Crucifying our sense of personal responsibility

How I love to tie things together.  It all seems so obvious.

I had another “church” experience yesterday where, yet again, there was a missed opportunity by a pastor to relate a clear teaching of Scripture to our current cultural condition that is in dire need of repair.

There is a growing belief that the government will solve all our problems; that we bear little or no personal responsibility for our own lives, never mind caring about what else goes on in the world.   There is no sense of “ownership” of our lives and the responsibilities that go along with ownership, whether it be our families or jobs.  Increasingly our family responsibilities of child rearing,  education, and health care are given up to the government.  Our jobs are merely a paycheck without any sense of ownership and responsibility – the electorate's reliance on unions and big government make sure of that.

Government bureaucrats believe they must lord over the people so that overbearing and often unintended consequences of over-reaching Congressional legislation is enforced.    The more government is in control, the more effective and powerful bureaucrats feel and the less space the rest of us have to be responsible for our own lives.

Two key examples of this downward spiraling cultural malaise are these:

• From the private sector:  The notorious Obama fan who admits she voted for Obama because she gets free money – from where?  From Obama’s “stash.” That video went viral because it is symbolic of the ignorance , laziness, and greed of too many  millions of Americans.
• From the public sector:  The Southwest Region EPA official who promoted the technique of “crucifying” (translated:  harsh selective enforcement) those who violate the epidemic of environmental rules that depress incentive and productivity of our entrepreneurs.  Even though Al Armendariz resigned his post to “remove a distraction”, as he put it, we all understand that his methods are pandemic and typical of the type of enforcement the bureaucrats are conditioned to carry out.

So, what Scripture do pastors often fail to relate to our pressing needs?  Here it is.  I’ve underlined the sections that reflect the lack of commitment and responsibility felt by those who have little attachment or care about their responsibilities – a behavior that is becoming the new normal in our culture:

John 10:11-18 English Standard Version (ESV)

¹¹ I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. ¹² He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. ¹³ He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. ¹⁴ I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, ¹⁵ just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. ¹⁶ And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. ¹⁷ For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. ¹⁸ No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

Most sermons on these verses focus on Christ and his laying down his life.  But was Christ all about himself and not the lessons he wished to teach?  I don’t think so.  The second half of these verses shows Christ setting the example of personal responsibility to the point of giving his own life.

What is the lesson?  Oh oh.  It might be political.  It might be applied to our situation today – to our culture and government. Churches avoid this discussion because they believe it verges on “politics” and politics should NEVER be discussed in church.  I’m surprised religion is still discussed in churches at all because, as we often hear, never discuss religion or politics because someone might be offended.  Phooey!  What is politics, anyway?  Politics is all about the balance between what we should do for ourselves and others and what government should do for us and others.  Seems to me there is a tremenous overlap between religion and politics.  Half of religion has not been discussed because of this.

The lessons that need to be taught from these verses are these:  Too many of us act like hired hands who feel little sense of responsibility – to anything.  Why?  Government paternalism makes too many of us feel like hired hands with little sense of personal responsibility.  Too many of us are demanding government assistance.  The more dependent we become on government, the less sense of responsibility and commitment we feel to do the things we should be doing:  Caring for our families, educating our kids, assisting our neighbors, saving for difficult times.  Personal sacrifice is part of all of this.  Even our religious ideals as expressed through Chrisitian institutions, not just churches, but hospitals, clinics, and other social services, is in jeopardy because of the overreaching arm of government control.

And here is the irony.  The more we rely on government, the bigger and stronger we demand government become  - and the more oppressive it becomes, to the point of bureaucrats adopting oppressive, crucifying methods of enforcement to make examples of us all.

What naïve teachers need to know about Islam

I attended an ACT for America chapter meeting yesterday.  The topic was “Islam and Women” presented by Dr. Jonathan Matusitz, Ph.D.  a professor in the School of Communication at the University of Central Florida.  After Dr. Matusitz spent an entire hour detailing the vast array of hostile behaviors against women commanded in the Qur’an, promoted by Islamic leaders, and practiced by Muslims around the world, a local school teacher rose to comment.

He appeared to excuse Islamic-informed Muslim behaviors by reminding us that the Bible, too, contains verses that appear immoral in the context of civilization today.  Well, I have to say, that ignorant attempt at moral equivalence got the discussion going.

