the righteous indignation only a native son possesses, LeDuff sets out to uncover what destroyed his city. He embeds with a local fire brigade struggling to defend its city against systemic arson and bureaucratic corruption.

He investigates politicians of all stripes, from the smooth-talking mayor to career police officials to ministers of the backstreets, following the paperwork to discover who benefits from Detroit's decline. He beats on the doors of union bosses and homeless squatters, p0owerful businessmen and struggling homeowners, and the ordinary people holding the city together by sheer determination.

Detroit: An American Autopsy is not a book by a liberal professor who has studied Detroiters like animals in a zoo. Charlie LeDuff writes real stories, about real people, of whom he is one. Like Studs Terkel and Ben Hamper (I was reminded of Rivethead), Mr LeDuff gives a powerful voice to those who are not listened to by the academics and the liberal media. I recommend the book most highly!

There's a bonus at the end of the book -- a photo essay of Detroit, so that when you close the book, you're not closing off your connection to the very real plight of the city. The images are imprinted into your head so that when you think of Detroit, you have something to remember it by. Here's just one of the evocative and provocative photos.

This photo, titled "Packard Plant, East Side", was taken by Danny Wilcox Frazier. Charlie LeDuff grew up on Joy Street, named after the founder of the now-defunct Packard Motor Car Company. Click here to find out more about the photo.

Further reading:
"Site contaminated with uranium partially collapses into Detroit River", Windsor Star, 4/12/19.
Autopsy of America, by Seth Lawless, Artivist Publishing, 2014. Haven't read it myself, yet, but looks like a good coffee-table book to give to your liberal friends for Christmas... oops, "winter holiday".

HS principal reported to HR police over "Black List"

Peggy Aitchison, the principal of the Etobicoke (Ontario) School of the Arts, has found out the hard way that no good deed goes unpunished, especially when the do-gooder is an educated white woman (read: Ms Aitchison) and the beneficiaries are less-educated black yoof.

The ESA is a surprisingly elitist high school run by the loony left Toronto District School Board, where students (of all races, faiths, yada yada, of course) can study drama [Perhaps to become future prime ministers? Ed.], meeja, film-making, music and dance -- all the artsy-fartsy stuff that will make them underproductive citizens when (if?) they grow up.

Pictures of the ESA student body reveal that the majority of the kids are white, which may or may not be odd since white folks are a minority in the Greater [sic] Toronto Area. But some of the students are black, or, as the Toronto Red Star styles it, "Black". And some of those kids -- the Black kids -- are, errr, underachieving. Concerned about how to bring these yoofs up to the level of their peers, Peggy Aitchison compiled a list of all "students of colour" at the school, which she passed out to teachers so they could give the underachievers extra help. You can see what's coming, can't you?

George Brown [sic], the parent of an 18-year-old student at ESA, found out about what he calls the "Black list", and filed what he says is a "human rights claim" against both Principal Aitchison and the TDSB. "It took the photos of the black students in the yearbook and places it beside their names," he told CTV News. "It is not being done on the basis of collected data. It is profiled!"

Mr Brown went on to explain that the list also placed students in categories based on mixed race. "You were in a different kind of category, as if you had some kind of white in your background, maybe you aren't, I guess, stupid. But you were put in another list is you were black from Africa or Jamaica." Hmmm.

At a meeting of parents earlier this month, Ms Aitchison admitted to creating the list, and apologized profusely, in the grand old Canadian tradition, saying that she only meant to help measure achievement at the school. "Upon reflection and discussion with others," she said, "I recognized that this was a limited, flawed, and ultimately inappropriate approach to identifying gaps in supports and so, that very same day, I retracted that compilation that was based solely on perception."

Mr Brown told CTV he doesn't accept the apology because her explanation "wasn't enough" for him. He and his son (who Walt assumes was on the Black list) say they want the TDSB to provide human rights training to all staff and to provide assurances that no more lists like the one found at ESA will ever be created. And they want Ms Aitchison should apologize to every student on the list individually.

Ms Aitchison responded by asking to be transferred to another school, and the TDSB said "So let it be written; so let it be done."

Book review: "I Can't Breathe", by Matt Taibbi

It's been difficult for me to read I Can't Breathe, by Matt Taibbi (Spiegel & Grau, 2017). Not that it is poorly written; it is quite the opposite. Nor was it because I don't see eye-to-eye with the author on the issues. Mr Taibbi is reliably liberal, as you would expect of a writer for Rolling Stone. If anyone is entitled to put the letters "SJW" after his name, it's Matt Taibbi. My discomfort stems from being reminded that those advocating "Justice for Eric Garner" and other victims of police killings are not always wrong, as some on the right say. That's what I Can't Breathe is about.

