Kender Uncensored

Sitemeter

Send Me $

Recent Comments

Top Commenters

My Articles at PJ Media

The Imaginary Book

The Drunk Scotsman

The Scotsman

Uncle Kender

Gimme some love

You can email me here

Atom.xml

I am THE
Snarky Kender
of the
TTLB Ecosystem

New Tagline:
"Got Kender?"

Technorati

Technorati search

    There was an error in this gadget

    Warning Will Robinson!

    Feel free to post comments, rants, or even personal attacks. It simply shows your wish for taunting if you do the latter.

    You can say anything you want here. But if you get stupid I reserve the right to point it out, call you lots of inventive names and laugh like hell.

    Blog Archive

    Blogs I Like

    In no particular order):
    Note: "right" either means this blogger is correct or that they lean right. I know what I mean by it. How do you take it?

    The Other Side Of The Street

    New York Liberals that aren't all that bad
    (for NY Libs)
    The name say it all
    (Pissed Liberals)
    Luna Kitten
    See? I told you I had a liberal friend!!!

    Iraqi Blogs

    101st Fighting Keyboardists

    The Wide Awakes

    This is in reply to this open letter on Daily Kos I just came across thanks to a dear friend and FB mom. LINK

    Dear Kos Kids,

    You folks seem to be under the impression that conservatives hate everyone who isn't a rich white guy or his subservient wife. You think we hate gays, black people, brown people, yellow people, poor people, muslim people, buddhist people, yaddita yaddita yaddita and the list goes on.  You couldn't be more wrong.

    What we hate is an ideology that wants more government control.  What we hate are people who believe it's absolutely ok for government to force a social conscience on us by law while yelling about some bogey man priest who wants to put a moral conscience on you by law.  The fact that your hypocrisy knows no bounds also annoys us so I guess we hate your hypocrisy too.  What we hate is the idea that government is going to run our lives and that we must seek their approval and permission to do virtually anything but create a child we are then free to murder before it's born.  We hate the idea you hold that we are not capable of providing for ourselves and must have government watching over our shoulder constantly.  We hate the idea of our hard earned money being confiscated by threat of imprisonment or worse only to watch it being handed over to those whose only qualifications for receiving it is that they have failed to provide for themselves and their families.

    We hate the idea of being forced to join a union who then spends our dues money taken from us by force on politicians we wouldn't even piss on if they were aflame.  We hate the fact that your racism is seen as kindness, while our realism is seen as racism. We hate that you're so blindingly ignorant, stupid and obtuse that you believe "diversity" is a good thing, never realizing that diversity only means different, not better or worse.  We hate your unrealistic view of the world, seeking a false equality based on nothing more than existence without merit. We hate that no matter how many times we calmly explain the precepts of Natural Law, Liberty and Free Market Capitalism you're only retort is "Oh yeah? You're a racist/bigot/hateful/misogynist."

    We hate the fact that you always take humanity out of the equation when discussing civilization, and constantly attempt to take away our rights of self defense.  We hate that you wish upon all of us a system devoid of reward for merit. We hate your support of race baiters who bring nothing but trouble and divisiveness. We hate your misogyny and we hate how you see the world through the lens of race, class and sexual orientation.  We hate that you cannot grasp that if you do not, yourself, possess a right you cannot give that right to the government. But we hate, most of all, your hate of us, Liberty, Natural Law and Free Market Capitalism.

    But enough about hate.  Let's talk about what we love.

    We love the idea that a man (or woman, I know how you love to latch onto one little point and beat it like a red headed stepchild, so let's be clear on that point) living in Liberty and making decisions based upon their desires and accepting personal responsibility for themselves, and dealing with the rewards or consequences of those decisions can better not only their life, but that of their family, friends and community.  We love the idea of personal choice, of being able to decide who we should assist with the fruits of our labors, if anyone.  A great many of us are Christians.  Not the gay bashing sort of westboro, but loving kind people who believe it is our PERSONAL DUTY to act charitably.  We love being charitable. Let me say that again.  WE love being charitable.  We don't believe what the government does is charity. We know it is theft.

