DebateGate

Anti-Euro Le Pen?s Record Vote to Weigh on French Election
By Tara Patel and Mark Deen on April 23, 2012 Tweet Facebook LinkedIn Google Plus 0 Comments
Almost one in five French voters cast their ballots for National Front leader Marine Le Pen?s call to abandon the euro and turn her country into an anti- immigrant fortress.

While that wasn?t enough to propel her into the final round of the presidential election, her party?s record 17.9 percent showing make her supporters key to the May 6 runoff between President Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist Francois Hollande.

?We have blown apart the monopoly of the two parties of banking, finance and multinationals,? Le Pen said last night, declining to endorse either candidate. ?Nothing will ever be the same.?

A lawyer by training, Le Pen, 43, led a campaign against both Hollande and Sarkozy, pledging to bring back the French franc, tighten borders against immigration and pull away from European treaties. While she failed to shock the establishment by making it into the second round like her father did in 2002, she still got about 68 percent more votes than he did in 2007. Her views are likely to color the election debate.

Already yesterday Sarkozy touched on immigration and crime as issues he is likely to focus on in his campaign, referring to a ?crisis of immigration? and calling for greater border controls. National Front voters should ?look closely at what they want,? French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said today. The choice is between an excessive welfare state proposed by Hollande and a competitive country under Sarkozy, he said.

Europe Bashing
For his part, Hollande blamed Sarkozy?s economic and social policies for the rise of the National Front.

Hollande won 28.6 percent of the vote against 27.1 percent for Sarkozy, the interior ministry said. Le Pen said she will outline in Paris on May 1 her position for second-round voting.

Le Pen, a member of the European Parliament, has concentrated a large part of her campaigning against Europe and has repeatedly criticized the close relations between Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Europe is a ?country-killing grinding machine, a machine that has killed our prosperity and our democracy,? she told supporters in Henin-Beaumont in northern France April 15.

She has blamed the euro for France?s 12-year-high jobless rate and factory closures, rejecting a December treaty agreed to by European countries for closer fiscal ties to resolve the region?s sovereign debt crisis.

?I would review all of the European treaties and rip up the new ones that Nicolas Sarkozy has accepted behind the backs of the French people,? Le Pen said. ?The horrible stability pact condemns us to pay endlessly for the countries that are victim of the euro.?

Taking Back Power
Le Pen would cut French debt partly through national central bank lending. She?d seek savings by cutting European Union payments, raising company taxes, and cracking down on welfare fraud.

?Sarkozy and Hollande and their allies are in favor of the Europe of Brussels; I prefer France,? Le Pen has said, pledging to take back powers transferred to Europe including currency, borders, trade, industrial policy, immigration and justice.

Le Pen has tried to remake the party, which was historically based on anti-immigration policies, in a bid to attract more mainstream voters who blame Europe and porous borders for many of the country?s woes.

France accepts about 200,000 immigrants a year, about 0.3 percent of the country?s population. Le Pen wants to cut that to 10,000 annually.

Disconnected
Her father, who headed the National Front until last year, made it into the second round of the French presidential election in 2002, losing to Jacques Chirac, and garnered 10.4 percent of the vote in 2007. Jean-Marie was condemned by a French court in 1991 for denying the Holocaust.

?The economic, political and social situation is very serious,? her father said after last night?s results were announced. ?There needs to be a return of policies that put France first.?

In campaign speeches, Le Pen has taken aim at both Sarkozy and Hollande, accusing them of looking out for the interests of privileged Parisians and neglecting concerns of average French workers. Bankers, media personalities, multinational bosses and soccer stars have come under Le Pen?s criticism for being rich while ?honest? workers suffer.

Sarkozy and Hollande are ?completely disconnected from the French people,? she said. ?I am the only one in this election who offers another choice.?

?Rejecting the System?
Winning over as many as possible of her voters will be key to Sarkozy?s chances of beating Hollande, who can count on the support of Communist-backed candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon and three other first-round contenders.