For those who don't remember, Eric Garner was a petty criminal who eked out a subsistence living for himself and his wives and children by hawking untaxed cigarettes around Tompkinsville Park, in Staten Island, a borough of New York City. On 17 July 2014, a cop named Daniel Pantaleo, already the subject of numerous complaints, put a chokehold on Mr Garner during an arrest for allegedly selling "loosies" -- single cigarettes.

The final moments of his life were captured on a video shot by Ramsey Orta, another small-time miscreant and Mr Garner's friend. What millions saw in the video was Officer Pantaleo killing Eric Garner. In spite of the video evidence, Officer Pantaleone was never indicted, let alone convicted, nor was he punished in any way for anything.

The case was presented to a grand jury by the then District Attorney (now Congressman) Dan Donovan. Mr Taibbi suggests, as have numerous lawyers, that Mr Donovan "threw" the grand jury hearing, focusing on exculpatory evidence and the unsavoury background of Eric Garner, rather than trying to get an indictment. We will never know, because the authorities have stonewalled the release of any details of the grand jury hearing.

I Can't Breathe focuses chiefly on the death of Eric Garner and the subsequent denial of justice by the so-called "justice system", but Matt Taibbi also canvases some of the many other extra-judicial killings -- police murders -- which have occurred in today's "postracial America" (as the Prez would have it), in Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, Ferguson MO and Star City AR. The author makes a powerful argument for the proposition that the "criminal justice system" is (a) racist and (b) broken.

Having been caught up in the system myself, I cannot but agree with (b). The system is FUBAR. For me, (a) is the hard part. But the evidence is there, in black and white (if you'll forgive the pun). I don't believe that anyone, of any colour, no matter how much of a lowlife he may be, deserves to be killed or even physically assaulted by cops who believe their badge gives makes them judge, jury and... yes... executioner. If you think Eric Garner and the others who met death at the hands of the police "just got what was coming to them", please read I Can't Breathe.

Further reading: "Prez calls for 'soul searching' in wake of Baltimore race riot", WWW 28/4/15.

The fattitude of America, analyzed by race

If you want to see "typical Americans" or "average Americans", watch Judge Judy. I'm a big fan. The intro to the show says the people are real. "Real what?", I ask rhetorically. "Real stupid," I answer, "and real fat, too!" [Don't you watch your grammar when you talk to yourself? Ed.] The humungousness of some of these "real Americans" -- particularly the black women -- has to be seen to be believed. Used to be we'd go to the county fair to see the fat ladies, but now you can see them, in all their fattitude, right there on the idiot's lantern.

Before you get your shorts in a knot (or, for you Brits, your knickers in a twist) and start calling me racist, sexist or body-shamer, consider some statistics that I've found by diligent research and present here for your enlightenment (the opposite of "enheavyment" - geddit?).

First of all, it is beyond dispute that Americans, on average, are among the fattest people on Earth. Some say that Samoans are fatter, or Britons and Germans close behind, but Americans have been strong contenders for the "Mr/Ms 2x4" title for half a century. According to the 14th annual State of Obesity: Better Policies for a Healthier America report from the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 70% of people in the US of A are "obese or overweight". And...

• The 10 states with the highest rates of hypertension are in the South 
• 25% of young adults who try to join the military are ineligible due to fitness or weight concerns
• Twenty-five states have an adult obesity rate of 30% or higher

The good news is that the growth in girth, so evident for so long, is levelling off. The report says that, between 2015 and 2016, adult obesity rates decreased in Kansas, increased in Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, and West Virginia, and remained stable in the rest of states. This supports trends that show steadying levels in recent years, yet adult obesity rates now exceed 35% in five states and top 30% in 25 states. West Virginia has the highest adult obesity rate at 37.7% and Colorado has the lowest at 22.3%. Here's a map that shows you, county by country, where the fatties are.

Notice the shading, from light (in colour and weight) to dark. Similar patterns may be seen in maps of poverty and maps shaded according to... weight for it (geddit?)... race. The "Disparities" section of the report confirms that "Rates of overweight and obesity have increased across the United States among people of all ethnic and racial groups, all ages and both genders, but some groups are disproportionately affected. Among U.S. adults, Black and Latino populations have substantially higher rates of obesity than do White populations. This is true among both men and women."

