Think 'Racism' is a Uniquely White Ideology?

Earlier this week congressman Charles Rangel pontificated that there are some 'Southern areas' with cultures which must be 'overcome' in order to put an end to gun violence in this country.

Of course we all know what this race-baiting leftist means by 'cultures which must be overcome' but allow me to agree with the good congressman.  Statistics are funny things, they tell a story all their own, but can be manipulated to pretty much defend any position.

For instance, if I said that driving drunk is dangerous (and it arguably is) and that 30% of all traffic fatalities involved alcohol, you would probably conclude that if we were magically able to eliminate ALL drunk driving through preemptive measures, that traffic fatality rates would fall by roughly 30%.

What this neglects is that 70% of all traffic fatalities do NOT involve alcohol.  What, then, do you (the reader) conclude is the solution to preventing the remaining 70% (more than 200% of 30, BTW) of traffic fatalities?

Charles Rangel condemns Southern culture for being too conservative, for being too white, for not kowtowing to the demagoguery of the progressive social model, etc, etc, etc.

What Mr. Rangel wholly and broadly rejects is that there is indeed a culture in the South which is in dire need of being overcome - his.  He and his ilk need to overcome their guilt-driven culture of race-baiting and entitlement.  They need to overcome their malappropriate sense of shame and inferiority.  They need to stop masquerading as a race of disenfranchised VICTIMS of horrible oppression in the one country on earth where they are afforded the most freedom, the most opportunity and the greatest potential to improve their own lot.

Instead they murder.  They rape.  They steal.  They rob.  They collect welfare.  They complain that everything is the fault of the horrible, racist white man, and then stick their hand into his pocket for the substance which sustains them.

The incarceration rate among black males between 18 and 24 in this country is well over 400% that of whites, even though they comprise less than one-fourth of the population in that age group.  The dropout rate is more than double that of whites.  The number of single- and no-parent homes is grossly disproportionate to that of whites.  All of these things are not a consequence of their environments.  They are consequences of culture.  Blacks, for generations now, have enjoyed preferential treatment through relaxed testing, hiring quotas and public services.  Through subsequent iterations they have not taken these 'opportunities' as inspiration to improve themselves.  They have used them as an excuse to beg for more and to learn how to work the system so they do less and less.

Don't tell me about how 'backward' we are in the old South, Mr. Rangel.  'Your people' commit violent crimes against whites (and blacks) at an alarmingly disparate rate than whites commit against all other races COMBINED, they receive a far greater amount of financial and social taxpayer-funded subsidy, most of which is PAID FOR by whites.

I argue that there is indeed a culture in the South in DIRE NEED of being overcome... and it is YOURS.  Please encourage 'your people' to move up north - perhaps to one of the lovely, nearly all-black neighborhoods in and around Detroit - and I promise you, white people will not bother you ever again.  You can be rid of all of the things about white culture you seem to hate so much - industriousness, charity, enterprise, compassion - and join your brothers and sisters in what I am sure will be a veritable utopia of opportunity and prosperity.

Gun Control is a Distraction

There are thousands, if not millions of people out there arguing themselves blue in the face over gun control.  What does the 2nd Amendment say about it?  What does the Supreme Court say about it?  What does congress and the several States say about it?

Is the militia reserved to the several States?  Does the right to keep and bear arms guarantee citizens the inarguable right to own arms of military purpose?  Is the Constitution "outdated" or obsolete?  Is it a "living" document to be interpreted and reinterpreted every few generations as new technologies and new perspectives on morality become the accepted norm?

Or do they all miss the most important point of all: that self defense is a HUMAN RIGHT.  It is unique and specific to the individual.  It is not the purview of the States or congress or the supreme court to determine.  It stands alone among all other rights as the one which says "I have a right to exist, and no one has the ability to take that right from me".

Government would have you believe that self-defense is a canard of the right.  That only crazy people who want to harm others would even want to own guns of military purpose - or any guns at all, for that matter.  They reject the notion that EVERY SINGLE DICTATOR in written history came to power after removing access to weapons from the common people.

Every.
Last.
One.

An unarmed populace is easy pickings for a government wielding supreme and unchallenged military dominion.  Laos.  Cambodia.  The Soviet Union.  Uganda.  Communist China.  Governments first disarmed the citizenry and then set out on missions to exterminate anyone who spoke out in opposition.  Once the 2nd Amendment is gutted and the people disarmed, what is to stop the government of the United States from enacting similar restrictions on speech, association and religion?  What is to stop them from incarcerating citizens indefinitely without cause and without trial?  What is to guarantee a trial for anyone at all?

Do you honestly believe that a government so culturally and morally bankrupt is going to disarm you and then just let you go about your lives as if nothing has changed?

And then there are your so-called "friends" who think that some gun control measures are a good idea.  Compulsory background checks.  Registration.  Permits.  Psychological screenings.

Psychological screenings.  Can you imagine if the founding fathers had suffered psychological screenings before owning their arms of military purpose?  They were certifiable.  They wanted to leave the British Empire.  In their day they were heretics against the crown by their thoughts and deeds.  Who would have sold them arms?

And further, if your so-called "friends" believe in this truly insane (and I mean "insane" with a capital "I") idea then consider what they are really saying.  They are not just saying that they want access to guns restricted, they are saying they want YOUR ACCESS TO GUNS RESTRICTED.  Your "friends" either do not trust you or they do not believe that YOU have a right to defend yourself from criminals or criminal government.

In essence, they are afraid of you.  They are afraid of some imaginary evil lurking inside you which, when combined with a gun, will unleash itself in a torrent of death and destruction.

They want YOU disarmed.  It is that simple.

I don't need friends like that and I certainly don't need countrymen like that.