We were all amazed that after hearing fact upon fact of vile actions promoted by Islamic ideology today around the world, this man had the kahunas to attempt to excuse Islam by proclaiming Judeo-Christian religious texts equivalently evil.

Near the end of the meeting, our teacher friend left the meeting after he accused us of being a “hate group.”

Not wanting him to remain ignorant, I emailed him the following:

Dear ___:

Hi. I also attended the ACT for America meeting Tuesday afternoon.

You stimulated some interesting discussion by presenting your views to the group. We appreciate that because your opinions are typical of the understanding of many well intentioned people in the media, academia, and frankly, in the general population.

I would like to address a few points you made.

You expressed moral equivalence between some of the verses in the Bible and in the Qur’an, I guess as the basis for excusing Islam or perhaps to suggest we should not judge others because “we, too, have sinned.”

Concerning your claim of moral equivalence between the content of the Bible and the Qur’an, here are several points for your consideration:

1. You declared moral equivalency between texts of the Bible that have not been literally interpreted for hundreds of years (and even then not representative of the teaching of Christ) with texts of Islamic holy books that are filled with hate and prejudice (that are representative of the teaching of Muhammad) that are literally interpreted daily in dozens of countries and taught and promoted in thousands of Islamic schools and mosques –even in the US. The Bible texts you quoted are universally taught as being limited in place and time in the distant past millennia, while Islamic texts are present-day mandates in the main stream of Islamic thought. I consider your comparison to be either ignorant of one or both texts and their present day interpretation, or utterly disingenuous.

2. The overriding messages of the Bible and the Qur’an are starkly different from one another. The essence of the Bible message is man’s sin and redemption with subtopics of God’s love and forgiveness. The overriding message of the Qur’an is submission of self and others to the will of Allah through political activism to convert or constrain the inferior infidel. Please refer to this “Political Islam” website which analyzes the proportion of the Islamic trilogy devoted to how the infidel shall be treated.

3. The essence of Christianity is presented via the life of Christ. The essence of Islam is presented in the life of Muhammad. Study and contrast the lives of these two men to discover the core differences between the teachings of Christianity and Islam. Again, your attempts at moral equivalence come across as uninformed or subject to an agenda I am not aware of.

You described our meeting as a “hate group” because of the response of several people to your question “would you deport Muslims.” Some of the answers motivated you to walk out of the meeting.

You posed the question, “would you deport all Muslims?” I must say, you posed an extreme question. There are certainly more moderate proposals that you could have proffered to address culturally incompatible and aggressive forms of Islam. And in reply to your extreme question you got a few extreme responses. Some said “yes”; some said “only those who prove seditious”; others said “enforce the laws of the land.”

However, our problem is this: Too few people in this country, apparently yourself included, fail to understand the nature of Islam, the ideology. They fail to understand Islamic taqiyya and abrogation, and Islam’s teachings about the infidel, and the distinctions between Muhammad’s Meccan and Medinan experiences and actions. They fail to understand the nature and implications of Sharia law and the consequences to allowing or enabling a dual legal system in this nation. They fail to understand the extent of infiltration of Islamists into our government, academia, and media.

I don’t have a problem with Muslims. I have a problem with the ignorance of our people about Islam, its ideology, political intent, and Islam’s methods of furthering its supremacist agenda through political means and equally, through lying, intimidation and terror to supplement political means. Muslims come in all stripes. Some are benign, usually because they are ignorant of the Islamic ideology they proclaim or because they are more interested in raising their family and melding into our culture. Many are not benign and feign moderation and friendship to further their supremacist agenda. Generally, the more devout they are, the more their values differ from western culture and morality. And the more they tend toward deception and various forms of jihad to further their Islamic ideology.

Islam is at least as much a political ideology as it is a religion. Bill Warner has analyzed the Islamic Trilogy and determined that the great majority is devoted to how Muslims must treat the infidel, making Islam every bit as much a political ideology as Communism or Fascism. Many of the best informed about Islam are convinced Islam is more dangerous to this nation than either Communism or Fascism because it demands the same form of top down submission coupled with religious fervor – a very potent combination. Increasing numbers of experts are concluding (and I agree) that the coercive, supremacist, Sharia aspect of Islam is more a political ideology than a religion and should not be afforded the protections of the first amendment as if it were a religion.