?Le Pen supporters are rejecting the system,? said Laurent Dubois, a professor at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris. ?If Sarkozy tries to appeal to them, he?ll give up the center.?

While many Le Pen supporters may abstain, some say they?ll throw their lot with Sarkozy. About 57 percent of Le Pen voters will back Sarkozy in the second round, 23 percent will abstain and 20 percent will back Hollande, according to BVA?s survey.

?I voted for Marine Le Pen in the first round, and I will vote Sarkozy in the second,? Roger Trasleglise, 83, a retired jeweler, said yesterday after casting his ballot in Paris. ?She had no chance of going on to the second round, but still she could give her ideas to the winner.?

To contact the reporters on this story: Tara Patel in Paris at tpatel2@bloomberg.net; Mark Deen in Paris at markdeen@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Vidya Root at vroot@bloomberg.net

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-22/anti-euro-le-pen-s-record-vote-set-to-weigh-on-french-election

Friday, 13 April 2012
Equality as an Evil
The Moral Scourge of Modernity
By Alex Kurtagic
 
The dominant ideology of modern Western societies upholds equality as an absolute moral good, which must, therefore, be pursued for its own sake. The morality of egalitarianism is never questioned by the establishment power structure or by the vast majority of citizens; it is, in fact, a taken-for granted assumption that exists outside the scope of acceptable debate. Predicated on the arbitrary assertion that all humans are born equal in dignity and rights, and bearer of such rights by the mere fact of being human, able to reason, or endowed with dignity (note the circular reasoning) it makes of anyone questioning the moral goodness of equality into an individual of questionable humanity. Even conservatives dare not question the moral goodness of equality, focusing instead on critiquing the methods of application. Yet, equality, despite the high-flown rhetoric surrounding it, is far from an absolute moral good. On the contrary, when we examine the consequences of equality, it is an evil. This article will first explore some of the ways in which equality is an evil and will then put forth an alternative paradigm, founded on a theory of difference.

Unfair Distribution of Reward

The pursuit of equality?s most obvious consequence is the unfair distribution of reward. Because individual capabilities are always different, equality cannot be achieved without taking rewards from the deserving and reallocating them to the undeserving. Thus, talent, industry, thrift, diligence, discipline, initiative, and perseverance are penalised, while inability, idleness, profligacy, indifference, negligence, inertia, and inconstancy are rewarded in the name of social justice. This is egregiously apparent in the policies of universities in the United States, where the pursuit of racial equality has led to differential admission standards that privilege the scholastically inept at the expense of the scholastically apt. In the wake of unequal outcomes in SATs by different racial groups, millions of bright, hard-working students have been excluded from the universities of their choice, particularly where these have been ivy-league universities, in the effort racially to equalise outcomes.

The irony is that an argument for egalitarianism has been the need to combat the unfairness of what egalitarians commonly refer to as ?privilege?. Egalitarians deem ?privilege? bad because it is unmeritocratic, allowing some to enjoy unearned benefits. Yet, since, as we have seen, egalitarian policies still create privileged classes of individuals, who unfairly enjoy unearned benefits, it achieves the opposite of its stated goal, merely transferring ?privilege? from one group to another.

Unfair Distribution of Resources

Closely related to the above is the unfair distribution of resources that accrues from pursuing equality. An example has been provided by recent a news report about universities closing or scaling down science departments to make room for diversity or equality officers. It seems the salary for one such officer would be enough to fund two cancer researchers. Being an absolute moral good, for egalitarians equality needs no logical justification, but the truth is theirs is an ideology that inflicts misery and costs lives. Let us be specific with the implications. Imagine you have a young loved one who has cancer or some other degenerative medical condition. Prognosis is early death in ten or fifteen years without a medical breakthrough. The research is making slow progress. You hope science will make the breakthrough before it is too late. Then, suddenly, the relevant research centres begin closing down or scaling down science departments, while, at the same time, these centres create positions for well-paid diversity or equality officers, allocating their departments generous funds. The research now moves more slowly, pushing back that medical breakthrough you are hoping for. Your loved one now faces a more protracted illness, possibly death before a cure or a more effective drug therapy is found. And what if you are a primary carer? Misery is thus inflicted upon you too, since the cure, or the new drug therapy, takes longer or comes too late. The worry and the sorrow also affect every close relative. It is difficult quantify the extent to which this is the case, particularly as no one seems to have researched this area, but the above scenario is not unreasonable. Can equality be a moral good when these are the consequences?

