Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Aaron Alexis

The Deep Thinkers have lots of explanations for the shooting.  One dingbat on the net pointed out that Alexis is "a Texan," and you know how violent those Texan rednecks are.  Another one said that he's not surprised that "military people" go off the rails and shoot a bunch of innocents because "that's what they're trained to do." One talking head on TV said that Alexis "fell through the cracks," whatever the hell that means. And even the Drudge Report had a headline to the effect that he was a "violent video game addict."  Nobody in the mainstream seems to have mentioned the fact that he's Black, and that Blacks are considerably more likely than Whites are to get unexpectedly violent. And, on top of that, much like the Nidal Hassan phenomenon, his past behavior was such that he would have been tossed out of the Navy and denied a security clearance except that he was Black and everybody handled him with kid gloves and let him get away with all kinds of bad behavior to avoid charges of racism. I haven't heard anybody say it yet, but I expect to hear any time now that Alexis' life was made hell by White racism all around him, so he was a victim himself, right?  Another point not mentioned is that the Navy Yard, thanks to Slick Willy, is a gun-free zone, hence a very good place to kill a bunch of people before you're brought down yourself. Maybe it should be made a double secret gun-free zone.

Well, if you want to know the truth about such incidents of Black violence, you can't do better than Nicholas Stix' blog.  Here's his latest on the Navy Yard massacre, HERE.

13 comments:

  1. Still clinging to the wannabe anthropologist. The fact that no one in the scientific community takes him seriously doesn't seem to phase you one bit.

    Sometimes the lengths at which you're willing to go to "prove" your racism is anything but bling hate surprise even me

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I hate bling, it's immodest, tacky and boorish.

      Delete
    2. Should have been hate not sure what I was doing there

      Delete
    3. I was joking with you.

      Delete
  2. Reminds me of the bureaucrat at the US Patent office who, in 1900, advocated the closure of the agency on the grounds that everything that could be invented had been.

    For centuries no one took seriously the idea that blacks were equal to whites. Would that have been your argument then, too?

    ReplyDelete
  3. No the fact that he not trained as an anthropologist and all of his ideas are created to support racism, is why I do not take him seriously. So in me pointing out the author's racism, that makes me a racist? I see your point

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is "racism" all you're programmed to see? Because I don't know how you see me calling you one.

    The point is yours, about his not being taken seriously by "the scientific community". That's kind of like using the Supreme Court as a guideline. One century it defines blacks as property. The next it denies any difference in bipeds. "Scientific communities" are notorious for this kind of about-face.

    Either you don't get it or - hey, are you really ex-army trying to create a liberal to argue with?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, he's not Ex-Army, I'm not THAT devious. Might be one of my tricky old coot pals, though, some of them are pretty creative.

      Delete
    2. The point is that his entire "work" is to prove that racism is ok because there are differences because races are subspecies. In a scientific point of view, races do not exist, and they are not subspecies. I outline the points in a past article, I do not feel like brining them all up again. The point is that he has no scientific ground to stand on, and everyone who knows anything realizes that. For people like ex-army though he is just the kind of "scientist" they need to "prove" the validity of their racist views

      Delete
    3. Do you deny that race, this "non-existant phenomenon", can be determined by a DNA test? Yeah, you probably do.

      Delete
  5. "Everyone who knows anything". I'm guessing that's your scientific rationale.

    Well, if you don't believe that there are different races of men then you wouldn't believe me if I told you there were similar differences among most all species. I only hope your belief rests on the inexperience of your youth and not on a continuing faith in authority, no matter how many degrees it confers upon itself. You're being taken for a ride.



    ReplyDelete
  6. http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2013/08/headhunters-for-headhunters.html

    There is the post, in more than a few responses I refute the scientific racism that should have died with Morton, but has limped along within a few who like to facy themselves intellectuals. In those many responses I answer your challenge, and because I do not wish to copy and paste all of them or restate all of them, I will leave them for you to read. If you have an objection to any of them, I will indeed answer it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We will convert you yet. Eager Young Liberal.

    ReplyDelete