Those among us at the meeting you attended who agreed with your “deportation” question most likely see that as a last resort if and when the situation becomes so dire that other options to save our government and preserve our freedoms appear futile. Several European countries have reached the point of such action being seriously officially discussed, e.g. Britain, Germany and the Netherlands. Here is the view of an Iraqi Muslim on this topic. I certainly hope we don’t let ourselves get to that point. I hope we can feel secure without that action being necessary. But given the record of terror acts in the US and around the world where 99% are committed by Muslims in the name of Islam while shouting Allahu Akbar, I don’t hold out much hope for that miracle. Here is a site that tracks acts of Islamic terror around the world – the link lists such acts committed in just the last 30 days. How many billions has the US spent since 9-11 defending ourselves against Lutherans, Presbyterians, Jews and Mormons compared to Muslims?

Our group is a reality awareness group, not a hate group. Those who ignorantly refer to us as a hate group are not admitting to reality. To some, apparently you included, truth is the new “hate speech.” Yes, there are nice Muslim families, nice Muslim children, and friendly Muslim neighbors. No one denies that. That should not excuse us from identifying the reality of the Islamic ideology, its aims and methods.

I welcome your response to the points I have made.

I would like to have addressed this to: “Dear ignorant, Islam-coddling, clueless excuse for a teacher.”  But the better part of me prevailed.

Disavowal of middleclassness: A centerpiece of Obama’s governance…

One of Obama’s foundational principles that informs his governing ideology was learned through his 20 years at Trinity United Church of Christ.  Trinity Church displays its racist “Black Value System” on its web site as unashamedly as a finger pointed between your eyes.  Among the several racist value statements listed, is this one:

Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”

Obama’s commitment to the “disavowal of the pursuit of middleclassness” has been clearly shown in virtually all of his policies implemented during his presidency.  Here is the complete statement from his former church’s “Black Value System”:

Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness." Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the "talented tenth" of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor's control. Proverbs 3:13-14 - Happy are those who find wisdom and those who gain understanding, for her income is better than silver and her revenue better than gold.
Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:

• Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.
• Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
• Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of "we" and "they" instead of "us."
• So, while it is permissible to chase "middleclassness" with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method - the psychological entrapment of Black "middleclassness." If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our "voluntary" contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.

Trinity United Church of Christ:  The Anti-Assimilation church.

Is there any doubt why Obama’s economic policies, health care policies, tax policies, wealth redistribution policies, energy policies, devisive racist rhetoric and all the rest are what they are? Virtually everything he has proposed or accomplished has its aim in reducing the middle class and eliminating the lower class aspiration to climb the socio-economic ladder toward “middleclassness.”  Obama doesn’t just dislike the rich, although he loves the perks of the rich.  He dislikes the middle class and everything about our country that enabled the middle class to be as large as it is.

This same “Black Value System” was posted on Obama’s church’s website through the entirety of his 2007 presidential campaign.  In fact I wrote about this in March 2007, asking what if a similar “White Value System” was written by a church.  I worry about the carelessness and ignorance of our electorate in discovering and caring about what our candidates represent.  This  careless ignorance has reached the point where some commentators openly wish that the ignorant shouldn’t vote.  That would probably eliminate 20% or more of the electorate. 

There was no excuse for our electorate being unaware of what they were voting for.  It was as clear as a racist finger pointed between their eyes.

Are you avoiding being called “radical?”

To be accused of being a “radical” is nearly as bad as being called a bigot, racist, Islamophobe, or homophobe.

Once an individual is no longer in the mainstream of cultural values, he becomes marginalized as a radical.   What do we do to prevent being called “radical?”  Most of us give up whatever we thought we believed in.   It doesn’t matter that it is the culture that has deviated (i.e. has become deviant)from the moral norms of the previous 500 years in a radical way.  It is those of us who choose to abide by the cultural and moral norms of the past 500 years that are labeled as “radicals.”

Even in the Catholic Church it is the Catholics who prefer the mystery, reverence, and tradition of the Latin Mass that the church practiced for over 1,500 years who are called “radicals.”  Odd isn’t it.  Those who deviated from a 1,500 year tradition are not radicals, but the ones who prefer that tradition are radicals.