Negation of Difference

In recent decades, diversity has been a catchword among egalitarians, yet the affirmation of equality is simultaneously the negation of difference. The occasional phrase ?different but equal? has been the egalitarians? attempt to have their cake and eat it, but it is a logical contradiction and therefore nonsense. The argument that the equality referred to is merely equality before the law does not hold, because were it so there would be no need for a policy of differential (unfair) treatment of university applicants. The argument that the equality referred to is merely equality of opportunity does not hold either, because were it so there would be no consternation at unequal outcomes in test results among students in different racial categories, and therefore no need for unfair admissions policies. The affirmation of equality is a straight negation of difference across the board, even to the point of denying the biological existence of one of the primary sources of difference?race and gender?and of pretending that these are pure, arbitrary fictions.

Diversity is predicated on difference. The elimination of one implies the elimination of the other. Modern egalitarianism?s celebration of diversity, and its proclamation of diversity as a good worth pursuing for its own sake, are, therefore, contradictory. What is more, by criticising opponents of diversity as immoral, egalitarians fail to meet their own professed standards of morality, making egalitarians themselves immoral.

The negation of difference implies, by extension, a negation of quality, both in the sense of distinguishing attributes and of superiority. The logical end product of equality is, therefore, sameness and mediocrity, a denial of all the things that make life good and worth living. A system of belief that takes the joy out of life, a system of belief that is, ultimately, anti-life, cannot be considered moral.



Negation of Individuality

Difference is what makes us individual. To assert that everyone is equal, therefore, is to negate individuality, because individuality implies uniqueness, autonomy, non-interchangeability. None are compatible with equality. The demand for uniformity? even when made in the name of individualism?entails a demand for conformity, a renunciation of the self, a demotion or degradation of the individual. This is not just another contradiction, but an affront to so-called ?human dignity?, and since dignity is human, equality is inhuman. A philosophical outlook that simultaneously exalts and affronts dignity is not a coherent outlook.

There are two forms of collectivism: voluntary and imposed. The state- and institutionally sponsored pursuit of equality falls under the second category. Consequently, we can describe egalitarianism as imposing a degradation of the individual in service of an abstract collectivity?a collectivity that, because abstract and therefore dehumanised, does not exist empirically. Is this moral? Not in any way we could accept.

Agent of Oppression

As we have seen from the development of egalitarianism in modern Western societies, the logic of equality presupposes the equivalence of all humans. A result is that unrestricted immigration and racial diversity become ideologically unproblematic. Because humans are differentiated on multiple levels, racially diverse societies have become, by contrast, problematic, necessitating the proliferation of norms, regulation, laws, surveillance, penalties, bureaucracies, and additional taxation in pursuit of harmonious and continued functioning. The progressive limitation of freedoms never ends, because the above-stated measures address only symptoms, not the underlying cause: difference remains, and results in different responses to each measure, which in turn create the need for further measures. Worse still, because of the need to address an increasing number of areas in an increasingly disparate population with few or no shared values or assumptions, the regulatory effort becomes not only ever more invasive and prescriptive, but also increasingly ill-fitting for everyone. (Jack of all trades, master of none.) Freedom is also eroded economically due to the growing costs of regulating, policing, enforcing, penalising, and administrating social behaviour.