    We love the idea that a man can take the fruits of his labor, create a business and offer a superior product or service and become wealthy, thus allowing him to live without the worries of being able to provide for those he loves.  We also love being able to provide for those we love.  We love not being dependent upon a government check or program.  We love succeeding on our own merit and abilities, without having some program give us something we haven't earned based upon the color of our skin, where we were born or who we love. We love the idea of true equality, where each have what they have earned, not what was stolen for them in the name of compassion.  We love compassion. We love the idea of allowing people to earn their own way, reaping rewards or suffering consequences for their choices, thus teaching down through the generations the better choices which lead to success instead of the worse choices which lead to failure.

    We love the idea of Liberty.  We love it so much, and think it's such a neato keen concept that we want all of us to live in a society that affords everyone the absolute greatest amount of Liberty possible, even the gay people, black people, brown people etc. etc. etc. We love the idea of people being religious or not, as they see fit, as long as their religion doesn't force us to act or not act as we see fit. We love the fact that we live in a country which allegedly gives us the right to keep and bear arms, because we love personal responsibility and we love the fact that everyone has the natural right under natural law to defend their life and property from those who would steal them from us. We love the idea that we were born with certain inalienable rights, and they cannot be taken from us unless we allow it to happen.

    So on that note know this. Your ideals of an all powerful, all intrusive and all controlling government is something else we hate, because it goes against all we love. Your ideals which we hate so deeply will not win out against us and our ideals we love so dearly. Because evil never wins. And what you advocate is evil. It is the idea of dragging down the successful who have earned it in a vain attempt to raise up those who have not, and that never works because simply spreading around the wealth will never teach those who fail how to succeed.  The best teacher for that is failure.  I know, I know, that sounds like it makes no sense but if you think about it not only does it make sense but it's exactly what all living things have been doing throughout the entire history of existence.   The creatures that learned how to care for themselves and survive are still here, those that did not, aren't.

    So keep pushing your evil ideology of failure and theft.  It's been said the Tree of Liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike, and us patriots have had just about enough of your tyrannical ways and that tree is looking a mite thirsty.

    Sincerely, Kender MacGowan
    Racism: noun; a belief that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior. Source

    I have been thinking a lot about John Derbyshire's Taki column that got him booted from National Review. I've also been having some conversations on the column and race in America, both in person and via the Internet. In this time when screaming "racism" at every turn as a means to stifle one's opponent has become commonplace, my rule of thumb is to demand that the accusers "Show Me The Racism."

    While Derbyshire's column was not pleasing in tone, there was nothing that was clearly of a racist nature and only a very little that could be spun and "interpreted" to be so. The one argument Derbyshire makes that seems to be causing the greatest uproar is his recognition that Blacks tend to score lower on IQ tests than people of other cultures in America.  The uproar appears to be over the sensitivity that people have to the notion that to speak the truth about these scores might encourage bigots to conclude that these low IQ scores are a product of Black peoples' mental inferiority. 

    But that is not what Derbyshire said.  Ignoring or obfuscating the facts in order to prevent bigots from using the facts in an inappropriate manner neither serves the truth nor does Derbyshire's refusal to do so in any way make him a racist. Nowhere did it advocate being racist.  People are naturally sensitive to marking an entire group of people not as smart as another group of people, yet no whites that I have heard of are complaining about Derbyshire's pointing out the fact that Asians, as a group, score higher than whites on those same IQ tests.  The fact that Asians DO score higher than whites, on average, points out that the tests are not culturally biased, or if they are they must be culturally biased in favor of Asians.

    Where Derbyshire went wrong is in not mentioning that the most likely reason for the IQ test score averages are cultural.  The sad fact is that the black community does not put a high priority on education, as evidenced by any number of objective statistics not least of them the high drop out rate in the African-American community.  Few deny that Asian-Americans score unusually high on similar aptitude tests and fewer still ascribe it to traits inherent to their race or skin color.