The same weirdness applies to changes in morality.  Homosexuality has been considered a perversion since the beginning of time.  But the radical deviation from that standard has suddenly become a protected norm.  And those who still hold to that multi-millennial standard are now called “radicals” and “bigots” and “homophobes.  Very strange.

There are some beliefs and situations where “radical” is not a good thing.  And there are some things where “radical” IS a good thing.  Being “radical” in and of itself should not be universally condemned as taboo, although our society increasingly believes we should give up and care little about our highly valued traditions and faith so that no one can be offended or feel slighted.

I contend that so-called “radical Islam” (i.e. Muslims who actually understand and practice their ideology) is evil and rightfully should be condemned.  A radical Catholic or Protestant, or Mormon, (i.e. one who understands and practices his faith in an exemplary fashion) should be commended for his faith, convictions, diligence, and perseverance.  In other words, what a person is “radical” about does matter.  Radical is not good or bad in and of itself.  What is more important is the belief the person is radical about.  There is good radical and there is evil radical.

Jesus Christ was a radical.  His followers were radical.  Devout Christians today are radical compared to the culture they live in.  In many areas, such devout people are derided, scorned and hated.  They have been and continue to be called “goody two-shoes, sanctimonious, self-righteous, bigots, infidels, and -phobes of all kinds.  So be it.

This reminds me of Barry Goldwater’s berated quote:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

This culture would prefer that all strong personal beliefs be abandoned in favor of the script dictated by government and the radical new cultural norms.  Nuts!

My prayer is that Christians and Jews of all stripes become more radical than ever.  That we awake from our pacifist slumber and stand up with the conviction of our beliefs God desires of us.  Do not be ashamed or afraid of being “radical.”   Shame and fear depend on what we are radical about.   There is no shame or fear in being radical for good.   Such radicals are to be honored and praised.

Several individuals come to mind in this regard.  Congressman Allen West is one for speaking the truth about Islam in a highly intelligent way.  Mitt Romney is one for being radical for promoting traditional morality and committing his life and resources to overcoming an evil and incompetent presidency.  Franklin Graham for his courage in speaking out for Christianity in contrast to Islam for which he is ridiculed.  Even George Zimmerman for his community watch function (that he is mocked for doing) and the price he will be paying for defending himself while providing a valuable service to his little community. 

These are all “radicals” worthy of honor, praise, and our support.

Not even the conservative book club gets it right about Islam…

I received an ad from the Conservative Book Club today that provided a link to their several categories of books.  The only category listed for Islam was “Radical Islam.”

I emailed the non-radical Conservative Book Club the following:

One of your book categories is "Radical Islam." 

Is this based on your belief that regular Islam is not radical?  Are the non-radical Muslims the same as nominal Muslims, like "nominal Christian", generally ignorant or non-observant of their faith?  You do realize, don't you, that practitioners of orthodox Islam are, by nature "radical", do you not? A more accurate book category would simply be "Islam."

Why do we excuse orthodox Islam by inserting modifiers like “radical” before the word “Islam”, which causes the less informed among us to believe that so-called “non-radical Islam” is benign.

Islam. Is. Radical. Period.

Neil Boortz defends lesbians –“everyone should prefer women…”

Neil Boortz, radio entertainer/commentator, and all around libertarian jackass, highlighted the great divide between social and fiscal conservatives during a discussion with a caller today.

How did this conversation come about and what did he say?

The topic:  Hilary Rosen, the lesbian adviser to the Democratic National Committee who condemned Ann Romney by proclaiming Ann “never worked a day in her life.”

Neil’s caller argued that a lesbian, one who is morally perverted, has little basis for judging the behavior of a straight, stay at home mom.  Boortz took exception by challenging the caller and eventually cutting him off.  He insisted that Ms. Rosen made the right choice by preferring women because “we should all prefer women.”  He may have intended a bit of humor, but his disdain for those who claim there is such a thing as sexual perversion was loud and clear.

What an absolute jackass.  If Boortz was king, his domain would last little longer than one generation.