Modern Western societies provide innumerable examples of this process? oppressive nature. This goes beyond the lost careers, ruined reputations, fines, and imprisonment that may result from expressing a politically ?incorrect? opinion, because being consequent with politically correct opinion can also result in adverse outcomes, such as rape, robbery, rioting, and murder, all of which are linked to and are a function of racial diversity. Forcing people?and specifically one class of people?to live under increased levels of personal danger lest they wish not to lose their livelihood, reputation, and freedom constitutes oppression. Since oppression is immoral, on this count too so is equality.

Cause of Apathy and Alienation

Robert Putnam linked racial diversity in communities to apathy and alienation: individuals in racially diverse communities tend to exhibit lower levels of community engagement, higher levels of mistrust, and greater reliance on television. According to Putnam?s study, the phenomenon becomes more pronounced with greater racial diversity. The conclusion is that individuals living in racially diverse communities enjoy a lower quality of life than individuals living in racially homogeneous communities, and that the greater the diversity, the lower the quality of life. The elevated levels of crime concurrent with a declining proportion of Whites in a community further accentuate this trend. Since racially diverse societies in the West have resulted directly from the pursuit of equality, equality is causally linked to declining quality of life, and not the opposite.

Equality is not immoral if pursued voluntarily, even if those pursuing it experience a decline in their quality of life as a result. However, it is immoral if it is imposed, by the state (with its implicit threat of violence) or through social pressure, upon those who have no wish to pursue it. And it is doubly immoral if the nonconformity of those in the latter group are, as a result, and as we have seen, denied their humanity.

Destructive System

As has become apparent by now, equality is a destructive force on several levels. Firstly, it is destructive of individual quality, since traits that contribute toward making individuals salient in some way, including activities or ways of behaving, are disincentivised, degraded, or denied. Secondly, it is destructive of the things that make life worth living, for the same reason. Thirdly, it is destructive of human dignity, even though it claims to be for it. Fourthly, it is an agent of oppression, even though it claims to be against it. And finally, it is destructive of quality of life and communities, even though it claims to aim at improving both.

Immoral Practitioners

Aside from the intrinsically destructive nature of the equality ideology, the latter is further tainted by the immorality of its practitioners, for equality activism almost invariably works?though this is not always explicitly stated or even acknowledged?to the detriment of one particular class of individuals: Whites. By their actions, equality practitioners can be safely assumed to have anti-White attitudes, or be anti-White, even though in most cases they are White themselves. It is, therefore, ironic that equality practitioners deem themselves highly moral, and even arrogate to themselves the preaching of morality.

Perhaps more egregious are the crimes of communists, who justifiably comprise the most notorious class of equality zealot. Communists have murdered, imprisoned, and condemned millions to a life of misery, including artists, writers, teachers, and intellectuals. Communists have deprived Europeans of some of the latter?s best people. Communist atrocities are, indeed, the worst in world history. Even on a smaller scale, communist and congenial egalitarians have often been prone to street violence, and as their breed of activist seems more eager than any other to engage in violence when faced with divergent opinions. This may be because egalitarianism has a terrorist history, beginning with the French Revolution, a movement comprising criminals, psychopaths, alcoholics, defectives, and sociopathic geniuses. This may also be because egalitarianism attracts the worst elements of any population, since they are the ones with most to gain by equality policies.

Psychopathology

From the above it is difficult not to see White egalitarians as suffering from an undiagnosed psychopathology, particularly when their equality activism?s long-term effect is to cause massive damage to their race, perhaps even its eventual destruction. Being perfectly analogous, such behaviour can be conceptualised as a collective tendency towards self-mutilation and / or suicide. In the case of Whites, it is reasonable, then, to treat egalitarianism as a moral defect or mental disturbance. (In the case of coloured people, egalitarianism is paid lip service in the interest of extracting concessions; in the case of a subset of Jews since the nineteenth century, egalitarianism is a strategy aimed at making Western societies more amenable to Jews.) Mental disturbance and defective morality are often linked.