National data for 2013-14 show obesity rates for the various races to be: Asian, 12.6%; Black, 48.4%; Latino, 42.6%; and white, 36.4%. The report also contains data on American Indians. According to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in states with reportable data for American Indian/Alaska Native populations, 14 of the 24 states analyzed had adult overweight and obesity rates above 70%. Here are the stats in tabular form.

When you factor in gender, you discover that black women have the highest obesity rates at 57.2%, while Asian women have the lowest rates at 12.4%.

The obesity epidemic is caused primarily by eating too much of the wrong sort of food, and too little physical exercise. However, there is a factor which the SJWs and race deniers refuse to acknowledge, which is that the races are different. Different races have different metabolic rates and require different diets in order to remain naturally healthy.

Races who originate in tropical or equatorial regions have a strong hereditary need for diets high in carbohydrates such as vegetables and fruits and grains and legumes. These foods tend to provide the kind of body fuel most compatible with the unique body chemistry of people who are genetically programmed to live in warm and humid regions of the world. Their body systems are not designed to process or utilize large quantities of animal protein and fat, which form the basis of much northern (read: European) food.

Europeans, on the other hand, aren't genetically equipped to survive on light vegetarian food. We are "meat-and-potatoes" people. We tend to burn body fuel quickly, so we need heavier foods to sustain ourselves. "Rabbit food" won't do! And the farther north you go, the greater the requirement for a high-protein diet. Eskimos (Canucks please read: Inuit), easily digest and assimilate large quantities of protein and fat -- whale blubber, for instance -- exactly the kind of foods that will cause all manner of health problems for people from the Mediterranean regions.

This is not an argument for white supremacy. The report and the many studies on which it is based just show the fact that the races are different, and have different dietary needs. People whose origins are in northwestern Europe origin people have nutritional requirements which are just the opposite of sub-Saharan Africans, and have a hereditary need for more fat than other populations.

The substantial difference in obesity rates between continental Asian populations and those Asian races living in North America (= American Indians, see chart) are directly attributable to the latter group eating "European" food. The same phenomenon is found in the Inuit of Canada's Arctic, and in China, where the burgeoning middle class is now eating more wheat than rice, and gobbling down KFC and Big Macs at an astonishing rate... and growing fatter and fatter in consequence.

Further reading: Click here to view The State of Obesity: Better Policies for a Healthier America, a project of the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Black snowflakes panic as banana peel thrown in tree at Ole Miss

Walt wouldn't be surprised if the "progressives" in Congress introduce a bill to amend the Constitution of the Paranoid States of America to guarantee every Merkan the right not to be offended. Such a provision is clearly necessary, given the increasing number of incidents of insensitivity to the feelings of LGBTQ2Setc, "new Americans" and persons of colour, across the country but particularly in the racist and unrepentant Souf.

Case in point: The abrupt ending of "Ole Miss Greek life", a retreat "to build leaders and bring campus closer together" [Was that written by an English student? Ed.] convened at Camp Hopewell in Lafayette County last weekend. The get-together was to have lasted for three days, but was cut short on Saturday night after three black students found a banana peel in a tree in front of one of the camp's cabins.

A student attending the conference admitted to tossing his banana peel into a nearby tree after he was unable to locate a garbage can. Soon thereafter, the peel was spotted by Makala McNeil, president of Alpha Kappa Alpha, one of Ole Miss's historically black sororities. The banana peel "triggered" feelings of persecution and insecurity. Ms McNeil claimed that students "didn't feel welcome" or "safe" on campus. Hysteria ensued and, despite the careless student's explanation cum apology, other students left the retreat in tears.

"The overall tone was heavy. I mean, we were talking about race in Mississippi and in the Greek community so there's a lot involved," said Ms McNeil, later adding that she and her friend were "all just sort of paranoid for a second" after spotting the banana.

In a statement included in an article in the campus newspaper, the Daily Mississipian/TheDMONLINE, Alexa Lee Arndt, Interim Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life, said, "To be clear, many members of our community were hurt, frightened, and upset by what occurred at IMPACT. Because of the underlying reality many students of color endure on a daily basis, the conversation manifested into a larger conversation about race relations today at the University of Mississippi."

Walt can hardly wait for the now-customary banning of racist and culturally insensitive costumes at Hallowe'en. My fear... and it's a very real fear... is that we won't have space to report all the craziness.