Boortz made it clear that he believes social conservatism is worthless.  He has little regard for traditional morality and dismisses anyone who promotes it.   He ignorantly believes there is no connection between conservative  moral values and fiscal responsibility.  He is gravely mistaken.  This could not be any further from the truth.

His striking distinction between caring about the fiscal and ignoring the moral left no doubt in my mind about how ignorant he and people like him are about what is necessary for a nation and a culture to survive.

At the same time, for years Boortz has argued that people on welfare and “stupid people” should not be allowed to vote.  I wonder if he will be the judge of who is stupid?

Pray for that man – pray for our electorate!

Secret service lapse reflects on Obama…

This is the first major Secret Service lapse (if the current news accounts prove true) I recall in my lifetime.

Yes, the dozen or so Secret Service members involved represent a small portion of all  Secret Service agents who are above reproach in their morality and performance.  Yet the moral and professional lapse of even a few represents a problem.

And I believe the problem is lack of respect for the man they are sworn to defend.  There is a cognitive dissonance occurring in the minds of many of these men who are charged with defending a man whose actions produce mixed feeling in them.  Their heart is not in their job.  So they break the rules and have a good time while they can.  It is like getting drunk when you have a catch 22 back home.

This, to me, is as logical a reason as any as to why a substantial number of Secret Service protecting our president in a foreign country have to be brought back home.  Loss of commitment due to loss of respect.

Do you have a better reason?

Sanford riots postponed…

…giving law enforcement more time to prepare for the inevitable.

State Prosecutor Angela Corey gave her prejudice-laced decree of charges against George Zimmerman yesterday:  Second Degree Murder.

In spite of Corey’s 13-second statement that “We do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition. We prosecute based on the facts on any given case as well as the laws of the state of Florida,"  the other 20 minutes of her statement fawned over the Martin family, and all but dismissed any hope of justice for Zimmerman and his family.

Most experts predict it will be difficult for the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman did NOT act in self-defense.  HERE is one article, typical of many others, expressing this concern.

While many agree that bringing this case to trial will defuse the highly charged racist rhetoric and threat of violence, it only results in delaying the inevitable.  The facts will likely prove Zimmerman’s innocence.  Once the jury reaches that verdict, we will experience rioting in the streets by those whose actions are motivated by race and hate.  Too many black and liberal racists are stirring the pot.

National Review writer fired for failing to suppress the truth…

John Derbyshire, a well-regarded writer for the “conservative” magazine National Review was fired for writing an article for an on-line magazine called Taki’s Magazine.   THIS is the article that got him fired.

What was his offense?  He told the truth.  He published the things that he teaches his own kids.   This is the sort of common sense advice that millions of parents are or should be advising their own teens before they go out on their own such as when they first receive their drivers license. 

Even though the advice was based on truth, it was deemed “racist” and offensive.  Yeah, I suppose the truth can be offensive to those who don’t want to hear it.  Good thing the “street” doesn’t have feelings and can’t fire people.  We tell our kids not to play in it all the time because there are times when the street can be dangerous.  Should the street take offense for sometimes being a dangerous place to play?  The reactionary National Review demonstrated that non-Asian/non-Caucasian/non-Hispanic folks take offense at the truth, as does most of the media. 

But were John’s comments racist?  If his comments were the truth, no.  How can the truth be racist?  It can be insulting and offensive, but not racist.  A kid who makes F’s in school might get insulted when you remind him that he is making Fs.  But does that mean he should not be reminded?   Too many parents fail to teach our kids reality.

The firing was reported in many outlets.  HERE is the Guardian version.

And HERE is National Review’s editor, Rich Lowry’s, brief excuse for the firing.  From the “timing is everything” department:  I was actually about to order a Kindle version of National Review.  News of this firing changed my mind.

The truth comes at a price too many of us don't want to pay.   John Derbyshire paid a price.  But our species will be better off in the long run for it. Too bad we are such a short run culture.

As someone accurately observed: "Truth is the new hate speech."   We dare not speak it. Someone might be offended. Islam is also a "protected class" from the truth in a similar manner. Speak truth about Islam and you are a bigoted Islamophobe.