The term ?mental disturbance? may seem disproportionate to some, given that many egalitarians sound and act like normal, well-adjusted members of society, and given also that, at least on the surface, egalitarianism represents the consensus opinion. It must be remembered, however, that this semblance of normality is a fairly common phenomenon. ?Racism? is now commonly considered the epitome of evil, but ?racist? attitudes and opinions, not to mention ?racist? legislation and government policies, represented until recently the consensus opinion, and were considered perfectly normal?so normal, in fact, that they were not always easy to identify, and even now new forms continue to be ?discovered?. Identifying, and then changing, them has been the modern egalitarians? self-imposed mission and raison d??tre. We must not, therefore, allow ourselves to be deceived by apparent normality or by the apparently normalising effect of a consensus. Also, we must keep in mind that dominant ideologies always seek to perpetuate themselves by representing orthodoxy as healthy and normal, and heterodoxy as pathological and abnormal.

Difference

The pursuit of equality has been tied up with notions of social justice for so long that many may find it difficult to separate the two, and may therefore find an alternative unthinkable, or at least an evil to be avoided. Certainly, this is how egalitarians think and would like everyone else to think. We would propose, however, that the reverse is true, and that a superior paradigm might be one based on the desirability of difference.

A theory of difference is not ?diversity? as egalitarians understand the term. The ?diversity? of egalitarians refers to humans who may look different, but who, apart from individual personality and socially constructed differences, are essentially equivalent and interchangeable. This, of course, is too one-dimensional to constitute diversity, for it denies the validity of group attributes that contribute to identity. A theory of difference defines diversity as it is meant to be defined, and embraces the multidimensionality of human difference, both at the individual and collective levels.

Under a difference paradigm, therefore, we would expect individuals and groups to be different, even to diverge significantly from our own baselines, rather than expect them to be the same or to have failed when they showed no sign of convergence with us. We would respect difference as a matter of individual or group prerogative. And even where difference may result in instances that are repugnant to us, we would not for that reason cease to consider difference generally a font of riches, for the possibility of difference is a precondition for excellence and the extraordinary.

Sample Policy Implications

Alert readers who are familiar with my earlier writing on Haiti and Sub-Saharan Africa should immediately see the policy implications. Below are some examples.

Firstly, if difference is good and a matter of prerogative, it follows that allowing genetically and culturally distant settlers from the Third World to settle in Western nations is detrimental to the uniqueness of those nations. Immigration is not necessarily an evil, but under a difference paradigm immigrants would be immigrants, rather than settlers, and therefore appellants to the established authority, whose prerogative it would be to grant or deny admission on the basis of the incomers? potential for assimilation. Diverse regions or nations would be seen as inimical to a diversity of regions or nations, for the ability for each to define themselves on their own terms would be a precondition for that diversity.

Secondly, an earthquake in a country like Haiti would not be a call for reconstruction. Haiti cannot be regarded as a Western nation, even if it is geographically in the West and was originally a European colony, for it is not populated or run by descendants of Europeans. At the same time it is right and proper, and often advantageous, that nations cooperate with one another. Under a difference paradigm, Haiti?s economic performance and political instability would not be seen as a failure, as it is under an equality paradigm, but rather the result of artificially imposing Westernisation on what is essentially a remote West African outpost. Any international assistance, therefore, would aim at de-escalating Westernisation and facilitating convergence with West Africa?s historical baselines. (I say historical, because West Africa is presently also still suffering from a European colonial syndrome.) Efforts would aim at environmental recovery and Haiti?s gradual, managed conversion to a sustainable non-industrial society. It would then no longer be measured or included in international corruption, transparency, or ?development? indices because these Western parametres would have become irrelevant. Should at any point Haitians decide to pursue a Western-style model, it would be their prerogative, but they would be left to do it?indeed succeed or fail?on their own terms, not by terms imposed by any Western nation.