    I defy anyone to show me the racism in Derbyshire's column, or even a single lie or an instance of where he was dead wrong. The fact that the left threw Derbyshire under the bus is to be expected. The fact that the right did it so easily is a terrifying reality of life in America today, as it proves you are not allowed to point out uncomfortable truths. The right's willingness to look no further than the tone and accept the charge of Derbyshire's racism is proof positive that no matter the talk on the right about seeking the truth when it comes to being called names, and wrongly being called those names, those on the right are just as weak willed as always.

    Here are perhaps the most outrageous facts from Derbyshire's article summed up for the sake of expediency. "The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites."  While this could have been couched in more diplomatic terms, if standard IQ tests are a fair arbiter, than Derbyshire's statement is nothing other than the reporting of an unpleasant truth. Many have also taken Derbyshire to task for writing: If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.” Given the relatively new phenomena of "Flash Mobs" and that these violent mobs have been, almost without exception, comprised almost exclusively of black youths, Derbyshire is only applying prudent advice to objective facts.  The charge of "racism" could posssibly apply if Derbyshire had attempted to explain the cause of black Flash Mobs.  But he didn't.  Does anyone out there deny the existence of Flash Mobs?  Is the claim that these Flash Mobs are almost exclusively predominently black?  So how, exactly, is being aware of and responding prudently to the facts an act of bigotry? And finally, “Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.” This one is simply common sense. Those areas run by black politicians tend to have a high black population and statistics show, as has been mentioned, that crime is higher in an area with a higher black population. Detroit has been run by black politicians for years, and by not one standard is it considered a decent place to live. Again, there is no racism here, simply common sense.

    In order to make their point, a number of the anti-Derbyshire people I've spoken with have engaged in intellectual dishonesty.  They acknowledge the accuracy of the things the author claims, but take exception to the fact that in raw numbers it is whites who commit more crimes or drop out of school more, etc.  Of course they do, there are far more of them in general.  When a community of perhaps 12 percent of the population commits eighty percent of the murders the raw numbers may be lower, but clearly there's a cultural pattern.

    Of course, no discussion on racism in America would be complete without asking why the left is so ready to yell racism and shut down the dialogue. The short answer is the left has a vested interest in identity politics, of playing groups against each other and keeping Blacks on the modern plantation of welfare, food stamps and government housing. It equals control and virtually guarantees votes for the side promising to punish the rich and give to the poor.

    You will notice we hear the left scream "KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER" when it comes to immigration, but the same hue and cry is singularly absent from the welfare system, where it is exceedingly hard for someone to get welfare if dad is present. Let the father leave, however, and the deadbeat dad laws kick in with program after program to help the single mother and her offspring while the state does everything in its power, up to and including taking away the father’s ability to make a living, to punish the man for leaving and not supporting those children. The schism in chasing the father away so the kids may have a roof and food is fodder for another whole series of columns, and I digress.

    The racism one sees in America is not from the right in some column on a website whose very description reads:

    We at Taki’s Magazine take our politics like we take life—lightly. We believe political labels such as conservative and liberal are as outdated as flared trousers and Nazis. Ideology is a false god, a secular religion that seeks vainly to create a paradise on Earth. Our only ideology is to be against the junk culture foisted upon us and mirages of a new world order. Think of us what you will, but read us. Our writers are never boring.

    It is seen from the left, who push identity politics, dividing groups by various demographics, promising to punish those who have in order to reward those who don't, and shutting down the dialogue for fear of the exposure which would surely have those most harmed by their policies running from them in droves. The left's position on race is one of "you're not as capable, so somebody owes you," and THAT is racism defined.

    So far nobody has been able to show me definitive proof of racism in Derbyshire's column outside of Derbyshire's own admittance to being a racist, albeit a mild and tolerant racist. So even though the words came from a self-proclaimed mild and tolerant racist, there was nothing wrong in his column: no lies, half-truths, fabrications or indeed anything outside of facts. In case it escapes you--and no matter what the left claims--facts are simply facts and cannot be racist.

    Derbyshire's column, instead of getting him fired and blackballed, should have opened up a dialogue on the underlying causes of those higher crime rates and lower test scores. Until we can leave the knee-jerk rhetoric behind and stop yelling "RACIST" at anyone who speaks to these issues, we will never be able to have an honest discussion on the subject and that is the saddest truth to come from this whole debacle.