Here is John’s article.  Note how carefully he balanced his facts by pointing out he is not referring to every black.  He was referring to specific situations, for example, where there are concentrations of blacks that are not known by his kids.  He is not against associations; he seeks blacks as good friends.  He was referring to statistical facts that inform us about behaviors and personal qualities of a disproportionately large segment of blacks that do not make good associations for our kids – in fact which can be quite dangerous.

See what you think.

The Talk: Nonblack Version

by John Derbyshire

April 05, 2012

Multiple Pages

There is much talk about “the talk.”

“Sean O’Reilly was 16 when his mother gave him the talk that most black parents give their teenage sons,” Denisa R. Superville of the Hackensack (NJ) Record tells us. Meanwhile, down in Atlanta: “Her sons were 12 and 8 when Marlyn Tillman realized it was time for her to have the talk,” Gracie Bonds Staples writes in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Leonard Greene talks about the talk in the New York Post. Someone bylined as KJ Dell’Antonia talks about the talk in The New York Times. Darryl Owens talks about the talk in the Orlando Sentinel.

Yes, talk about the talk is all over.

There is a talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids, too. My own kids, now 19 and 16, have had it in bits and pieces as subtopics have arisen. If I were to assemble it into a single talk, it would look something like the following.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

(1) Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as black, and whom I shall refer to as black. The cumbersome (and MLK-noncompliant) term “African-American” seems to be in decline, thank goodness. “Colored” and “Negro” are archaisms. What you must call “the ‘N’ word” is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks.

“There is a talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids, too.”

(2) American blacks are descended from West African populations, with some white and aboriginal-American admixture. The overall average of non-African admixture is 20-25 percent. The admixture distribution is nonlinear, though: “It seems that around 10 percent of the African American population is more than half European in ancestry.” (Same link.)

(3) Your own ancestry is mixed north-European and northeast-Asian, but blacks will take you to be white.

(4) The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen. That is basic good manners and good citizenship. In some unusual circumstances, however—e.g., paragraph (10h) below—this default principle should be overridden by considerations of personal safety.

(5) As with any population of such a size, there is great variation among blacks in every human trait (except, obviously, the trait of identifying oneself as black). They come fat, thin, tall, short, dumb, smart, introverted, extroverted, honest, crooked, athletic, sedentary, fastidious, sloppy, amiable, and obnoxious. There are black geniuses and black morons. There are black saints and black psychopaths. In a population of forty million, you will find almost any human type. Only at the far, far extremes of certain traits are there absences. There are, for example, no black Fields Medal winners. While this is civilizationally consequential, it will not likely ever be important to you personally. Most people live and die without ever meeting (or wishing to meet) a Fields Medal winner.

(6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences.

(7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.

(8) These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior is a degree more antisocial yet.

(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”

(12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth.

(13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.

(14) Be aware, however, that there is an issue of supply and demand here. Demand comes from organizations and businesses keen to display racial propriety by employing IWSBs, especially in positions at the interface with the general public—corporate sales reps, TV news presenters, press officers for government agencies, etc.—with corresponding depletion in less visible positions. There is also strong private demand from middle- and upper-class whites for personal bonds with IWSBs, for reasons given in the previous paragraph and also (next paragraph) as status markers.

(15) Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous. To be an IWSB in present-day US society is a height of felicity rarely before attained by any group of human beings in history. Try to curb your envy: it will be taken as prejudice (see paragraph 13).

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

You don’t have to follow my version of the talk point for point; but if you are white or Asian and have kids, you owe it to them to give them some version of the talk. It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves. It may save their lives.

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/print#ixzz1rZVNGxQn

Without a strong Christianity, there is no basis for opposing Islam or any other vile ideology…

The greatest threat to Christ’s Church is not The Kingdom of the Cults; it is not Islamic Fundamentalism.  It is the recent phenomenon of “the emergent church”, a new form of pseudo-Christianity that is rebelling against historical Christianity and morality.

Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Science are less of a threat to historic orthodox Christianity and Christian morality than this new breed of church.  At least the so-called “cults” are known for what they are.  These “new breed” churches are insidious  - like a Trojan army.  And at least the cults promote a morality that is consistent with the historic church.

These emerging churches are aligned with Islam, with a perversion of the gospel called the “social gospel”, aka socialist, big government activism, with the cult of personal irresponsibility and entitlement, and with the promotion of government mandated respect of immoral behavior.