Thirdly, while it would be possible for a Black African-descended student to apply for admission at any Western university, admission would be conditional on the availability of spaces and on meeting the same minimum standards of academic aptitude as those of the White European-descended students. The curriculum would be defined by Whites, for Whites, and it would be assumed that any non-White student attending the university was there to study that curriculum and to be measured against Western academic criteria. No effort would be made to increase the proportion of Blacks simply on the basis of statistical under-representation, as all else being equal this would be considered the result of difference, rather than a problem. Tests would be revised for accuracy of measuring the academic aptitude of Whites, not for improving the academic performance of Blacks or any other group?s. Conversely, Black-run universities would not be expected to meet criteria set up by Whites for other Whites, but rather to meet criteria set up by Blacks for other Blacks.

Finally, a non-Western nation?s success or failure would not necessarily be a function of their degree of Westernisation. A prehistoric society could well be considered successful if it thrived on its own terms; its prehistoric nature would not necessarily be seen as a deficiency, for it may well be that a recorded history, complex organisation, and techno-industrial development are not relevant to, or needed, in that society, in its particular environment. We would no longer use the euphemism ?underdeveloped? or ?developing? or even ?poor? to refer to nations that do not meet Western baselines of wealth and complexity. In fact, techno-industrial or economic development would not be an objective measure applicable to all nations, for difference theory would in many cases regard these as irrelevant. A desirable consequence would probably be the reduction of debt, for many regions of the world would eventually fall off the horizon of the money system?a matter with significant ramifications.

Concluding Remarks

This, and the theory of difference in general, is a big topic and I can only sketch it out here in very general?and for some perhaps vague or overly abstract?terms. It will need much more serious elaboration across a range of contexts and disciplines, so for now it will be up to the reader to tease out the talking points and formulate them in ways that resonate emotionally. The potential benefits, however, are huge, for if the morality of equality were to be dismantled completely, the egalitarian Left would be delegitimised in the public discourse as an untenable proposition, and the equality project would implode as evil and absurd.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/equality-as-an-evil/

The Optimistic Doomsayer on Vimeo

Did Derbyshire say anything that isn't true? Someone needs to point it out. I sure don't see it!

There goes my last reason to bother with National Review. Best of luck Derb!

HURT: Brutal week for Obama, the worst of his presidency
By Charles Hurt Thursday, March 29, 2012

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The past seven brutal days will go down as one of the worst weeks in history for a sitting president. It certainly has been, without any doubt, the worst week yet for President Obama.

Somehow, Mr. Obama managed to embarrass himself abroad, humiliate himself here at home, see his credentials for being elected so severely undermined that it raises startling questions about whether he should have been elected in the first place ? let alone be re-elected later this year.

Consider:

? Last Friday, Mr. Obama wandered into the killing of Trayvon Martin. Aided by his ignorance of the situation, knee-jerk prejudices and tendency toward racial profiling, Mr. Obama played a heavy hand in elevating a tragic situation in which a teenager was killed into a full-blown hot race fight.

Americans, he admonished, need to do some "soul-searching." And then, utterly inexplicably, he veered off into this bizarre tangent about how he and the poor dead kid look so much alike they could be father and son. It was election-year race-pandering gone horribly wrong.

? By the start of this week, Mr. Obama had fled town and was racing to the other side of the planet just as the Supreme Court was taking up the potentially-embarrassing matter of Obamacare. While in South Korea he was caught on a hidden mic negotiating with the president of our longest-standing rival on how to sell America and her allies down the river once he gets past the next election.

? Meanwhile, back at home, the Supreme Court took up the single most important achievement of Mr. Obama's presidency and, boy, was it embarrassing. The great constitutional law professor, it turns out, may not quite be the wizard he told us he was.

By most accounts, Mr. Obama and his stuttering lawyers were all but laughed out of the courthouse. They were even stumbling over softball questions lobbed by Mr. Obama's own hand-picked justices.

? Mr. Obama closed his week pulling off a nearly unimaginable feat: He managed to totally and completely unify the nastily-fighting Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Late Wednesday night, they unanimously voted ? 414 to zip ? to reject the budget Mr. Obama had presented, leaving him not even a thin lily's blade to hide behind.

So, in one week, Mr. Obama got caught whispering promises to our enemy, incited a race war, raised serious questions about his understanding of the Constitution, and then got smacked down over his proposed budget that was so wildly reckless that even Democrats in Congress could not support it.

It was as if you lumped Hurricane Katrina and the Abu Ghraib abuses into one week for George W. Bush. And added on top of that the time he oddly groped German Chancellor Angela Merkel and got caught cursing on a hot mic.

Even then, it wouldn't be as bad as Mr. Obama's week. You would probably also have to toss in the time Mr. Bush's father threw up into the lap of Japan's prime minister. Only then might we be approaching how bad a week it was for Mr. Obama.

Not that you will see any trace of embarrassment in the face of Mr. Obama. He has mastered the high political art of shamelessness, wearing it smugly and cockily. Kind of like a hoodie.

? Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com.

HURT: Brutal week for Obama, the worst of his presidency

Overshot in Florida
The no-go area of no-go areas
By Colin Liddell

Here in Japan we have had a no-go area since the great earthquake of last year. Such areas are something of a rarity in these parts. This one is rather large stretching across a radius of 20 km. It is centred on the Fukushima nuclear reactor, which was badly damaged by the tsunami caused by the quake, and is meant to protect people from radioactive contamination. In the usual, slightly nannying way common in these parts, it has been marked with all the paraphernalia that one would associate with no-go areas: manned roadblocks, no-entry signs, flashing lights, occasional automated announcements, and a range of gentle fines.

But while no-go zones are extremely uncommon in Japan, where walking about at night is perfectly safe, this is certainly not the case in America, where the trial for the murder of two British tourists shot in the Florida resort town of Sarasota has just ended in the conviction of Shawn Tyson, a Black 17-year-old youth.

No doubt if Obama had a son, he would also look like Tyson.
While Japan makes great efforts to mark its no-go zones, the same cannot be said for America. There it is regarded as something of a social faux pas to put up appropriate signage.

Regarding the case, it seems that the murder victims, James Cooper and James Kouzaris, after an evening spent at a couple of downtown bars, the last of which closed at 2 am, decided to walk to a well-known 24-hour diner, located about one-and-half miles away, for an early hours breakfast. After failing to take the right turning, they continued on their way to what newspapers in their coded way described as a "ghetto," "run-down estate," and "public housing project." The pictures of the murder site, however, showed a pleasant enough row of tree-shaded bungalows, each with its own spacious yard, and a car, SUV, or pickup truck in every driveway.

Certainly this is not the kind of obvious no-go area that innocent, liquored-up tourists could be expected to recognize, but no-go area it certainly was as quotes from the local police captain Paul Sutton to the press made clear. He admitted that detectives had ignored "lifestyle differences" between Britons and Americans and assumed the tourists would never have dreamed of trying to get around on foot. Sutton also talked about the men "losing their bearings" and "overshooting" the "correct turning." In other words, there are certain places it isn't safe to walk and no signs to let people know they have taken the wrong turning or wandered too far.

Sutton wanted to make it sound as if what happened to the two men was some kind of accident; as if they had haphazardly walked off a cliff or gone scuba diving without the correct equipment. In a sense this is true. There is an almost impersonal quality and predictability about Whites wandering into America?s no-go zones at night without the requisite number of guns, mace, bullet-proof vests, and police back up.

Cooper and Kouzaris were clearly targeted because they were White. One of the witnesses at the trial Jermaine Bane said he had a phone call from Tyson in which he heard him say: "Who are those crackers walking past the park?" When Tyson found out they had no money he decided to kill them for pleasure. The court heard that Tyson had boasted to a female friend, Latrece Washington, that one of the men had begged for his life but he shot him anyway.

In the press that followed the killings, it was routinely referred to a "botched robbery." Remember that term for future reference, as it occurs every time Blacks rob Whites and then shoot the victims for a racial buzz. Other notions floated during the initial period of the investigation included the suggestion that Cooper and Kouzaris were trying to buy drugs, were the victims of a "honey-trap" operation, or were even "ghetto tourists."