Learn more about this corrupt form of Christianity from the video below, and from the website The Submerging Church.

Naiveté at the pinnacle…

Islamo-ignorance epidemic in the White House & State Department

Here is news of the continuing sell-out to the Muslim Brotherhood by the Islamist sympathizers among us:

“White House officials held talks with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood in Washington this week…”

The White House defended its Muslim Brotherhood talks by reminding us of the recent talks with this group conducted by equally ignorant Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain.

But wait!  Here are the money quotes from the Obama administration…

"We believe that it is in the interest of the United States to engage with all parties that are committed to democratic principles, especially nonviolence," said National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor.

"In all our conversations with these groups, we emphasize the importance of respect for minority rights, the full inclusion of women, and our regional security concerns."

“Committed to democratic principles!”  Committed to democratic principles?  You have got to be freakin’ kidding, Tommy!  Do you people have a clue about Islamic ideology – and especially the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in cramming Islam down the throats of the world?

Oh, sweet! “In all our conversations with these groups, we emphasize the importance of respect for minority rights, full inclusion of women,” yadaydayada.  That and a burka will get you 3 yards of black muslin.

Yes indeed.  This is the work of the Obama administration.  I expect nothing less from these people.  The sad thing is, given Romney’s track record of words about Islam, e.g. “Jihadism is no part of Islam…”, etc. I’m not sure he will do any better.  In other words, it’s up to us, folks, the right wing, know nuthin’, gun thumpin’, Bible totin’, or is it Bible thumpin’ and gun totin’ conservatives, to use our common sense, exercise our readin’ and writin’ abilities and develop enough effective communications skills, along with a huge dose of motivation and sense of urgency to help educate the electorate of the truth of Islam.  And just as important, we need to expose the really really crappy job our elected and appointed leaders are doing in dealing with Islam and those who promote its incompatible, intolerant, radical agenda.

From the “who the hell does he think he is” department…

King Obama has “audacity” gushing out of all of his orifices.

With all due respect * Mr. president, what do you suppose is meant by “separation of powers?”  What do you suppose is the purpose of the three branches of government?  What do you suppose is the purpose of the Constitution?

What, Mr. President, do you think was the result of Marbury vs. Madison?

Among other findings, the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madison ruled:

“The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void.”

So, Mr. president, you confront members of the Supreme Court declaring…

"For years, what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or the lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law…"

What a twisted attempt at intimidation.  This so-called constitutional scholar denies the possibility that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.  He has taken it upon himself to serve as Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary of this nation.  He is using a legitimate concern of conservatives, “judicial activism”, and using it as an argument against testing legislation against the Constitution.  He is suggesting that a whack job piece of legislation that nobody read is de facto immune from any constitutional tests.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals notes the audacity of the President’s challenge to the Supreme Court by ordering the Department of Justice by next Thursday to explain whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.

I cannot tell you how happy I will be when this Islamo-sympathizing, radical, anti-constitutionalist, capitalism-hating, wealth redistributing, neo-commie is no longer in office.

* I really cringe at having to say this about our president, but this president is worthy of very little, if any, respect.  Therefore the phrase “with all due respect” is essentially meaningless.

The triple-edged sword of a recovering economy…

The stock market is at the highest level of Obama’s term.  Housing prices have stabilized.  Most current economic signs posted by the media over the past several weeks have been positive.  The economy appears to be climbing out of the pit into the sunshine. 

This should be good news if it were not for a few caveats.

The first is some believe this is not really a recovery, but an anomaly – that unemployment will remain high, consumer spending will weaken, and the failing European economies will depress the longer term economic picture.

Second, whether or not there is any substance behind this perceived recovery, it is likely Obama’s reelection efforts will be strengthened by it.  Any positive economic indicators “team Obama” can point to, no matter how tenuous or temporary, will be an asset to his reelection.  A one or two point drop in the unemployment rate will trigger celebration in the streets of our short-sighted , easily finagled electorate.

And finally, if we are truly in the midst of an economic recovery, it only means that we will continue to engage in “business as usual”, we will continue on the same tax, borrow, and spend course we’ve been on, and we put off our economic Armageddon for another year or two.  But hey, that’s just enough to reelect our newfound savior.