The cumulative effect of all this speculation was to make the victims seem like they were the problem, not the killer. In the days that followed their murder, with Sarasota baking in the media spotlight, Cooper and Kouzaris were effectively presented as bar-crawling drunks with poor orienting skills. They were also depicted as womanizing dope fiends with a thrill-seeking death wish. The clear message was: "Don't worry, tourists, you have to be a really sick fuck to get blown away in Sarasota." Just the reassuring message the local holiday trade needed!

While most American Whites, especially White Liberals, have mastered enough doublethink to successfully avoid America's honky-shooting no-go areas without being too overtly conscious of the racial dimension, it is unfair to expect this sort of advanced Orwellian thinking from foreign tourists whose picture of America has been shaped by a Hollywood where Morgan Freeman is God, Dennis Haysbert President, and all the crooks Whites (often with Southern, German, or English accents).

On its website, Sarasota looks like a lovely place. Back at the time of the killing its beaches were advertised with the disturbingly elitist slogan "All beaches are not created equal." This has now been changed to "So many beaches so little time." Echoing these slogans we could also say that not all the neighbourhoods of Sarasota have been created equally safe?for obvious reasons?and that wandering into some of them will give you a lot less time on this planet.

Given that Sarasota is a holiday destination that attracts na?ve foreigners and then tries to get them drunk and high, it might be a good idea to fence off certain parts of the town with barbed wire and put up warning signs exactly as you would if there were dangerous cliffs or a stretch of water with a deadly undertow or sharks. As some of the tourists may not be fluent in English, these should also be very visual, with appropriate images of trigger-happy racist Black thugs.

In Japan they try not to have any no-go areas, but when they do they at least make strenuous efforts to clearly delineate them. America by contrast is riddled with dangerous no-go areas, but instead of this being openly admitted and measures taken to keep out potential victims, any mention is suppressed. In America it seems that the most obvious no-go area is the subject of no-go areas itself.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/overshot-in-florida/

Full 911 audio shows Zimmerman in a more positive light

By Kyle Rogers, Charleston Conservative Examiner

Thousands of newspapers and media outlets have reported that a 911 operator told George Zimmerman that the police did not need him to follow Trayvon. The entire uncut recording is now available online. It is four minutes and twelve seconds long. The rest of the call provides a lot more details as to what happened.

Many in the media have characterized Zimmerman as targeting Trayvon simply because of his skin color. The 911 operator asks Zimmerman if he is following Trayvon at 2:30 in the 911 tape. The first two minutes and thirty seconds of the call primarily consists of Zimmerman describing the behavior of Trayvon.

Initially the 911 operator asks Zimmerman about the race of Trayvon and Zimmerman indicates that he ?might be black.? Shortly after that Trayvon turns and starts walking towards Zimmerman. When he gets close, it is only then that Zimmerman describes him as a young black male.

At about 2:20 on the tape Zimmerman describes Trayvon as having suddenly taken off running. Most of the rest of the call consists of Zimmerman and the 911 operator discussing a location for the police to meet Zimmerman. Zimmerman is not following Trayvon at this time, and reports that he can no longer see Trayvon.

We now know that Trayvon had been suspended from school at the time. His mother had sent him to his father's house, and he was out late on what would have been a school night. After Trayvon was tragically shot, he remained a John Doe in the morgue for almost three full days before his parents came looking for him.

Tiny excerpts of the phone call have been used to portray Zimmerman as a vigilante or even someone just looking to pick a fight. The entire four minute twelve second call shows someone that is passionate about his neighborhood and wanted to assist the police any way he could.


Continue reading on Examiner.com Full 911 audio shows Zimmerman in a more positive light - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/full-911-audio-shows-zimmerman-a-more-positive-light#ixzz1q9RUGsRL

Derbyshire's take...